Hannity accused Clinton of "leaking" Obama drug story from Obama memoir
SUMMARY: Despite admitting that they had no evidence
to support their allegations, Fox News' Sean Hannity and Robert Novak
suggested that "dirty political tricks" by Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton (D-NY) are behind the recent "leaking" of Sen. Barack
Obama's admission that he had used cocaine. But as Democratic strategist
Laura Schwartz noted, Obama wrote in a 1995 memoir that he used drugs; she
added, "There's no leak." Earlier in the conversation, Novak claimed
that "we have no evidence whatsoever that George W. Bush ever used
cocaine."
On the January 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity, discussing a January 3 Washington Post article on the potential political implications of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) admission in a 1995 memoir that he had used cocaine, suggested that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is using "dirty political tricks, leaking damaging information at a time where [Obama] is ascending quite rapidly," despite Hannity's own concession that he had "no proof whatsoever" for his allegation. As Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz noted, Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Three Rivers Press), that he had used drugs while in high school and college. The memoir "is a book that's been out for 11 years" and, therefore, she added, "There's no leak." Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Robert D. Novak followed up on Hannity's charge by saying that "every reasonable person has to suspect" Clinton's involvement, despite not "hav[ing] any evidence of this."
Hannity and Novak's suggestion that Clinton was somehow behind the story -- with "no proof whatsoever" and without "any evidence" -- fits into a pattern of media figures who have taken it upon themselves to issue warnings to Obama of a purportedly ruthless Clinton operation, as Media Matters for America has documented.
Earlier in the conversation, when co-host Alan Colmes asked Novak about President Bush's statement that he "was young and irresponsible when he was young and irresponsible," Novak claimed that "we have no evidence whatsoever that George W. Bush ever used cocaine." In fact:
- A February 20, 2005, New York Times article about secretly taped conversations that took place during 1998 through 2000 between author Doug Wead and Bush reported that "when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, 'I haven't denied anything.' " The article noted that "[t]he White House did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes or respond to their contents."
- An August 19, 1999, CNN.com article reported that a Bush campaign spokeswoman said Bush "has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974, when the 53-year-old Bush was 28." The article added: "Bush has faced persistent questions from the news media about whether he had used illegal drugs -- particularly cocaine" and that "Bush has admitted to past problems with alcohol but has not directly answered the drug question."
- In her book The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty (Anchor, 2005), author Kitty Kelley quoted Sharon Bush, ex-wife of the president's brother Neil Bush, as saying that President Bush "did cocaine 'many times' at Camp David during his father's presidency," according to an October 10, 2004, review of the book in The New York Times. The Associated Post reported that Sharon Bush later denied the quote but did not seek legal action or a retraction.
From the January 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been fielding lots of questions about his political future lately, but he may soon be facing some questions about his past. The questions have arisen from Obama's 11-year-old memoir, Dreams From My Father, which has hit the best-seller list now that its author is a potential Democratic presidential contender.
The book describes Obama's youthful experimentation with alcohol and illegal drugs. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow, when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ... Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: The final, fatal role of the young would-be black man."
Joining us now are two Fox News contributors, syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz.
Bob, I want to ask you what your sources have told you about the youth of George W. Bush, who was young and irresponsible when he was young and irresponsible, and the same allegations surfaced, he just didn't admit to any of them.
NOVAK: Well, we have no evidence whatsoever that George W. Bush ever used cocaine. I think it's pretty evident that he didn't use cocaine. He might have used something else; he never really denied that.
The real thing, Alan, is that what these men did a long time ago is not very important. And Barack Obama confessed to this a long time ago, in his first book. The problem is that Democrats have been attracted to him because they see a potential train wreck if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president, and they thought this guy could save them. Now, if he has that much baggage to carry, I think they're worried about him, as well.
COLMES: What baggage? I mean, first of all, he's been very upfront about it. He has acknowledged whatever he's done. He has no less baggage than other people who've been elected to high office, like maybe the current president. Clarence Thomas has used marijuana. What's the big deal? Why are conservatives -- I think they're going to overplay this hand and hurt themselves.
NOVAK: I don't think it's conservative -- I'm not worried about it. It doesn't bother me. This came out in Illinois a long time ago.
But I'm telling you, Alan, if you want to be a -- I know it's hard for you to be a reporter -- if you want to be a reporter and you ask Democrats, "Is this a good thing for somebody who they want to groom and become the first African-American nominee for president?" It's not a good thing for him to happen.
[...]
HANNITY: Why am I always suspicious that when the Clintons are involved in anything? I find it pretty interesting to me -- Bob Novak, I'll ask you this question -- you know, this story was leaked to The Washington Post, of all places. There's been a couple of stories in a couple of days in The Washington Post --
SCHWARTZ: It's a book that's been out for 11 years. There's no leak.
HANNITY: Hang on a second. The Clinton-Obama -- well, but the timing is interesting, that this was highlighted. You know, the Clinton-Obama differences show up yesterday. Today, it's Obama's past can be a big issue. Why do I suspect, Bob Novak, although I have no proof whatsoever, that dirty political tricks, leaking damaging information at a time where he is ascending quite rapidly? Do you suspect that might be possible?
NOVAK: Well, I think every reasonable person has to suspect. I don't have any evidence of this; I'd like to have some. It would be a very good story.
But I will tell you this, that people in the Democratic Party say that if, as he begins to really be a serious threat to Senator Clinton -- and I think Senator Obama is definitely going to run. All my sources in Illinois said that decision has been made. If he looks like he is a serious threat to her, watch out below, because the Clintons will do anything to win this nomination.
HANNITY: I agree with you.
COLMES: Thank you very much, Bob. Thanks for letting people...
SCHWARTZ: I think you guys are too cynical.
COLMES: Thank you, Bob, for letting people know that I'm not a politician nor a reporter. I appreciate that.
Should be Fox's slogan, replacing Fair and Balanced.
Pretty sneaky of Hilary to leak an 11 year-old, tame, open to public admission that anyone who has ever read the book knows of already.
Crafty. And a shout out to the Fox News crack reporting team who, after getting wind of it from WAPO, broke the story 11 years after the fact. Way to go.
Obscure. Distort. Bloviate.
A tale of two men. One, a recovering alcoholic who has certainly used cocaine, regardless of what he says. A failure in all business ventures, bailed out by well connected friends and family. Finally gets his substance abuse under control by becoming a religious zealot who believes a higher power is guiding his stewardship of the country. The other is open and honest about his youthful experimentation, turns away from a destructive path at an early age and becomes, by any objective measure, an solid, moral, productive citizen aspiring to public service, despite a difficult course.
If he didn't know their names, who would Hannity choose as a leader?
the WHITE one.
The bullseye on that one is larger than Jupiter, but you DID strike dead-center!
We distort, you believe.
it's B-a-r-a-k, his middle name rhymes with Hussein, which means that he smokes crack, I love to dis him every day, and if you ask me why I'll say, "we're fair and balanced that is why, it's H-i-l-l-a-r-y!"
bigger jackasses on your cable screen at one time than Hannity and Novak.
You say deflection, where I say distraction... if indeed I'm reading you right.
Just think about it: On the eve of the seating of the 110th Congress and it's new majority, we have these malicious hacks at Fox doing all they can to smear the name of one U.S. Senator... and to do it with the name of another U.S. Senator.
And they do this under the guise of it being about "Election '08"...
Gimme a break with the distractions (or deflections?)... gimme a break already with this "Decision '08" crap.
This is such a good, ripe time for serious discussion of National Policy...
...the American People having forced a new Congressional majority, primarily over the issue of U.S. Troops occupying Iraq... the president squirms like an accused criminal (before the newly-seated jury), plotting feverishly how to salvage his tarnished (criminal!) reputation... the president plots more death and destruction in Iraq, more deaths for our Sons and Daughters in that place... the president blames the commanders in Iraq (he's replacing Abizaid and Casey as part of his "New Way Forward" public relations campaign)...
And the idiot hacks at Fox think the most important thing to talk about nationally right now, has gone beyond discussing a Senator's ears, to discussing his nose...
...all in the name of another U.S. Senator.
You know the way those snakes do things over there at Fox News Channel... you know how they phrase things, how they ask questions in on-screen graphics to imply things...
"Hillary: Is She Behind Talk Of Obama's Nose?"
Well I can do better than that.
In the wake of president Bush replacing his two top commanders in the field in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey... who, like our Sons and Daughters in that place, have done everything within their power to bring stability to a nation that the president lied the U.S., and the American People, into destabilizing...
...and now he replaces those commanders, as though to imply they have failed... when in fact they have done all they can do, as have our Sons and Daughters in that place... at a sacrifice of 3,006 of their own lives... when in fact the failure of Iraq is that of the president, and his administration... a failure of their scheme of death and profit in that place...
In light of this news, I ask (with an on-screen graphic):
BUSH: Blaming The Military For His Failures?
Is president Bush's replacement of Generals in Iraq a way of blaming them for his failed scheme of death and profit in Iraq?
Who next shall the president blame? Our Sons and Daughters in that place?
They haven't sacrificed enough?
This is the president's "New Way Forward"?
LORD, Save us all from this maniac's scheme of death and profit in Iraq...
LORD, don't let this maniac blame the U.S. Armed Forces, and our Sons and Daughters, for the failure of his scheme in Iraq.
by an equally pointed "special comment" from Olberman.
he deliberately and knowingly leaked the identity of an undercover operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. the cia has said they have not had a lead on osama bin ladin in a couple years. maybe he's dead, but it is also just as likely that people overseas refuse to cooperate with us because there are a bunch of blabbermouths in the white house, and those contacts overseas could end up dead because their governments could connect then to our agents. not to mention that bush let osama get away at tora bora by refusing to send american troops after him.
that any attempt at trying to follow the neo-con form of logic is extremely hazardous to one's health.....
they start off by saying that the 'issue' of Sen Obama using coke when he was younger was already public record from 11 years earlier....
Then they try to claim its a 'leak' (which insinuates a coverup of some kind), at least that squirly looking guy (Alan) brought that point up, to no avail over Hannity's and Novaks thick skulls......
Then they tie into the 'Clintons will do anything to get nominated' thing all over again, as if somehow that legitimizes their bogus statement that it was a coverup that Sen Clinton gave this (known info from 11 years ago) to the NYTimes.....
Only the feeble-minded could fall for this loony logic.....
Which brings me to remind you all what I sais at the begining of my post about how hazardous it is to try and make sense of neo-con right-wing attempts at making any sense at all!!
Excuse me.......I need to take a few asprins......
swift boaters usually wait until the election is in full swing so they can get maximum effect for little money. They screwed the pooch starting two years too early. Best to get it out now.
It must be agony for the researchers at Media Matters to have to monitor these twittering stooges as they defacate on America.
But I'm grateful we have this great website; they're doing important--if painful--work.
Is it even possible that there are individuals out there that heard him say:
"Why am I always suspicious that when the Clintons are involved in anything? I find it pretty interesting to me -- Bob Novak, I'll ask you this question -- you know, this story was leaked to The Washington Post, of all places."
and believe that a WaPo reporter couldn't have just picked up a copy of the book and, sshhuuyyaaahh, READ IT?
How do they know that it wasn't John Edwards who is the only person in the world who knew about Obama's cocaine use and "leaked" it to WaPo?
When Hannity realized how little sense he was making, he used "timing" as an excuse:
"Hang on a second. The Clinton-Obama -- well, but the timing is interesting, that this was highlighted. You know, the Clinton-Obama differences show up yesterday. Today, it's Obama's past can be a big issue. Why do I suspect, Bob Novak, although I have no proof whatsoever, that dirty political tricks, leaking damaging information at a time where he is ascending quite rapidly? Do you suspect that might be possible?"
Yes, Obama has been skyrocketing lately. But the only people that I have seen troubled by that fact are Republicans such as Hannity and Novak.
Hannity has the best job in world: "Whatever comes into my head I spew out my pie hole in real time. I'm never held accountable and I get paid big bucks. Is this a great country or what?"
I had a different body part than "head," but otherwise, you're word-for-word...
NOVAK: Well, I think every reasonable person has to suspect.
Ay, there's the rub! These mediots long ago lost any connection to reason, and because facts are not on their side, they are forced to "suspect"...
As a result, a so-called news channel airs a couple of partisan blatherers inventing gossip. They operate in a world of lies and underhanded spin...and "have to suspect" everyone else does the same, thus, information published in an autobiography more than a decade ago becomes a scandalous secret leaked to the media by those nefarious Clintons!
The Obama/Clinton "battle" is a media invention. Look at who benefits if this nonsense becomes "news", when truly important news is given diminished emphasis.
The Obama/Clinton "battle" is a media invention.
It is... and truly important news is being given a diminished emphasis.
This entire sub-matter of "Decision '08" in the "media" right now, is just so much nonsense and so much nausea.
Think of how, outside of actual debates and even round-table discussions among candidates, of how dishwater dull is the worthless rhetoric of a presidential campaign (again, outside of actual debates and round-table discussions among candidates)...
"I have a Dream for America... I have a Vision for her... I have Hope for America, as do all the American People...
We Can Do Better!"
So we need to get a year-and-a-half headstart on such nauseating stuff as that... stuff so dull and worthless, that you'll be sick to your stomach with it, even before the National Conventions make a high-water mark of such foam, around late August of '08...
We Can Do Better!"
I got an idea about what "we" can and cannot do...
I say any of the proclaimed candidates for the presidency in '08 (are there any proclaimed candidates?) can do nothing for the American People from any podium on any campaign trail this early in the election cycle (we just had "Decision '06" just two months ago... those '06 candidates were only sworn into office just yesterday!).
Nothing is being done for the American People regarding this nonsense of "Decision '08" this early on.
On the other hand...
Both of the supposed candidates mentioned in this item (their candidacy being only "supposed" by the hacks mentioned in the item, so as to "supposedly" justify their blather about the same)...
Those two are U.S. Senators.
You know what a U.S. Senator can do for the American People right now?
You know what fifty-one (or even just fifty) U.S. Senators can do right now for the American People?
A lot, that's what...
...a lot more than nauseating campaign rhetoric can do, a year-and-a-half too early... and besides which, I don't think either of those two U.S. Senators are so stupid to have announced any candidacy for the presidency in '08 this early, anyway...
...I'm pretty sure all this "Decision '08" crap is a "media" invention (as you posted, and I just had to second).
Now that I think about it, I believe...
We Can Do Better!"
...a lot better... a lot better than the crap we're presently getting from the "media" about "Decision '08", and from Fox most particularly.
Blues: * John Edwards * Mike Gravel * Dennis Kucinich * Tom Vilsack
Reds: * John H. Cox * Michael Charles Smith
and a ton of other people with "exploratory committees."
Oh, it'll be a wild ride...
take a look at Speaker Pelosi's piece on Huffington today, where she is absolutely going to put her foot down and stop these emergency spending bills, right after she approves the pending $xxxxxxxxx one.
God forbid that any of these idiots would just once do some fact checking before they open their mouths to spout their dumb ass inanities. Faux News is well named when spelled as it is here. It is totally and forever Faux, and so are all the on-air talking bobble heads.
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance # Paperback: 480 pages # Publisher: Three Rivers Press; Reprint edition (August 10, 2004) # Language: English # ISBN-10: 1400082773 # ISBN-13: 978-1400082773 List Price: $14.95 Price: $8.97 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. You Save: $5.98 (40%) Details: [link to www.amazon.com]
that was PUBLISHED more than a decade ago?
My point exactly. clumberfeet
George Bush ever used coke? What about that series of missed physical exams when he was still in the US Military?
Well, no. Having missed a required physical is evidence that Bush has never felt he had to obey laws and regulations, but little more. "A reasonable person would have to suspect" the worst, however, according to Douchebag Novak's (thank you Jon Stewart) wit and wisdom. It wouldn't have to be cocaine; he could have been passed out after a three-day Wild Turkey hunt. Hell, he could have been so engrossed in the Grand Inquisitor section of The Brothers Karamazov that he lost track of time. Whoops! Sorry, lost my head; that would have been Laura. OK, he might have been reading, and trying to understand, a Marvel Comic.
When you have an incident which arouses controversy or suspicion (manufactured in this case, sound & fury over nothing), the first thing you look at is who profits. Then you look at likely scenarios.
First, Obama profits. He needs to get this dealt with and out of the way long before he starts his run in earnest. Why do you think he re-released the book in '04? It's not at all unlikely that one of his people steered the WaPo reporter toward his story.
Second, Hillary (possibly). Cocaine use in the past doesn't seem to bother us much, right now, especially as Obama seems so refreshingly clean and likeable. As we get closer to actually pulling the levers however, people may look at it differently. That's a big unknown. So one of her people might have dropped a dime.
Third, the WaPo scribe. He wrote a story that's got legs. Kudos in the newsroom, and all that. Did he find the story on his own, did Hillary's people steer him, or did Obama's? Who cares? The info has been public for over a decade!
I'm sure there are other scenarios that reasonable people could come up with, and they're all conjecture, nothing more.
To me, the real story is Faux News operatives desperately trying to get a twofer, to damage two potentially strong Democratic candidates with one blow. Hoping both copper-fasten cocaine to Barak's nose and to hurt Hillary, Seaneen called the "leaking" of this public information a "dirty trick," This from a man who works for Roger Ailes and kisses the doughy cheeks of Karl Rove! Oh, I forgot. When Roger and Karl send operatives out the back door to slander and libel their opponents it's not dirty, it's just hardball.
Wait a minute. Stop. Go no further. I mean shouldn't that be your first clue that Sean and Novak have no credibility whatsoever?
Or maybe the first one was how Obama's youthful discretions (from 11 years) ago are all of a sudden new?
Fox News: We distort, truth denied.
How is it evident that Bush never used cocaine??? I think it's pretty evident that he's STILL on something...LSD perhaps?
He's probably a pill popper. I'm thinking quaaludes.
Hannity & Novak are accusing Senator Clinton of reading a book? Which they themselves did not bother to read (else they would have known how completely public this alleged dirty secret actually was)?
Right.
The truly silly thing about Novak's statement is that it is technically true. Everyone in Oklahoma and Texas seems to know the truth either by osmosis or rumor. There is no evidence because Daddy Bush paid to have it removed. It was expunged.
So when they say that there is no evidence in the Harris county courthouse of the arrest of George Bush on cocaine charges, it is true. The evidence is gone because it was removed. The wealthy keep their legal loopholes.
It is still class warfare. We are losing. Everyone with half a brain saw through this subtrafuge in 1999. When you vote for a liar, you get aliar.
History is going to treat Bill Clinton's sexual escapades as just that. The writers of the history of the Clinton era are in school right now. When polled the young women between 15 and 25 that engage in oral sex list themselves as virgins. When these persons hear Bill Clinton say that he did not have sex with that woman, they are going to agree. Bill wins.
The goofy radical right wing loses on this issue this time. They have the money and they control the media with it. The question is whether they can get 59 million people to go with them in 2008.
The honorable(?) Tom Cole said, when he was with the RNC, that when you do something that the American people don't like and want, hunker down, go silent, and attack the other side. The right wing wants no part of democracy. They are there to serve their masters. As Mollie Ivins says, "They dance with them what brung(sic) them."