Media's latest anti-Hillary narrative: Ruthless Clinton machine to attempt to destroy Obama
In reporting and commenting on a potential race between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, several media figures have taken it upon themselves to issue warnings to Obama of a purportedly ruthless Clinton operation that will attempt to win by brute force, or, as Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund put it, "haul out the brass knuckles."
In his December 6 column, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley claimed that Clinton's unnamed "operatives" will tar Obama, and asserted -- contrary to the facts -- that a 1996 IRS investigation into former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), for whom Blankley once worked, was part of the Clintons' "policy of personal destruction." Blankley wrote:
If Hillary Milhous Clinton begins to believe that Barack Obama is a threat to her inheritance of the White House, it will not be long before his own mother will not recognize the public image that Hillary's operatives will have drawn of him. He could ask Paula Jones (and all the other innocent women "her husband" attempted to seduce and abandon) or Ken Starr (one of the nation's most admired jurists before he was assigned to investigate "her husband").
Or consider my old boss Newt Gingrich -- Bill Clinton's primary political opponent in the 1990s. Mr. Clinton's IRS very publicly opened an investigation of Newt for tax fraud. They kept it open for years, and then, a few weeks after he retired, the IRS quietly announced the investigation was complete and he was innocent. But not before Democrats spent years using that phony investigation as a basis for calling Newt a tax cheat. That's the way the Clintons play the game. They call it the policy of personal destruction. For Mr. Obama's sake, I hope he is ready for the game he is so anxious to get into.
As Media Matters for America noted, Blankley's claims of a Clinton vendetta against Gingrich were belied by the fact that the House ethics committee unanimously voted to launch its own investigation into Gingrich several months before the IRS investigation was reported.
On the December 15 edition of Hardball, Republican strategist Mike Murphy suggested that Clinton would poison Obama, to which host Chris Matthews responded by laughing:
MATTHEWS: Looking over from your side of things, Mike, who do you think looks like the kind of person the Democrats will fall in love with and marry?
MURPHY: Oh, I think a lot of the love is going to be about Obama. He is now standing between Hillary and the nomination. So if I were Obama, I'd get a food tester in, quick.
MATTHEWS: [laughter]
On the December 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders claimed the "Clinton machine" would sling "mud" at Obama:
SAUNDERS: I think the other thing that people are waiting for is they're wondering what kind of mud the Clinton machine is going to churn out on Barack Obama, and they're waiting to see -- for the mud fight. That's what I'm waiting to watch.
Now there's a laugh. What about the ruthless GOP propaganda machine that has buried us in crap for the past 14 years.
This whole live by "exact words", humorless commentary on any tongue in cheek remark made by anyone against any sacred liberal politician is a little ridiculous > "Mike Murphy suggested that Clinton would poison Obama, to which host Chris Matthews responded by laughing".
What would you want or expect Matthews to do besides laugh at something so innocuous? Stop the show and call for Murphy's arrest? Absurd.
If you want serious straight-faced monotonal discussions, go to PBS or C-Span. Poking fun at politicians, whether funny or not, is our right in this free country. Apparently some here want that taken away.
It is all "Gotchya" politics for both sides. I am so damn angry over the crappy ass politicians we have representing us. They are liars, or they are sissies, or self serving, money hungry, filthy, slimmy, punk ass criminals. Add lawyers to that rant as well. They all suck!
The point is this happens all the time - these pundits or commentators say stupid, often offensive, things jabbing at politicians all the time. Maybe it happens more from the right than the left, maybe it doesn't? Who knows, and who cares.
These are all adults, not helpless children. They are used to putting up with negative, mud-slinging campaigns and rhetoric all the time from all sides. They ought to have thick skin for all this by now, if they don't then they need another profession.
If something this silly was said about a conservative iconic hero of mine, I would be dismissing it as much as this.
That's the real point. How can your average american be expected to treat any elected official with respect if these instapundits, who are a large source of information for your average joe, won't?
You may have a point, but I determine my level of respect for public officials based on their integrity, honesty and performance - not what some dopey TV screamer has to say or not say about them. And I don't consider myself anymore intelligent than the average American. Maybe my level of interest is higher, but we all differ in that respect.
but this is why I hate pundits, they are set up now to carry more credibility than the news. This reason is exactly why if we want our elected officials to at least have a chance to prove themselves, they should be treated with respect by the ones who have the greatest influence on their percieved accomplishments. You do take more interest, you wouldn't be posting here if you didn't. But I garantee you the average joe in Tennessee or Georgia is more interested in the 5 second cliff notes summary because they believe they have more important things to do than blog their beliefs.
Tommy, You seem to be ignoring 2 of the 3 examples cited by MMFA in an attempt to dismiss this article as being too critical of a "joke" much in the same way you do on Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh etc. articles.
The other two examples contain nothing that can be disguised as a "joke." The first attacks Bill Clinton for supposedly assassinating politically anyone that stood in his way. Which is odd since the truth seems to be the reverse, Clinton couldn't catch a break from his opponents from the day he took office. Blankley claims that the same "tactics" Bill "used" against people like Gingrich will be duplicated by Hillary against Obama.
The other example says straight-up that Hillary Clinton's campaign will sling mud at Obama.
The example you attempt to dismiss is more of the same. You label it as a "joke" and it's suddenly not misinformation anymore. Yes, I recognize it as a rather lame crude joke aimed at Clinton. That does not change the fact he is doing exactly what the other two "journalists" are doing, claiming, without reason, that Clinton will destroy Obama if it will get her the nomination.
All three of these examples represent more conservative misinformation. All three paint Clinton as a ruthless politician who will destroy political allies (in this case Obama) to obtain the Democratic nomination. Dismissing it all as being a joke, which only applies to one instance and then still doesn't change the actual misinformation, is dishonest.
I might have worded it "Mike Murphy joked that Clinton would..." or, if I was feeling especially careful, "Mike Murphy apparently jokedthat Clinton would..."
But it doesn't seem that this portrayal of the off-hand, humorous comment was overplayed here. It was presented as an instance of a narrative being created, apparently with no basis in reality... and being played up to such an extent that one could even joke about a bump-off. Is anyone joking about James Baker getting food testers?
Tommy, you seem for the most part to be an independent thinker that likes a good argument. I don't think lot of the people in the anti-Hillary universe share your sense of detachment. if Katrina vanden heuvel or Al Franken had said something similar, I think it would be on Drudge with a red siren.
Again, I think this was handled OK.
It is all "Gotchya" politics for both sides. I am so damn angry over the crappy ass politicians we have representing us. They are liars, or they are sissies, or self serving, money hungry, filthy, slimmy, punk ass criminals. Add lawyers to that rant as well. They all suck! - evillib1727
---------------------------------------------
if you hadn't voted for a complete moron (Dumbya) twice, maybe you wouldn't have to be ranting about all the thieving politicians on Capitol Hill. Stop whining, its your fault.
Forgive me if I don't share your cavalier attitude toward this tradition of vicious propaganda foisted upon us by that pig Rush Limbaugh and whoever pays him. It is this kind of "humor" that has put fascists like George Bush and Dick Cheney in power. This is the same kind of garbage Rush and his imitators have used to demonize liberals for 14 years. Sure, it would be funny if about 40% of America didn't believe every damned word of it.
Impeaching George Bush? Now THAT would be funny.
I wasn't talking about Limbaugh here specifically. Of course you could find an example of him crossing the line from offensively funny to downright nasty.....I am speaking in generalities and overall talk show hyperbole.
But do you honestly think that Murphy or any other reasonable person thinks that Hillary would poison Obama? Anybody who thinks it's anything more than a joke is a major nutbag, and hardly an example of anything.
Just how powerful and influential is Limbaugh anyway these days in the face of Bush's failures? Look at the recent elections for proof of Limbaugh's impotency in swaying public opinion in Bush's direction...........Zippo!
So you give him and his imitators too much credit. They are entertainers and lightning rods for their followers who eat them up with glee. Their influence over any substance, like an election, is obviously overblown.
Limbaugh's career may have peaked in 2004, but you cannot deny his influence over the past 12 years. However, the whole drug thing probably cost him creds with the knuckledragging Republican base; maybe that's why the mindless, Religiously Correct clown Beck is being plastered all over the Television these days. The Machine needs someone to carry the GOPs water, and Beck is a likely candidate. Sean Hannity is too whiny and nasty, O'Reilly is a flip-flopping bully; so they turn to the affable "everyman" Glenn Beck to lead the Charge of the Troglodytes.
Most progressives I know do not hold Hillary in that high esteem. Limbaugh et.al. try to paint her as the chosen one for liberals simply because so many conservatives hate her with such ferocity that it makes it easier to vote against anyone in the same party as her.
I was about to say I can't think of anyone that could be regarded as sacred for liberals, but there is one...President William Jefferson Clinton...the right's most hated man. Go figure.
I meant "sacred" in the sense that as soon as someone pokes fun or makes a joke about a liberal or Democrat politician, it's treated here with such jaw-dropping AHHHHH!!, that it's made way too much of. Humor is in the ears and eyes of the beholder, some think it is, some don't.
Politicians, by and large, can take care of themselves quite nicely and don't need the kid gove treatment. In fact, they shouldn't get it from any of us.
Glove, not gove.
I agree with your comments and sentiment. These jokers have a time-slot to fill and none of what they say can be taken seriously (even the 'serious' stuff).
If one were to be really sneaky and paranoid... the conservative misinformation may be construed as an attempt - by way of all this useless banter about potential '08 candidates - to foil or thwart discussion about real (today's) issues (Dem's upcoming control of Congress, Iraq, etc).
Personally, I don't really care about Hillary or Obama at this point. Just my piece.
Tommy wants to dismiss concern by asserting that everyone who isn't Tommy just has no sense of humor.
But, in the above examples, clearly neither Blankley nor Saunders was joking.
The reality which Tommy wants to pretend he/she doesn't see and wants everyone else to ignore: at the heart of this media matter is the underlying theme that Hillary Clinton is a ruthless b!tch who, in her ruthless b!tchy way, will do whatever it takes to destroy Obama. It's a very real theme which will reoccur over and over again. Unless, that is, we-wh0-care, (that is, the non-Tommys) take some action.
The portrayal of Hillary as an evil bitch, willing to do anything to get elected, can't really do to much to harm her reputation among many of my fellow progressives. This image is precisely why we are pushing for an Obama figure in the first place. For all you Clintonites out there, sorry, but I am not going to spend the next two years coming to the defense of someone that doesn't deserve it.
>>"sorry, but I am not going to spend the next two years coming to the defense of someone that doesn't deserve it."
Regardless of your low opinion of Hillary Clinton..... When the media's done with their "Hillary-is-ruthless-coniving-b!tch" meme, and when, as a result, she's down in the polls, and without any of us saying a word about it, they'll move on to Barack Obama.
It's obvious that the media loves to build-up and then tear-down, particularly when it comes to the left, as in Al Gore, as in John Kerry. Right-wingers (Tommy) pretend they don't see it. That was my point.
Actually, you can see the beginnings of this Obama tear-down process now. "Big ears".. "Inexperience", "Hussein's his middle name".... "Halfrican".
Either we speak up, regardless of whether it's H. Clinton, or the media will continue to do it.
Agreed, Dave.
“Half joking and full in earnest” is a long time folk wisdom saying that seems to apply to the MSM comments about Hillary that are being analyzed here -- joke or not joke. The “half joking” applies to the method of delivery by the pundits mentioned. The “full in earnest” represents the reading -- in this case, listening-- between the lines to discern the purpose of the lightly delivered, ostensible jokes. Purpose: smear Hillary.
IF a conservative said that same exact thing about a Democrat you/this blog would be all over them saying they were reading too much into what they were saying. Stop with the double standard.
The really sad part about all this is that these corporate propagandists are what is somehow considered the 'media' now-a-days.........
No wonder this country and the planet Earth as a whole are screwed!!
... Perhaps its a bit of self-preservation on my part not to get so riled by all this nonsense any more. However, I do think Tommy makes a good point. That is, the purported influence of Rove and Limbaugh, etc... may not be so ominous and far-reaching as once feared. Just by how much the Republicans scrambled and still lost the mid-terms tells me that their 'reign' of terror is on the wane.
and have to say I disagree to a point. Reagan, regardless of how he turned out, had a dang near landslide win over Carter. He did that without the instapundits too. Now, irregardless of how bad a republican president does, there is ALWAYS that base 33% that will never abandon him. That's the effect of the instapundit, giving hope to the disillusioned.
And, there's prob a 33% on the other side (although they may be fractured into 'green', etc). At this point, I sort of believe that mass hysteria plays the biggest role ('the only thing we have to fear...') Following 9/11, even being the dolt he is... it seemed Bush walked on water. The fear was so high... we all played along. Right now - especially after all the madness these guys have slapped us with (warrantless wiretapping, no bid contracts, Katrina debacle...) people just aren't buying it anymore. Not to mention, I think he's committed a slow political suicide by way of decimating his own base/followers by sending them to their deaths in Iraq and not even having the courtesy to treat them well! Crazy...
... watchdogs like MMFA and others must keep these liars in the MSM on their toes. Even if they act like it doesn't matter, they pay attention. Unfortunately, I fear it's a two way street at times... Michael Savage's comment about MMFA 'having a jones on for me' is a case in point. Savage (and others) love the attention. Oh well... damned if you do.
it still boils down to respect. The new guy on the block isn't even given a chance to prove himself in RWW (right wing world). DOA is not being fair or open minded, it's just plain power hungry greed.
If only the masses were half as mature as of the contributers here, then these clowns would be out of work because no one would tune in. Tommy is absolutely correct, it's all a bunch of nonsense.
However, I can just hear my red necked neighbor telling me tomorrow that the Clintons are old friends with Putin and have hired his puloniom hit man. As long as there are people stupid enough to put their trust in these hacks, the bs they spew does matter. If you think I'm kidding, how many people still think that Iraq = Al Qaeda, or that they had wmd - yeah I know they hid em all in the desert in Syria! These people absolutely do exist, and they vote.
And they procreate. It's scary. . . .
and these very pundits know they can just shovel their load at that part of the country.
One of the funniest things I've heard this week is THREE-count 'em 3! different righty talkers/pundits/barkers complaining about the media saturation of Barack Obama, all three of whom pronounced his first name "BARE- ek", like army barrack.
If you're not sure how to pronounce somebodys name, can you really say that you're tired of hearing their name without copping to a serious learning disability?
good point. You may have also notice that they like to drop his middle name as often as possible . . . pretty soon Rocky Mountain Joe's neighbors are going think he is related to Saddam.
First, there is compelling eye witness and documental evidence that suggest Iraq transfered many large containers into Syria while we coming in from the south. Second, there Al Queda training camps in Iraq. ([link to www.weeklystandard.com] Third, they did find large stockpiles of WMD weapons.
Her and Obama would be in a race against each other for the Democrat nomination. Of course she would try to destroy him, discredit him, and all around make him look unqualified. I do not see how this is an example of GOP propaganda.
There is no reason to accuse her of plotting to kill Obama, that's just stupid, nevertheless there are people who will believe it.
Now, perhaps you really do believe that she is capable of having him poisoned. In that case, you should have no problem believing this neocon influenced administration allowed 911. But I digress. . .
There is another forum on this blog accusing Rush Limbaugh of taking Obama's comments to a reporter about his big ears seriously. IT says the comment was in jest and that basically conservatives need to get a sense of humor.
Here we have the exact same thing. Two conservatives joking. Sounds like a double standard to me. They were using a joke to frame a point that she will try to discredit him as a candidate.
Now there's a combo. I don't know who's greasier. Every time I see Obama taking photos with his adoring fans, he gets this ear-to-ear possum grin for the photo and the second it's over, his phony smile is immediately gone and he gets this annoyed look on his face like he'd rather be getting a root canal. He's just another slick, grimy politician like all the rest of them, democrats and republicans alike.
I think Fox news is looking for you.
Every time something becomes popular people start attacking it? Fox News is still on the air because people trust them, that is why their ratings are so high. They have millions of viewers, are you going to insult them all?
The early, hard attacks on Obama are no mystery. Hillary and Obama's numbers mesh very nicely together.
There's no way that the Clintons are stupid enough to blow up the bottom of a potentially winning ticket. They are MUCH smarter than that.