THE PLANTED QUESTION INCIDENT: Taking each incident in turn, first the issue of planting questions at campaign events. This story was first broke by Patrick Caldwell in The Scarlett and Black, the student newspaper of Grinnell College. It's summary of its reporting can be found here. Let's look at what happened in some rational sequence.

As reported by Caldwell, the Clinton campaign, at an event at a biodiesal plant held as part of a week long series of events to introduce HRC's new energy plan, approached a college student and at some point asked such individual to question Senator Clinton about global warming. The student noted that there were several questions in a notebook binder being carried by the Clinton staffer and that the writing on the pad indicated that this question was to be asked by a "college student."

Taking events chronologically, the first sign of deception is apparent in the question planted and the answer given by Senator Clinton. As instructed, the student asked what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. As reported: "Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan."

Now, the artifice in this response boggles the imagination. If, as Senator Clinton stated, young people often ask this question, why did her campaign have the question planted? Moreover, the fact that the Clinton staffer was assigned to get a college student to ask this question, and Clinton's reference to young people in her response, gives the appearance of coordination between the speaker and the staffer. Moreover, since global warming is an important issue and Clinton was speaking at a facility that creates alternative energy sources, why didn't HRC talk about global warming in her prepared remarks? The most logical answer is that Senator Clinton knew that someone in the audience would raise this topic. Finally, it was noted that a staffer pointed HRC to the student with the planted question. What ratioal does Clinton suppose her staff has for pointing out specific people in the audience for her to call on if not because the staffer wants a specific question to be asked.

Senator Clinton, and her campaign spokespeople deny that the candidate knew that the question was planted and I admit the evidence that she knew set forth above is circumstantial. However, there can be no doubt that the campaign itself has lied about this practice. When first asked about the Caldwell article, the Clinton campaign denied that it planted questions. As reported by the Scarlett and Black: "'It's not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,' said Mark Daley, Clinton's Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, 'people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,' but denied that they are given specific questions. But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, 'to the best of my knowledge.' '[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,' he said." However, to use the terminology of the Watergate era, that denial is no longer operative as the Clinton campaign later acknowledged that it did plant the question on global warming.

Nor is that the end of the Clinton campaign's deception on that issue. Reporters found another individual, Geoff Mitchell, who was asked by Clinton's Iowa political director, Chris Haylor, to raise a specific inquiry with Senator Clinton. When later asked about this, the campaign at first tried to characterize the discussions between Mitchell and Haylor as just a meeting between friends, not an effort to have a question planted. However, Mitchell denied that he even met Haylor before. Apparently, the Clinton campaign has since acknowledged that this second incident also constituted a "plant." The fact that Haylor holds a senior position in Clinton's Iowa campaign heightens the deliberateness of the original denial by Clinton's Iowa spokesperson.

So, to summarize, most likely HRC is lying when she denied knowledge about the plant and her campaign certainly lied about two separate incidences regarding its practice of planting questions.

THE WAITRESS TIPPING INCIDENT. The second issue that made the rounds last week involved whether the HRC campaign tipped the wait staff who served them in a restaurant in Iowa. This incident came to light as a small part of an NPR story on the effect the campaigns were having on the lives of various individuals. After the Obama campaign made this incident the subject of an email blast, the The Clinton campaign immediately stated that a tip was left, saying in an email to NPR: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand." The campaign then sent a staffer to the restaurant with $20.00 and, one assumes, directions to explain that the tip was left on the credit card.

However, that excuse is false. The restaurant does not take tips by credit card. And the waitress reaffirmed that neither she nor anyone else she was working with received a tip. To be fair, the restaurant's manager, who was not there at the time of the Clinton campaign event, thinks that 3 of the 6 wait staff might have received a tip. However, this opinion is contradicted by the waitress in question, who said that other waitresses who worked that day came to her and said that they did not receive a tip either. Moreover, as the waitress noted, her co-workers were long time employees there and that the universal practice among wait staff has always been to share the tips when the work is shared. It is inconceivable to the waitress that a tip would be left and it not be shared.

The final and strongest piece of evidence that the Clinton campaign is simply lying about this incident is that the campaign can not produce anyone who actually left a tip. The Clinton Collective can argue all they want that this waitress is lying or that the campaign's denial should be believed, but the best defense to support the Campaign's assertion would be to produce the person who could honestly say that he or she tipped the wait staff. The campaign did not produce such person because no such person exists.

Look, I have worked in campaigns and I can understand what happened. The campaign meant to leave a tip, but everyone assumed someone else had done so. This is understandable. There is no "designated tipper" position in a campaign. Yet, instead of just admitting an honest mistake and being beat up over it for a day because they were insensitive, the campaign lied.

TRADE: David Sirota is the one that brought this deception to light. Senator Clinton has said several times that as president, she would support a "pause" in agreeing to any further trade deals so she can better judge whether such deals are good for American workers. HRC apparently last made that statement on November 12th in Iowa. Yet, only a few days ago Senator Clinton announced her support for the Peru trade pact. Thus, HRC's statements that she supports a "pause" in trade deals is shown to be nothing but a deceit. True, as Sirota points out, HRC has always couched her promise to support a "pause" in new trade agreements to her election to the presidency, but why then and not now? Clearly, her statements in support of a "pause" is nothing more then an attempt to deceive the voters into thinking she is going to protect their interests in trade negotiations, when, as the Peru deal shows, she has no intention of doing so.

Now, I understand that this post may be answered by the Clinton Collective in its typical manner: ignore the substance of the post and instead state how "outraged" or "sickened" they are by all the attacks on HRC, state how "desperate" the supporters of other campaigns are (I am for Edwards by the way), how the poster is sexist or otherwise filled with Hillary hatred, how all campaigns lie and HRC's is actually the only one that tells the truth, how I am merely reaffirming GOP talking points and/or how it all doesn't matter because Hillary has the nomination sewn up anyways. And that's fine. I understand that the Collective has their marching orders and orders must be obeyed. However, if there are any of you Clintonites who consider themselves something more then a shill, I challenge you, after venting one or all of the above attacks, to answer three yes or no questions: (1) Is this level of honesty from a campaign acceptable to you; (2) does the level of honesty outlined above also characterize the level of honesty in your posts; and (3) is this the level of honesty I and the American voters should expect from a Clinton White House. Again, feel free to state whatever you want in your post, that is obviously every one's right. However, I challenge those of you who are not a shill to at least say "yes" or "no" to the three questions above, of course adding whatever explanation to your yes or no answer you feel appropriate.