Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at Yearly Kos

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

If you work for Hillary Clinton and your candidate's ahead in the polls, your job is to avoid unpleasant surprises - even if it means planting questions in the audience.  Last week, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old college student, attended a campaign event in Iowa - where a Hillary staffer asked if she wanted to ask a question.  When Muriel told them what question she wanted to ask, they said "no" and gave her a typed query - one that would not make news, and allow Clinton to repeat her campaign talking points.  I got to ask Hillary a tough question at the Yearly Kos Convention in August - but Clinton has done her best to avoid such unscripted moments, as her "inevitable" nomination rolls along.  After Muriel got some media attention, the Hillary camp asked her to stop talking to the press.  Kind of reminds me how two Clinton staffers confronted me after my exchange with the Senator.  Hillary's campaign is running a tight ship, but planting questions to control the message speaks volumes about a candidate we simply can't trust.

I really feel for how Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff went along with what the Clinton camp asked her to do.  Ten years ago, I was a politically minded college student myself - eager to attend events and talk to high-level politicians.  Right now, candidates in Iowa are swarming the state to win the presidential caucus in January - so being a college student in Iowa is very exciting.  Muriel attended a Clinton campaign event because she wanted to learn more, and was thrilled to be asked if she had a question.  "I thought it was a great opportunity," she told CNN.  "[Hillary] might be our next President."

But when the camp asked Muriel before the event what her question would be, they were not happy with what she had in mind.  She wanted to ask how Hillary's energy plan compared with what her Democratic opponents' had to offer, but an aide said he wasn't sure if Clinton knew enough about the other plans to give an intelligent response.  So he pulled out an official binder, tore out a page with 8 pre-written questions - and told her to ask the one that was under the heading "college student."

The question they told her to ask - "As a young person, I am concerned about the long-term effects of global warming.  How does your plan combat climate change?" - was a softball question that allowed Hillary to give a detailed response about her platform.  Politicians don't like questions that make the news, because it takes them off-message.  They would rather repeat their talking points that reporters will jot down, and avoid anything that could shift the outcome of an election.  The question they gave Muriel allowed Clinton to do just that.

In fact, it sounds a lot like the first question Hillary got asked at the Yearly Kos Convention that I attended.  That question - "How will you reform No Child Left Behind?" - allowed Hillary to give a long-winded nine-minute response in a break-out session where only 30 minutes were allotted to take questions.  I don't know if that first questioner was a plant, but it certainly ate up time where Clinton could have been grilled about Iraq in a crowd skeptical about her presidential campaign.

My question at the session put Hillary on the defensive - where she got stuck defending the less pleasant parts of her husband's Administration (Defense of Marriage Act, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA and Welfare Repeal), and quite a few media outlets picked up on it.  But it's almost as if I got called on by accident.  Out of five lucky people who asked questions, I was the only one her Internet Director did not call out by name - as he instead addressed me as "the man in the red shirt."

As Muriel left the Iowa campaign event, she overheard another attendee say that he too had been told by the Clinton camp to ask Hillary his question.  Only four people (out of 200) at the event got to ask the Senator a question, so Hillary's campaign managed to plant half of the questions - as the national press corps simply looked on.  "The question-and-answer sessions in Iowa are really important," said Muriel in a later CNN interview.  "But if you're planting the questions in advance, that takes the voters out of it."

Muriel said in the interview that she didn't know if other campaigns pursue such tactics, but that if one does it the others probably do as well.  The Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns have all denied planting questions at their events - and I believe them.  At Yearly Kos, Hillary had her Internet Director call on people during the break-out session - whereas the other candidates blindly called on audience members.  John Edwards even allowed follow-up questions.

It's an unfortunate part of this year's primary season as Hillary plows ahead with the Democratic nomination under the guise of "inevitability." If she can avoid unscripted moments, she will be the next President because no unpleasant surprises means no momentum change for the other candidates.  Her campaign juggernaut is a machine that simply moves in cruise control - even if it means planting questions in the audience.

After they got busted in Iowa, the Clinton camp asked Muriel to keep things quiet.  When she told a college reporter about the planted question, Muriel asked as a courtesy that he notify the Clinton campaign - proving that she does not have an axe to grind with anyone involved.  Suddenly she got a call from Hillary's Iowa Director of Publicity.  While they politely confirmed Muriel's account of what happened, their last comment to her was "the campaign would like you to not talk about it anymore."

Sounds like the contact I had with Hillary's campaign after my question at Yearly Kos.  On the final night, as the delegates were all drinking at 1:00 a.m. to celebrate a great Convention, I suddenly got approached by two Hillary staffers - a man and a woman - who started a "good-cop, bad-cop" confrontation with me.  The woman thanked me profusely for "asking such a smart question," while the guy said, "I'm not going to leave you alone until you become a Hillary supporter."

Needless to say, he was not successful -- and after we talked for about five minutes, he yelled "you're helping the terrorists" and they both walked away.  Apparently, getting unscripted moments is just too much to handle for Hillary Clinton - as her campaign machine chugs along to win the nomination.  Question-and-answer sessions that give the appearance of "dialogue" are treated like TV commercials, and people who break through their machine are "problems" that need to be dealt with.  That is not the type of democracy that we deserve -- and are brought up to respect.

EDITOR'S NOTE: To read Paul Hogarth's self-serving advice on how to ask a tough question, check out this article.  Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucus, John Edwards, machine politics, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, Planted Questions, Yearly Kos (all tags)

Comments

45 Comments

Is there a point buried in there

Hillary Clinton is bad because you got to ask a tough question?

Hillary Clinton is bad for wanting to try to get people to support her campaign?

Hillary Clinton is bad because her campaign wanted questions asked on the topic she just finished discussing and suggested a question to a student who said okay?

Did I get your points?

Also this "inevitable" stuff is complete bs.  Who says she is inevitable?  You?  Other detractors?  The Clinton camp isn't.  

It is a hollow attack by people supporting other campaigns who are unhappy witht their own candidates performance.  She is campaigning hard to win.  Just as hard as the rest.  She is doing more debates and forums than Obama!  All while be attacked from all sides - Democrats, Republicans, and the media.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-14 05:25AM | 0 recs
The Clinton camp has never even implied

that she is inevitable.

But they blame her, for what hey say themselves.

They say they are strong-baby- strong...and they sure as hell are!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 05:42AM | 0 recs
what a tautological argument!!!

it's doubtful, highly doubtful even, that the media came up with the inevitable meme.  aren't you the one who claims that hillary is hated by the media?  that's awful helpful that they repeat this all the time.

moreover, it contradicts the media imperative that they have a race to cover.  claiming that hillary is inevitable does not serve the interests of the media, it only serves hillary's.

it's even less probable that a competing campaign would have introduced the inevitable meme into the wild.  they'd have no reason to increase an opponent's credibility.

so it's not reasonable to argue that anyone else besides the clinton campaign has introduced the inevitable meme.  you are left donning your tin-foil hats and claiming it's a conspiracy (the vrwc?) if you want to use that spin.

what is more disconcerting, as we see the holes exposed in hillary's campaign, is that if her campaign did not introduce this rather pervasive meme in the media, it shows how little control she has over the course of her campaign.  should democrats nominate someone who is unable to control the perceptions that are pervasive about her (or him)?

we've already seen what happens in that case in 2004.  and that's not something i think we should repeat...

by bored now 2007-11-14 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at


Chaz Proulx

John Edwards Has Stepped Over the Line

The following piece was produced for HuffPost's OffTheBus.

I seldom criticize a fellow Democrat publicly, but John Edwards' recent attacks against Hillary Clinton have gone way over the line. In particular I'm talking about his response to the "question planting" incident in Iowa. If there is anyone in the blogosphere who hasn't heard about it, a Clinton staffer urged a college student to ask Senator Clinton a generic question about global warming. After investigating, the Clinton campaign acknowledged that in fact one staffer did ask one student to ask one absolutely innocuous questION.

The Edwards campaign has taken this incident out of context and spun it into something diabolical. The issue here isn't nastiness. The issue is Edwards' sudden lapse into hypocrisy. I've worked on a lot of New Hampshire campaigns. They are the closest thing to an Iowa campaign. All sorts of unexpected things happen at campaign events. Candidates are at the mercy of grandstanders, bird-doggers, You-Tubers, agenda obsessed zealots, the criminally insane and Lyndon Larouche's cult of youthful zombies. All of which makes a controlled event impossible unless you run one like a fortress a la George Bush. I've protested outside a Bush event and its martial law all the way. John Edwards knows all of this.

John Edwards also knows that campaign staffers are young, enthusiastic, overworked and underpaid. Often they get caught up in playing hero when their candidate comes to town. That's a lot more fun than canvassing and phone banking. They want to do something wonderful for their candidate. Instead they do something stupid. A staffer might conceivably see a pretty girl and try to impress her with feigned access to his candidate. It's all happened at one time or another.

Retail campaigning is nuts. That's why it's so much fun, and that's why you won't see a top tier candidate capitalize on opponents' staffers' mistakes very often in a primary. There is an unwritten code for good reason --it can happen to anybody. Blowing an isolated incident out of proportion is disingenuous by default.

John Edwards has not only ignored the code. In his efforts to sully the character of Hillary Clinton, he has stooped to deception. It's working. Hundreds of bloggers nationwide are amplifying this right now. From Daily Kos to Blue New Hampshire you can see the same cut and paste thread. And thousands of Hillary-bashing Democrats are using language that should be reserved for the likes of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Ah, but that's the frame:

Hillary is just like George Bush! Planting questions at a rally proves it!

John Edwards got the ball rolling himself with this line to reporters in Iowa:

"George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they're only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush."

Then Senator Edwards' Communications Director Chris Kofinis included this gem in a press release: "It appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,"

That's what I find hypocritical. Edwards is using a classic Karl Rove technique of character destruction here. Guilt by association. He's also taking an isolated incident --one out of hundreds of campaign events--and turned it into Clinton policy.

What isn't isolated is the Edwards campaign's willingness to capitalize on Hillary bashing. I've watched this coming for a long time. I get a lot of e-mails back channel and read the blogs and there has never been a muffler on the anti-Hillary rants amongst some of Edwards' troops.

I also saw Edwards attack Hillary Clinton at the first Democratic Debate held here in June at St. Anselm College. I was there live. Following the debate I wrote, " None of the big three hurt themselves in my opinion. Edwards did risk taking some jabs at Hillary. It made me just a little uncomfortable, but he got away with it I think."

I find all of this pretty disappointing. I've met John Edwards face to face on a number of occasions. I've seen him speak many times. He is eloquent, especially on the issue of poverty. I've liked him since the 2004 campaign when I was a very active volunteer with Howard Dean. If I hadn't have worked for Dean I would have worked for Senator Edwards. Some very close friends of mine are working for him here in New Hampshire and I helped them out at one large Edwards event on a very cold day last January. I know that he is a sincere and good man and I know that he is in a make or break situation in Iowa .

But Senator Edwards and attack dog bloggers should think twice right now. As this stuff makes the rounds of the Internet they are creating rifts that will carry over into the general election. Another uniter turns into a divider.

This could be John Edward's legacy if he isn't careful.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 05:28AM | 0 recs
I so can't wait for Edwards to have to go home

Carpool duty awaits.  Have fun John.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-14 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I so can't wait for Edwards to have to go home

wtf does that mean? "Carpool duty?" Are you trying to libel urban fatherhood or something?

by Junior Bug 2007-11-14 06:05AM | 0 recs
I drive my daughter to school everyday

... And usually pick her up as well.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-14 06:34AM | 0 recs
good for you!

many cudos...

by bored now 2007-11-14 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I drive my daughter to school everyday

Good on ya.  I still don't get what your meaning was, though.

by Junior Bug 2007-11-14 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at

You're starting to rival the Ron Paul Revolution for thread-hijacking non sequiturs.

by Junior Bug 2007-11-14 06:04AM | 0 recs
GOOD COP - FUNNY COP!

WOW!  You really are humor challenged pal - the below scene was funny and zing - it went right over your head - - I love it! - the punch line was hilarious - and instead of laughing - you think we should be scandalized - what a joke!

----------

Sounds like the contact I had with Hillary's campaign after my question at Yearly Kos.  On the final night, as the delegates were all drinking at 1:00 a.m. to celebrate a great Convention, I suddenly got approached by two Hillary staffers - a man and a woman - who started a "good-cop, bad-cop" confrontation with me.  The woman thanked me profusely for "asking such a smart question," while the guy said, "I'm not going to leave you alone until you become a Hillary supporter."

Needless to say, he was not successful -- and after we talked for about five minutes, he yelled "you're helping the terrorists" and they both walked away

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: GOOD COP - FUNNY COP!

>>>the punch line was hilarious - and instead of laughing - you think we should be scandalized - what a joke!

We??  are you a paid Hillary staffer?

Hillary's staff used Bush "terrorist" lingo and bullying on Paul. Only a Hillary supporter would think it's funny.

by annefrank 2007-11-14 07:08AM | 0 recs
go listen to the radio transmissions

in your fillings, will ya?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: go listen to the radio transmissions

Why are you always so rude?

Go to www.i-am-a-troll.com and have fun...

by MarcTGFG 2007-11-14 10:25AM | 0 recs
TROLL? oh can it with the nerd speak

only rude to those who slash and attack and accuse good dems of being corruped liars - guess you dont know this gals history..

But since you whack at me - I gave you an example how it works.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 12:08PM | 0 recs
a reprint just for you!


O! WOE IS ME! HOW CAN I POSSIBLY ENDURE (2.00 / 1)

WITH THE SHAME OF BEING CALLED A TROLL?

Is life even worth living, if my name has been tarnished thusly...?

----

Anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to the majority in our Democratic primaries, to say that Senator Clinton is a corrupted liar is...

a few boats short of a fleet...not the brightest bulb in the chandelier..not the quickest bunny in the forest....would lose a debate with a doorknob...has a leak in their skylight... has no grain in the silo...missing a few buttons on his remote control...a few tacos short of a fiesta platter...couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel...three ice bricks shy of an igloo... a few marshmallows short of a bowl of Lucky Charms...and their driveway doesn't quite reach the road...

The gates may be down and the lights may be flashing, but the thinking train isn't coming for these people.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: a reprint just for you!

Between Holden Caufield and Dpandrews I am losing all interest in working for their nominee if she does in fact win the nomination.

You guys are jerks and if this is Hillary's team at work in the blogosphere maybe there are some good senate campaigns we can all go work on so that she will have a chance at 60 votes in the senate.

Much more valuable and easier to live with than the thought of working side by side with such jerks.

by Orlando 2007-11-14 12:31PM | 0 recs
like I believe you ever would

the final childish attack...always available right...

the if you dont let us attack her at will and call her a corrupt liar all we want - WE  WILL NEVER HELP YOU EVER! bit...

Poor you...I think you may need a nappy...

And if you Hillary haters sit this one out and dont bring your great skills to the battle...trust me,we will somehow struggle on withoutt you..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 01:37PM | 0 recs
and dipshit - what you never heard of tthe

coordinated campaign?

If you go and help with a senate campaign you will be helping us...

Thats how the Democratic Party works...

now go take that nap!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 01:40PM | 0 recs
I apologize for tthe dipshit

but the rest stands.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 01:44PM | 0 recs
I think you over estimate your own

power.  First of all, why would you feel Clinton needs to defend her husband's record?  He is not running, she is.  Very sexist of you Paul.  But I watched the video and she didn't seem particularly flustered by any of you, sorry.

An addition, if you think all the campaigns are not doing this I have some swampland......

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Puh-leese!

So now I'm sexist to suggest she should defend her husband's record?  I seem to recall her being First Lady at the time.  I seem to recall Bill campaigning in 1992 and saying you'll get "two for the price of one."  Isn't she a big girl who can take tough questions?

Hillary was a very influential part of the Clinton Administration, and it's fair to assume Bill will be a very influential First Husband.  It's fair to call them out both on those years.

Besides, the four laws I pointed out were horrible, right-wing laws that the Clintons pushed through by triangulating against Democrats.  A lot of us joined the blogosphere because we were sick and tired of the Democratic Party taking us for granted.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-11-14 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Puh-leese!

She is running and he is not.  1992 was a long time ago. It is very sexist for you to continue to insist that she answer for her husband as if she were not her own person.

Besides, I am not sure what your issue or point is.  You went to see Hillary so you could ask her a question.  You asked it and got an answer. She didn't seem the least bit put off by you and gave a very straight forward answer. What IS your point again?

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Puh-leese!

Right - please.

Hillary needs to make a choice - perhaps you can offer your opinion on it since we won't have a chance to ask her directly.

Hillary says that she has "experience" that differentiates her.  She has far less elective / government experience than Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, (and equal to Edwards) unless she counts her years as first lady.  So -

When Clinton says she has the greatest experience (which is her claim), does she count the years as first lady or not?   If so, then the record of the Clinton years is fair game.  If not, then her experience isn't a strength - it actually puts her in the bottom half of the candidates running.

So what is your opinion?

Mine is that she could claim her years as first lady as experience to some extent, and that she also needs to take the good and bad that come with that.  She wants it both ways - to be the most experienced, without taking any ownership for what occurred.  She can't have it both ways, much as she would like.  

Edwards is calling her out in a way that is very fair, in my opinion, as long as she wants to play the "experience" card.

by passionateprogressive 2007-11-14 08:08AM | 0 recs
Thank you for your very reasoned response!

you make excellent points comparing her experience to the others.  She's running on her experience, and yet as you say she has less experience than most of the others, and yes, I think she should include her days as First Lady, but then she'll have to answer for it.  I wonder if you'll get a response from Mollie.  Doubt it.  They never do respond when you come back with reasoned discourse.

by santamonicadem 2007-11-14 09:14AM | 0 recs
and cause you have LOTS of free time!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 09:04AM | 0 recs
Prove it Mollie!
Prove it Mollie! Prove other campaigns are planting questioners.
Just because a voice in your head is asserting it in order to justify your support for Hillary - doesn't make it so.
by annefrank 2007-11-14 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Prove it Mollie!

old news and common knowledge do not need to be proved.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 08:14AM | 0 recs
oh my god! I was right!

note my reply to her above...

...she thinks that EVERYBODY IS getting transmissions...ooooh...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at

I think your 15 minutes of fame for asking that question have expired.

by Steve M 2007-11-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at

but he is a hero among Hillary Haters.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at
We don't have to hate to recognize facts and Truth.
Why do Hillary supporters resort to Bush tactics?
Oh wait...
by annefrank 2007-11-14 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at

Anne you are a waste of time.  Everyone knows suggesting one question is not even close to being a bush tactic.  And since everyone does it, you fake hysteria seems a bit silly.  Maybe you can tell me next how the real Anne Frank would cry over this or something.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at

your comment is bordering on the antisemitic!

And you claim something you are unable to show any proof for.

THAT IS a republican tactic.

by MarcTGFG 2007-11-14 10:27AM | 0 recs
Mollie - you missed the point!

Only Hillary supporters call us "haters" when facts are produced about Hillary that conflict with their pre-existing and erroneous beliefs.

I've never been called an Obama-hater or a Richardson-hater.
No - it's only the Hillary supporters that use Bushie tactics of "hate."

by annefrank 2007-11-15 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions
Mollie - how could you be "waiting for Gore" while bashing Paul and negating any criticism of Hillary??
Seems like an example of cognitive dissonance.
by annefrank 2007-11-14 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions

I suppose so to a person incapable of seeing shades of gray and/or one who has drunk too much blog-aide.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-14 08:21AM | 0 recs
Thank you Paul

I remember your question and Hillary's response to media consolidation - blame Al Gore because he "pushed" the Telecom Act.
Apparently Gore also "pushed" the pen while Clinton signed it into law - giving Rupert Murdoch more power and MORE rightwing radio and TV stations.

That didn't work out so well for the Clintons - and the only way Hillary could be assured of "inevitability" media coverage was to sell their souls to Murdoch.  And what will HE get and what will WE lose during a Hillary prez?

We don't know. Hillary never provided a position on media consolidation.

by annefrank 2007-11-14 07:27AM | 0 recs
Actually it worked out great for Hillary

Murdoch now holds fundraising events for her. You wash my back, I'll wash yours....

But remember what Hillary told us at Yearly Kos: we should never think she would be influenced by the money she receives from Washington Lobbyists (who after all just represent "ordinary people") and people of Murdoch's ilk. I'm sure the fact that she hasn't signed on to Dodd's filibuster of the bill giving the telecoms retroactive immunity from illegally spying on us has nothing to do with her being the biggest recipient of telecom money in the Senate. She just strongly believes that breaking the law and spying on Americans is okay, I guess.

by Jim in Chicago 2007-11-14 08:30AM | 0 recs
any dimwit that thinks Fox News

or the New York Post writes anything nice about either Clinton fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-14 09:11AM | 0 recs
True, so why is he holding fundraisers for her?

Could it be because he sees her as the Democratic nominee providing the best (only?) chance for a Republican to win in 2008?

Hmmmmmmmm.

by Jim in Chicago 2007-11-14 12:41PM | 0 recs
wasn't sure if Clinton knew enough

"""but an aide said he wasn't sure if Clinton knew enough about the other plans to give an intelligent response"""

ROFLMAO  and she wants to be president how did she get to be senator .. oh thats right she had bill ask his buddies to get her elected

by DANIELLECLARKE 2007-11-14 08:42AM | 0 recs
My Question at Yearly Kos

You are still crowing about your six part question on legislation passed in the last century?

Don't you know that most people who watched your question were laughing at you?

by hwc 2007-11-14 09:27AM | 0 recs
you know...

that may be.  but i think the point of this diary (as i read it) is to question why hillary feels the need to insulate herself from questions from real people.  it could very well be that paul and the guy from iowa are the last regular people to ask hillary their own question.  she's clearly becoming more, not less, protected.

haven't we had enough of bush and his tactics?  i know i have.  i think we should be able to ask all our candidates to not follow bush in isolating themself from real americans...

by bored now 2007-11-14 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Planted Questions vs. My Question at
Would someone please link where Sen. Clinton identified and fired the person who did this?
Can someone please post a link where this person that was used received a personal apology from Sen. Clinton?
I may be wrong..but it appears a well meaning person acted upon the advice of a Clinton operative. This person is now a subject of ridicule.
This is wrong. Please...all you Clinton supporters,;
give a link Where Sen. Clinton apologizes to this dedicated person.
If you cannot provide a link...does that bother you?
by nogo war 2007-11-14 02:00PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------