Thread: Open and transparent not so open and transparent

Ben Smith on his blog reports the following

"
President-elect Barack Obama's Transition today launched "Open for Questions," a Digg-style feature allowing citizens to submit questions, and to vote on one another's questions, bringing favored inquiries to the top of the list.

It was suggested when it launched that the tool would bring uncomfortable questions to the fore, but the results so far are the opposite: Obama's supporters appear to be using -- and abusing -- a tool allowing them to "flag" questions as "inappropriate" to remove all questions mentioning Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich from the main pages of Obama's website.

The Blagojevich questions -- many of them polite and reasonable -- can be found only by searching words in them, like "Blagojevich," which produces 35 questions missing from the main page of the site.

"Given the current corruption charges involving Blagojevich, will 'serious' campaign finance reform that takes money completely out of politics through publicly funded elections be a priority in the first term?" asked Metteyya of Santa Cruz, California.

"This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate," reads the text underneath it.

Also removed as "inappropriate":
"In light of the recent corruption scandals (Blagojevich, Rangel, Jefferson, Stevens, etc) that have dominated the political scene,is there any ethics legislation being crafted to actually curb corruption and prevent another wave of nixonian cynicism?", a question from "lupercal," of Gainesville.

And: "Is Barack Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama's top aides?", a question from Phil from Pennsylvania.
Declaring a question "inappropriate" is different from merely voting it down; it's calling foul on a question, not just disapproving of it.""

Ben Smith's Blog: Blagojevich questions censored on Transition site - Politico.com

Hmm seems a little circling of the wagons and close the curtins is going on.

Hmmmm seems lk

Did you expect anything less?

Hmm, I don't think people should be able to vote on questions, but I do believe Obama should have a say in what questions he answers. Meaning, he is the only one who should be moderating this QA page.

All he needs is a moderator on his side to filter out some of the questions and then state its the public, although that is conspiracy at this point, as I don't really know.

Looks fake though. They put "Open for Questions" in quotes. Interesting how its turning out.

Obama doesn’t know anyone! If you live with him, go out to dinner with him many times whatever. He doesn’t know you and stop being racist.

I'm not so sure that Obama's orchestrating the filtering of these questions. After all, he had no reason to put up the feature, anyway, and then this wouldn't even be an issue. It's probably a few...million...zealous followers who want their Messiah to look good.

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm not so sure that Obama's orchestrating the filtering of these questions.

I don't see where it was even hinted that he personally was doing so.

Interesting.

So people can vote on the questions, and somehow this is Obama avoiding the issue of Blagoyevich?

Originally Posted by Stinger

I don't see where it was even hinted that he personally was doing so.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Interesting.

So people can vote on the questions, and somehow this is Obama avoiding the issue of Blagoyevich?

Apparently I'm not the only one under that impression, Stinger. Would you care to clarify the intent of this thread since we are so sadly mistaken?

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Interesting.

So people can vote on the questions, and somehow this is Obama avoiding the issue of Blagoyevich?

Well I think its more about those who voted the question out then Obama.

I suggested Obama because its not impossible for someone, especially a politician, to avoid certain questions. I understand anyone who doesn't want to answer certain questions and that should be okay. But let him avoid it and not allow posters to be the determining factor in the reduction of possible taboo questions.

Originally Posted by Solon

Apparently I'm not the only one under that impression. Would you care to clarify the intent of this thread since we are so sadly mistaken?

Sure.

The OP was making a case that somehow there was a "circling of wagons", which is complete and utter nonsense.