Originally Posted by slowplay

I know at least one candidate that will vociferously disagree. He was disadvantaged.



The fact that this was e-mailed on behalf of a candidate and that candidate had the opportunity to amend creates the appearance of impropriety. If there was no improper intent, then it shows how naive some involved in this process are.

It's good that you acknowledge the questions were slanted and that this wasn't really an issue identification piece. I view it as a poorly disguised advocacy piece.