CNN's Bay Buchanan latest to "warn" Obama of ruthless "Clinton Machine"
On the January 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, discussing the "New Year's resolutions" of 2008 actual and potential presidential candidates, CNN political analyst Bay Buchanan "recommend[ed]" that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "go[] in his closet, find out everything that's there, what he's done, thought about saying, said in the last -- since he's been 10 -- and reviews it, because the Clinton machine has got him in their targets and they love to work the personal." As Media Matters for America documented, several media figures have issued warnings to Obama of a purportedly ruthless operation by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) that will attempt to win by brute force, or, as Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund put it, "haul[ing] out the brass knuckles."
Neither Clinton nor Obama has announced a campaign for the presidency. As the Associated Press noted on January 2, "[2004 vice presidential nominee John] Edwards [NC], Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have been the only Democrats to announce their 2008 White House bids."
Buchanan also baselessly accused Clinton of "constantly changing."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the January 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: All right. Those are good New Year's resolutions. What about you, Bay?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think it's interesting what [Democratic strategist] Donna [Brazile] would suggest about Hillary. Hillary was one of the people that I had on my list that she would let us know who she is. I mean, we've only known her now for how many years? She was the first lady for eight years, one of the most well-known women in the nation and, yet, we are now going to find out who she is. So, this is clearly a makeover in the -- in the making here. But I think what Hillary needs to do is make a decision: whether she can run, not going to run, and let's stick with it. Is she going to be a liberal or a centrist? And let's decide. Is she for the war or against the war? Let's stick with whatever she decides.
This is a woman who's constantly changing, it's time for her to tell the American people where she stands and stay with it. As for Obama, my resolution -- my recommendation for a resolution for him is that he keeps smiling. That first he goes in his closet, find out everything that's there, what he's done, thought about saying, said in the last -- since he's been 10 -- and reviews it, because the Clinton machine has got him in their targets and they love to work the personal, and so, he best be ready to respond to anything and keep smiling because it's that smile they want to take off his face.
This is Buchanan's opinion, so what? This thread leaves out the balance in the program by omitting Donna Brazile's comments.
...so providing Brazile's comments as evidence of "balance" misses the point entirely. As Dave_Chicago points out below, the point of the article is that Buchanan's "opinion" is a baseless and frequently repeated narrative that's been made up in order to smear Hillary Clinton.
BRAZILE: On the Democratic side. Some would say on the Republican because she is also leading Rudy Giuliani. But I think you are going to see more of her personal side, the mother, the daughter. You know, you're going to see Hillary appear on shows where she can show who she is as a person, not just a first lady or the senator, but who Hillary Clinton really is.
**********************
This was what Buchanan was responding to. To omit these comments is to take what she said out of context - or disregard the balance. This is Buchanan's opinion. You can agree or disagree with it, but Brazile was the one who brought up how Hillary is going to "package" herself. She has her take, so does Buchanan.
You can try and make it about balance if you want, but it still doesn't wash. Buchanan's comments about how the ruthless Clinton machine loves to get personal and how Hillary is "constantly changing" are baseless and oft-repeated smears, not opinions.
How in the WORLD is a baseless assertion NOT presented as an opinion, about the Clinton machine in ANY WAY about how Hillary is 'packaging' herself? it is a claim Hillary will personally attack Obama, that is talking about campaign tactics completely removed from how Hillary will present herself.
If Hillary presents herself the way Brazile insists - that she is some sweet motherly wonderful gentle woman, then is Buchanan's opinion that she is not that at all - but rather a ruthless campaigner and politician. As I said, Buchanan's response was perfectly appropriate, AS HER OPINION........you disagree, fine.
But Brazile opened the door to Hillary's personality as she sees it, not Buchanan.
The way she as you say packeges herself how she tries to come across is NOT a claim about WHAT HER ACTIONS WILL BE. Saying she WILL attack Obama personally is NOT in any way the same, not anywhere near the same. Its like saying that someone claiming a guy running for mayor will try to be funny in his speeches is the same as a guy saying he will shoot his competition with a hunting rifle.
"You know, you're going to see Hillary appear on shows where she can show who she is as a person, not just a first lady or the senator, but who Hillary Clinton really is."
************************
OK, show me evidence of the above "opinion" - please! Because I see it as nothing more than a baseless, unproven assertion of Clinton's character with no factual backup. Let's see Brazile's proof of this.
See how silly all this "opinion evaluation" process is? If you ask Buchanan for proof, then ask Brazile too.
If you want to accuse Brazille of stating her opinion as fact do so. I couldnt care less. What Brazille said is NOT pertinent to whether or not what BAY said was stated as opinion IT. WAS. NOT. I am sure you would LIKE portray the opinion evaluation process as silly. That way ANY rightwing smear can be explained away as oh its just their opinion. No one here is dumb enough to buy into that weak and transparent tactic. BAY made a baseless assertion, stated as fact, that is flat out misinformation.
the "proof" is chelsea clinton. a sweet intelligent woman who has been 15 years in the national spotlight without a ounce of scandal. unlike the drunks and druggies in the w. and jeb bush families.
indicate she is only giving her opinion?
, because the Clinton machine has got him in their targets and they love to work the personal,
This is an assertion a baseless assertion presented as fact. She doesnt say I THINK the Clinton machine et al. Also as Clams correctly points out what Brazille says is irrelvant to whether or not Bay is disseminating misinformation.
It is Brazile's opinion "You know, you're going to see Hillary appear on shows where she can show who she is as a person, not just a first lady or the senator, but who Hillary Clinton really is". Why are you not all over Brazile for her opinion on "who Hillary really is"? We all can answer that - because it is a favorable opinion, that's why.
When anyone says anything negative, it's a baseless smear - if it's positive, well, it is absolutely correct and fact based.
Don't act all upset over one person's opinion just because you don't agree with it.........and then say Brazile's comments are irrelevant to that opinion.
Your partisanship blinds you.
Blinds you. YOU claimed Bay just gave her opinion, ok, YOU are a child molester, dont get mad even though stated as a fact it is just my opinion. Bay did NOT indicate she was giving an opinion PERIOD. Brazille is irrelevant to what BAY said, she is making baseless assertions NOT stated as an opinion about ruthless Hillary making personal attacks on Obama something that as yet has NOT happened.
The fact that you cannot go more than a post or two without calling me stupid just shows the weakness of your argument. As for you calling me a child molester, well, that speaks for itself.
If you cannot engage intelligently, find another poster to spar your personal attacks with.
...so what's the big deal?
It actually goes to the weakness and pathetic nature of one's argument when personal attacks are resorted to make a point. I am not the least bit offended. It goes to the attacker's lack of character more than anything.
So if you must, be my guest.
But then I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
The only one missing the point is you with your concrete thinking. Solon's child molester comment wasn't meant as an insult to be taken literally. He was making a point about smears not being opinions. My comment was meant to do the same. I guess it went over your head in both cases.
I understand the child molester comment, thank you. It was a poor analogy, that's all - I took no offense to it, although your concern is touching.
My point was that people, in this case a very partisan pundit such as Buchanan, has her opinion. As does Brazile, another partisan - and so what? Brazile's opinion of Hillary's character and personality are far different that Buchanan's - yet you slam Buchanan's, but not a word about Brazile's.......that's the hypocrisy in evaluating opinions. The ones you disagree with are out of bounds somehow, but the ones you agree with are just fine.
You missed the point, apparently.
...Buchanan's comments about how the "Clinton machine" loves to get personal and how Hillary is "constantly changing" are baseless smears. Buchanan can't back up those claims and neither can you, so you try to characterize them as opinions. They aren't.
Solon's analogy is apt. If someone says that you're a good guy, then that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But if someone calls you a child molester, it's a baseless smear not backed up by any facts. Brazile making a prediction about Hilary's campaign strategy and Buchanan baselessly asserting that the Clinton machine loves to get personal are two completely different things.
It is EXACTLY the same thing. A smear, couched as an opinion, stated as fact. EITHER you cant be upset by it or you can. Its just that simple. Just telling us it was a poor analogy without saying why it is a poor analogy is the very DEFINITION of a weak argument, pretending to be mad rather than addressing what is wrong with the argument is also weak. You KNOW what I was getting at yet you didnt even ATTEMPT to show where the argument falls down, this is of course because it DOESNT. Again what Brazille said is irrelevant to Bay smearing. If you want to claim Brazille was spreading misinformation go ahead.
No offense, but anyone who voted for Duhbya twice could hardly be considered a genius.
For YOU to tell me I am blinded by partisanship but I am sooo mean for saying YOU are blinded by stupidity. Yeah, more crybaby conservative WWWAAAAAAHHHH, stop treating me the way I treat you. The same for what I said about being a child molestor it was making a point. Obviously I dont believe any such thing. The point is obvious. Can you just excuse attacks because they are opinions or cant you. Or is it that its ok for conservatives like Bay and YOU but beyond the pale for us liberals? You know this is true but pretend to be mad about what was said because you know y0u cant argue with the logic. This of course proves the point. It was just an opinion, even if it was stated as fact is NOT an excuse to make such attacks.
The right-wing's made-up meme about the ruthless, coniving, "constantly changing", bitchy "Hillary Clinton Machine" continues, currently spewed forth by Bay Buchanan.
And they're just getting warmed-up.
Also interesting is the "concern" Buchanan displays for Obama. Give her time... she'll turn her wrath on him, too.
Ugh.
More repulsive than the face and voice and talk of the woman cited in this item...
Is the subject matter.
When I was food-shopping recently, I saw at the check-out counter a magazine cover (I think it was 'Newsweek', but what difference does it really make?) that blared...
"They're at it! Hillary versus Obama! Who will win? You decide!"
...or words (or blather) to that effect.
Who freaking cares?
Isn't this just the hack "media's" way of trying to distract us from present (inifinitely more important) matters?
The "witch" Hillary versus "big ears" Obama?
I mean, is the present state of American affairs is so dull that we need to concern ourselves with the all-important question of "the witch" versus "big ears"?
Madonne and Mama mia...
What a way to portray the present American situation, as a fierce struggle between "the biatch" and "big ears".
I mean, just how stupid and "jerry springerish" (rupert murdochish!) does the hack "media" think the American People to be, to prattle on about...
Bitches versus Big Ears!
...I say we got more important stuff on our plate than that.
than what some Republican smear gang thug is pushing as reality.
The deleterious effects of market fundamentalism on small businesses, universal healthcare, social security, the environment and workers rights all spring to mind. Think about the truly surreal nature of the debt we are accreting for our children and our children's children because of Iraq (oil).
The hubris, the insane dogma of the disconnected. The conservative authoritarian mindset that would round up and disappear the subversives among them.
And let us not forget the childless mothers in every neighborhood all throughout the U.S. and Iraq whose children have been dismembered, disfigured and wiped away for our sense of security and freedom.
Who can best lead us from darkness is the question.
And it is by selling the lies and misrepresentations, propganda really that the rightwing got the POWER to screw these things up. Fighting that propaganda is step one in fixing them. You dont really believe they sold Americans that their ideas are better did you?
from the right wing smear machine that loves questioning Obama's loyalties because his middle name is Hussain.
Yes, because we all know how often Hillary refers to Obama as "Obama Hussein Barack, son of a Muslim," right?
Oops. I meant "Barack Hussein Obama". I knew something felt wrong about that.
Of course the Hillary policitcal machine is going to "go after" Obama--and Edwards and Gore and anyone else standing between her and the presidency. Ms. Clinton is not "holier" than any other candidate where such a high office is at stake. Does it make her a mean, vicious person? No. Does it feed into the chauvanistic bent of the opposing party? Yes. But if you don't think it's going to happen, then post here in another year after it does. Of course it's going to happen, and this is going to be one vicious campaign, within each party and between the ultimate nominees.
Looks like the idea of Obama and Hillary as running mates has some political analysts concerned enough to fabricate and distribute information that I have totally missed