Also another update, Allah is on this topic, as well. Developing ... as they say.
Also this update from comments - was the pearls or diamonds questioner a former Reid Intern and, um, if I read the large UNLV link available at link above correctly, is an illegal immigrant? And is that equivalent to your average voter, which, it is increasingly apparent, there were few if any in attendance thanks to CNN.
Okay, forgive me if there are two LaShannon Spencers here. But ... from last night:
LaShannon Spencer, who was identified as a member of the First African Methodist Church, asked the question near the top of the 10 pm Eastern hour. She highlighted how health care and the Iraq war had, in her view, dominated the questions during past debates.
Would that be the same LaShannon Spencer who is, or at least was the political director of the Democrat Party of Arkansas? She certainly didn't sound too undecided back in 2003 - though I suppose she could be an undecided voter as billed by CNN.
Lashannon Spencer, political director for the Arkansas Democratic Party, commented on her favorite part of Clinton's book.
"How she describes actually meeting Bill ... I enjoyed how they were both willing to put their lives on hold so each one of them fulfilled their dreams," Spencer said.


Oh, it gets better. LaShannon Spencer's name is SCRUBBED from the CNN transcript of the debate. Sorry, but that's not passing the "smell test" either.
Posted by: Mr. Anonymous | Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:58 PM
OK, Dan?
You need to pay attention to your commenters---
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/11/did-cnn-plant-t.html#comment-90257706
Posted by: peach | Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I can understand a network vetting commentors to some extent, but the characterization of them as undecided voters and such goes to far.
Simple honest statements like selected members of the audience would be sufficient and not leave them open to conflict.
In prior debates I have seen disclosure of linkage of audience participants which fairly allows the viewer to evaluate the input.
Posted by: JustADude | Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:30 PM
What excellent work, Dan I am verklempt.
Posted by: clarice | Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Hi, Jeff here.
When we do it, we call it a "rehearsal." Because you're supposed to do it before hand. Doing this DURING an interview is so Dem!
http://newsbusters.org/node/2192
Posted by: Jeff Gannon | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
What about the middle-aged lady named Judy? Didn't Obama thank her for "your service with the union?" I don't remember her announcing that she was a union official when she asked her question...
Posted by: PJ | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 12:34 AM
What about the middle-aged lady named Judy? Didn't Obama thank her for "your service with the union?" I don't remember her announcing that she was a union official when she asked her question...
Posted by: PJ | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 12:35 AM
If they had tried stacking the deck at a casino in Vegas as much as they did at the debate, they would have gotten a life long ban from all casino's nationwide via a blacklist.
Some might even suggest you may even have incurred a chance to see how well your health insurance policy worked in the case of slips and falls.
Posted by: JustADude | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 12:37 AM
The NY Times The Caucus Blog has Questions about Carville, Begala, and CNN.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/questions-about-carville-begala-and-cnn/index.html?hp
Check out comment #31 especially.
Hat tip to Hot Air commenter Rightwinged.
Posted by: Looking Glass | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 04:07 AM
Meh, I had more juice in my day than this upstart Clinton "crime family".
Posted by: Carlo Gambino | Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 06:17 AM
"--- Meh, I had more juice in my day than this upstart Clinton "crime family". ---"
It ain't a crime if you don't get caught... or you just happen to be the Reichskanzler.
A. Hitler
Posted by: A former Reichskanzler in the 9th Ring of Hell | Sunday, November 18, 2007 at 02:19 AM
See - CNN learned how to report so you gain access over in Iraq with Saddam - they figure it won't be any different over here
Posted by: Bandit | Monday, November 19, 2007 at 07:45 AM
Dan, I think you want to read the UNLV caption a little more closely. It says that she is a *legal* immigrant. There's blurb about her being on the path to citizenship. Still, otherwise this blog has been excellent on this affair.
Posted by: James of England | Monday, November 19, 2007 at 04:22 PM
"It says that she is a *legal* immigrant."
Thanks, but the profile I read stated that she was smuggled into the country by her parents at a very young age. She may well have begun a "legal" process later, but should that be open to someone who has entered the country illegally to start with? "When Maria was six, her mother decided to sneak the family into the United States"
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Monday, November 19, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Whether or not she should have been able to, she clearly has regularised her immigration status. She is now a documented worker, a legal alien, a legal resident of NV, a proto-American, etc. Wishful thinking (that one could not benefit from immigration fraud) seems unhelpful here. Maybe they should have had voters rather than non-citizens at the debate, but the issues are different to the ones that would be raised by a questioner on the run from La Migra.
Posted by: James of England | Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM