Dick Morris smears Hillary Clinton: "you have to keep your eye on [her]", "she could possibly challenge Obama ... in 2012"
October 16, 2009 11:36 pm ET
From the October 16 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Luckily for him, no-one on Fox makes predictions with any degree of accuracy., so he fits right in.
Luckily for him, no-one on Fox makes predictions with any degree of accuracy., so he fits right in.
-----------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
2. Obama is going to run in 2012, so no, she won't run. If she were to run, she would be disloyal. Don't you think that being accused of being disloyal is a smear?
Did you really have a question here that you didn't know the answer to?
And, strange as it may seem to someone like you, accusing someone of being disloyal IS a smear if there's no evidence that there is any disloyalty being exhibited or in the wings.
"I know nothing."
Hmmm, this just makes one accepts why so many self-made Republican Millionaires "only" appear on FoxNews Channel. Answer: To "sell" some swamp land as top notch real estate to it's Viewers. Uh, oh. LOL
If you lived 500 years ago, you'd be sneering at the concept of a heliocentric universe and wonder "who is getting rich" off of the "Law of Gravity scam."
It's wrong to smear someone. The fact that others might do it too (and that is very debatable that others do it to the extent that FoxNews and Dick Morris do it) doesn't excuse Dick Morris from the sin!
besides, it's too early to talk about who may emerge when it's likely not to be one of the retreads that lost... as for finding a rising star soon, there's no need... every time a party loses power the other side always takes glee in their supposed disarray, which is something you can count on every election cycle... a pawlenty/jindl ticket is not unfathomable, for example... but i'd prefer these gals:
palin/cheney (liz) 2012
apocalypse now!
oh, and hannity is a d**che-tard...
I don't believe this is "typical punditry speculation," where a pundit speculates, evidence-free, that a sitting president is going to be facing a primary challenge against someone from his own cabinet (and even if it was, why should that be a defense against what Morris is saying here? Just because something is prevalent, doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized.) Mookie, yes or no, can you provide any past examples of pundits on the cable channels you mentioned stating that someone serving serving under the cabinet of Bush 43/Clinton/Bush 41/Reagan was going to challenge him in their party primaries?
no. there is no need to, even if such evidence exists. asking this question about such a benign comment only speaks to my original assessment of thin-skinned piling on. hillary's challenging obama would hardly be a remarkable act of disloyalty, she's under no such obligation as long as she resigns before undertaking another campaign.
If she did any such thing, it would certainly be called back-stabbing, including on Fox. You seem to think that the presidency is like grabbing for the brass ring, and that anyone can try his or her chances in every election. The truth is that Obama is now the de facto head of the Democratic party, and it would be seen as monumentally disloyal for anyone else in the party to challenge his right to continue as president, especially by someone in his own cabinet!
she'd actually be duty bound if that happened, rather than sinking with the ship...
Oh, right. That means that every other Republican was duty-bound to run in 2004, considering GW's error-filled first term. History showed that no one challenged him for the nomination, and he went on to cause four more years' worth of terrible damage.
Where do you get these ridiculous notions, anyway?