Milbank: From Clinton's seat at SOTU, "[s]he could have inserted the knife [into Obama] without even being detected"
On the January 24 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, discussing members of Congress running or considering a run for president in 2008 who were in the audience for President Bush's State of the Union address, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asserted: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama, making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do." Later, on the January 24 edition of MSNBC News Live, Milbank repeated his line to host Chris Jansing. Jansing opined: "I don't think [director] Martin Scorsese could have staged this one better, Senator Clinton sitting right behind Senator Obama during the State of the Union." Milbank called Clinton's seat "a perfect spot" and stated: "She could have inserted the knife right there without even being detected."
On January 19, CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck discussed a baseless allegation by InsightMag.com that the Clinton campaign had falsely alleged that Obama was educated at a madrassa. In reference to that accusation about Clinton, Beck stated that if "you hear a strange grinding noise coming from the Clinton estate, it could be Hillary Clinton sharpening her knives in the basement."
From the January 24 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
RENÉE MONTAGNE (co-host): And, of course, Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], as speaker [of the House], may be one of the few Democrats not running for president, who --
MILBANK: That's true. By my count, there were 10 in the chamber there. And, in fact, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was situated immediately behind [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL], making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] a few rows up, [Sens.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] and Joe Biden [D-DE] a few seats down. Then, on the other side, you had [Sens.] Chuck Hagel [R-NE] and John McCain [R-AZ] and Sam Brownback [R-KS]. You know, people watching their every fidget. You know, the only time you could definitely count on them all being very enthusiastic in their applause was when Bush mentioned ethanol, which, of course, plays well in the Iowa caucuses.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the January 24 edition of MSNBC News Live:
JANSING: I don't think Martin Scorsese could have staged this one better, Senator Clinton sitting right behind Senator Obama during the State of the Union. Did they ever even talk to each other?
MILBANK: I don't think so. Obama was sort of looking down at his speech, and the former first lady was sort of starring off in the distance, as if daydreaming. But it really was a perfect spot. She could have inserted the knife right there without even being detected. She might have been seen --
JANSING: Not that we're suggesting anything.
MILBANK: She might have been seen by Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, who were just four and six seats down from her in the same row, who are also running for president. And then there was John Kerry up front, sort of lounging in his chair, dangling his toe impatiently, and gripping the handrest to prevent applause.
irresponsible beyond comprehension
another attempt, without an ounce of evidence, to portray the clintons as evil and power hungry.
just noticed. the caption says state of the union-the dirt. as in any we can throw on a democrat
think about this also. could he have said any worse analogy. what do you say about someone you don't trust? look out for that knife in your back.
I would so love to see someone get a bucket full of dog crap, and just dump it right square on Millbank's head.
He deserves nothing less.
These people are freakin' sick. "Not that we're suggesting anything." Bull. My GOD, what has happened to this country!?
Wow, this is serious stuff. Is this Milbank character actually saying that Hillary wants to knife Obama on national television? Does he have evidence of this, because if he is just starting rumors he should be investigated. This is no joke. What a horrible accusation.
It's supposed to be "humor", Tommy. Cable news is show biz... I'm surprised FOX's anchors don't wear white cowboy hats and six guns.
Whew, thanks.
Well then, if it's only humor - what's it doing here?
Cuz it ain't funny... it's mean-spirited and meant to deceive...which, I believe, falls (however loosely) into the category of conservative bias.
I didn't say it was funny. Irony addressed the humor of it.
Oh right... But, you still questioned 'why is it here?'
And I still do. If it's serious, then it should be here. If it's humor, funny or not, then does every quip warrant mention?
That is a matter of (your) opinion. For the most part, I agree with your overall sentiment. Sometimes, MMFA goes a bit too far 'looking'. This, however, is a bit extreme I think -
"...place the knife into his back"
Give me a break.
Overall, I agree with your sentiment. And, I do think MMFA goes a little far sometimes 'looking' for misinformation or bias.
This, however, is a bit extreme = "... put the knife into his back". Give me a break. That's absurd and completely unfounded.
sorry about the doublet there... take your pick ;-)
tommy can't tell the difference between humor and "humor", hint to tommy the second one implies sarcasm.
"Irony addressed the humor of it."
Tommy, I said it was "supposed" to be humor. Personally, I thought it was kinda twisted... and Milbank ain't funny.
I do like the new posting equipment by media matters, however. Good work (I'm sure this has been covered ad nauseum).
Milbank is a nerd trying to be funny... and not succeeding. His producers probably told him to spice up his reports a little because he's so boring. As I said... it's SHOW-BIZ.
Totally agree, so why the mention here of something so obvioulsy "show bizzy"?
Why do you always jump to question why MMFA covers a story instead of questing why our MM has sunk so low?
Do you honestly think a "reporter" should even be making comments or speculation like this? Even in jest? I if wanted to watch something funny, I wouldn't turn on the news.
MHK,
Whether or not the mainstream media has sunk too low is a subjective, yet debatable point, fine. But this is one reporter making a stupid comment about a national figure. He wasn't talking about some helpless child here - these politicians are far too thick skinned to let this bother them. And it was a joke, funny or not, that would depend on your ideology, I would suppose. But even if a similar comment was made about someone I wholeheartedly support, I would laugh too........because it's harmless in the scheme of things. And with this 24/7 newscycle, comments like this are inevitable - to all politicians.
Gee, Tommy. What people say matters, regardless if it is a joke or not. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
But more important to me--Why do you care what MMFA chooses to post? Last I knew, they were the ones paying their bills, not you.
The Dixie Chicks weren't joking. That's the difference.
Yea, they weren't joking when they said "We're ashamed George Bush is from Texas."
They also didn't joke about someone taking a life.
They also weren't pretending to be objective reporters.
You guys are genuinely twisted. Get some help.
To be clear, I think what this reporter said was completely unprofessional and uncalled for. It is clearly below the lowest standards set for a serious reporter. However, I was just pointing out where I thought your comparison failed.
Fair enough, and I apologize for being short with you.
Now, lets all write an e-mail to MSNBC to let them know about our displeasure with this type of reporting.
Reporter = Report the news (REAL reporters even do it in a factual and unbiased manner)
Comedian = make funny jokes and commentary
If your not willing to hold them to a certain standard, or you've lowered that standard that certainly your purgative. That doesn't mean the rest of us are have to go along with you.
Actually Tommy I think the real issue with this, is not about a bad joke (I mean both liberals and conservative are guilty of that, i.e. John Kerry.)
Its more the injection of personal opinion into a report on a subject. He was asked by NPR (BTW I heard him make this comment and had to do a double take) to report on the state ot the union address. They know his views and asked for his take on the subject.
But he went beyond. Its like if I were asked about a traffic accident I witnessed and I told the police, "Well he swerved his car right, I think he was angery about something." While I am entitled to my opinions on the subject, reporting my personal ideas into the conversation have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I.e. did he actually see a knief in Hillary's hands? Does he have special knowledge of a feud between the two? Or is a possible feud his construct, invented by him?
...why the mention here of something so obvioulsy "show bizzy"?
Why? Because Milbank's insinuation is not based on any objective facts. Who knows what Hillary Clinton really thinks about Barak Obama personally? To imply hatred towards Obama by Clinton, in the absence of any proof, amounts to misinformation. Got it...?
Because the joke's implication was that Clinton would be expected to use under-handed tactics and would fight dirty against Obama. That, is conservative misinformation, as there has yet to be an attack on Obama by Clinton, nor an attack on Clinton by Obama, as much as the far right would love to make it appear as though they are at each others' throats.
it's not only humor. it's an attempt to portray hillary as ruthless. if that is not what he's saying, then what?
How about sarcasm? Is that allowed here as a topic thread?
i assume you mean your post at 202. if so what is the sarcasm? what was your point?
No, I specifically said the topic thread.
more games. you started out with a post at 202. i know you were being sarcastic, but what was the point of the sarcasm?
Funny. For someone who just told me I can't tell the difference between humor and sarcasm, read it again and figure it out.
did i just hear...uncle?
Not sure? Check w/ your niece or nephew.
still doesn't answer what was your point at 202. should i answer for you? his statement was all just humor and it shouldn't be taken seriously and why is this even here, and anyway even if he did mean it the best thing to do is just ignore because nobody cares except the people on this site. did i cover all your talking points?
...what's it doing here? - Tommy
IMO, because it reinforces the conservatively biased media narrative against the Clintons (that they are ruthless political "killers," figuratively and literally) in a particularly blatant fashion.
Perhaps, But I would not vote for Hillary because she was or wasn't ruthless. All politicians are driven and ruthless in their attempts to get elected, most likely. I would consider her based on her positions on issues, qualifications and such. Not her personal ambitions either way.
And those that think she is a killer are nuts. So you can't hold that up as any example of rational thinking from any direction. Also, she is so well known that these myths, deserved or otherwise are so entrenched in people's minds that is is nearly irrelevant anymore. Let her be judged on her competence and would she be a good President.
how here seriously thinks he's calling her a killer? or is that more of your famous sarcasm?
who not how
Tommy, that's all great - for you. You're rational and emotionally detached. But I believe you would admit that there are plenty of voters who don't share your rationality, and their votes count too.
Anyway, that's probably why the item is here.
more sarcasm?
No, not this time.
i know, but my response was.
Rusty,
There are plenty of voters who vote for a variety of reasons, many of which you and I would find ridiculous, either for or against. That is their right, to vote on someone's looks if they want to. The complicated nature of many issues along with people's apathy and disinterest is the cause of that for the most part, in my opinion. Not comments like these.
is this the old we should just ignore it concept? oops, you got the wrong site again.
Milbank's comment perpetuates the biased conservative narrative about the Clintons. It belongs here.
I think it was an attempt to drag up Vince Foster and his alleged suicide.
We all know that Hillary really stabbed him in the back and has the mark of the Devil on the back of her head.
As a matter of public policy, this kind of news entertainment has as it's only purpose to keep all discussion as dumb as possible while at the same time providing a titillating experience in order to sell stuff like trucks and soft drinks."
But if the media followed the Ninth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness - would people stop watching the news?Is this too much to ask?
Tommy
Well then, if it's only humor - what's it doing here
I know an annoying guy who keeps making this joke that "he has nothing against blacks that everyone should own one". It's meant to be funny but that still doesn't change that fact that it is a racist joke in poor taste. I guess according to your consderation though as long as its a joke we shoudn't point out how wrong this idiot is to make such stupid comments
Agreed. This is wink-wink 'humor'... but, a blatant attempt -- as MEFIRST says above -- to make Clinton appear as a complete power-hungry wench. Ah, no... that would be the Republicans, folks.
Well he was metaphorically speaking here of course ;-)
He's just one more voice in the media TRYING to give the public the impression of some sort of bitter hostility between Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama.
I haven't read or heard any [credible] accounts of any bad blood between Clinton & Obama. Of course they are rivals for the nomination, BUT they are also colleagues on the SAME Party team.
It's not humor, it's mockery and derision.
TOMMY:
Get it right. These "commentators" were saying that Hillary is ready, willing, able, and ANXIOUS to kill/knife Obama, and that ONLY the threat of being seen and caught is what prevents her acting out her desire. They have read her mind, and found her to be a murderer without conscience, and ambitious to the point of causing the death of any opponent.
These "reporters" were setting the narrative, "projecting" evil motives and thoughts into Hillary's head, and stating her intentions as if they are FACTS ... prevented only by the fear of being observed by rivals.
So, now you have been painted the picture of a homocidal sociopathic megalomaniac, knife in hand, waiting only for an unobserved moment to strike. All this based on ... on WHAT? On the imaginations ... and the deep motivations ... of the "reporters" themselves, and delivered to YOU as an accurate picture of Hillary.
You can do with their portrayal of her as you wish, but it must certainly give you pause that all were in agreement that Hillary is somebody willing to kill, using her own hand, in order to obtain any sort of personal gain. And if you take that away from this exchange, the "reporters" could ask nothing more. You have been invited to consider, by their combined certainty of what she was "thinking", that Hillary is a violent, bloodthirsty, evil person.
Just consider it ... that's all they ask. See if you can agree with THEM, that Hillary is a barely restrained murderer.
"Projecting evil thoughts in Hillary's head"? Are you serious? To you this is some nefarious plot to accuse Hillary of murder, is that the silliness that you are advocating?
Come on Tex, even you can't believe such lunacy. As I said earlier, anyone who believes Hillary is a murderer, or even capable of anything remotely connected with such a heinous crime, is at best a nutcase. And to continue discussing it any serious context is even more nutty.........find Dick Morris and have a beer.
Where do I find Dick-head Morris?
What Sewer should I look in?
Sean Hannity's
I've heard people refer to Hillory as Satan and worse on the radio. It all has a cumulative effect. Eventually it becomes common knowledge that Hillory is an evil bitch. It's media group think, media following an easy sell script, it's blatant dishonesty.
less than 50% of voting citizens vote in this country. Gee I wonder why? Maybe becasue the political process is so degrading?
TOMMY SAYS:
"Projecting evil thoughts in Hillary's head"? Are you serious?
RESPONSE: It's standard operating procedure for the rightwing, reading their opponent's minds and then elaborating on what ACTION that would call for. In this way, they get to portray any person any way they wish ... and with whatever level of EVIL they desire ... while that person is simply SITTING THERE.
In short, they are creating and/or reinforcing a FRAME, a point of reference for all who listen to form in their mind, a "definition" of what sort of person is being discussed.
Do YOU think rumors, innuendo, and false accusations do NOT harm people? Are YOU serious? Would you allow this kind of characterization be applied to your own CHILD, for example? Cruel and untrue rantings about your child's desire to do violence for evil and selfish motives? To be spread around the public, to be heard by people who don't KNOW your child, and will begin forming their opinion based on "what they've heard"?
TOMMY CONTINUES: "To you this is some nefarious plot to accuse Hillary of murder, is that the silliness that you are advocating?"
RESPONSE: It is absolutely more PROOF that the Rightwing engages in character assassination, lies, smears, and "FRAMING" for the explicit purpose of instilling "conventional wisdom" on the public, misleading them into forming negative opinions about political opponents (Dems) based on lies. And it's not "silliness" that I am "advocating". It has been a well-paid GOP occupation for decades, starting with Lee Atwater, including now Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, and with hundreds if not thousands of operatives in the middle (to include all rightwing talking-heads on radio and TV), to perpetuate and spread the technique. It is not only well-proven, it is ADMITTED, this tactic of smearing. That you seek to deny it only reflects on your own desire to live in a fantasy world.
TOMMY SAYS: "Come on Tex, even you can't believe such lunacy."
RESPONSE: It's proven. To deny it is indeed lunacy.
ROMMY SAYS: "As I said earlier, anyone who believes Hillary is a murderer, or even capable of anything remotely connected with such a heinous crime, is at best a nutcase."
RESPONSE: Agreed, and as proof, GW Bush and countless other Republicans were elected by just such tactics, because there are "nutcases" who will vote Republican on the basis of "Swift Boat" style LIES. The sad truth is, there are nutcases in American society who are influenced by these rightwing/republican smear tactics. It WORKS, or at least, it has in the recent past.
TOMMY CONCLUDES: "And to continue discussing it any serious context is even more nutty.........find Dick Morris and have a beer."
RESPONSE: Thanks for adding Morris to the list of those who engage in attack politics for personal gain. He is currently a major perpetrator, and is even collecting money to put out a movie-style "documentary" smearing Hillary, and he claims he "knows her better than anyone", so can read her mind. He feels this claim gives him permission to "project" any evil motives onto her that he wishes.
Also, thanks for the "nutty" references. Sadly for you, people ARE examining the rightwing's nefarious techniques of smear and lie, and are wising up to the nuttyness of ever listening to a rightwinger. They are nutty and dangerous, vindictive and mean, and the proof shows up daily.
One wonders how different Dick Morris' life would have been if Hillary had just said "what the hell" and let him lick her toes once in a while. How easily a mans' passion can turn to slow burning rage!
Very well said Tex, Thank You
You have laid out a very accurate portrait of Right-Wing Media Filth.
Uuummm.... WHAT?!?!What is Milbanks's deal...seriously, HE is considered a newsperson...wow...MM is officially dead in the water...
Why does Milbank want to be a comedian? If we want humor we'll listen to Keith Olberman... or Rush Limbaugh.
As idiotic and plainly inflaammatory as Milbank's Clinton-Obama assertion is, what the hell was he thinking when he said this:
"And then there was John Kerry up front, sort of lounging in his chair, dangling his toe impatiently, and gripping the handrest to prevent applause."
Ignoring how Milbank knew that Kerry was "dangling" anything "impatiently," how frickin' stupid do you have to be to reach for the idea that Kerry needed to grip a handrest to "prevent" himself from applauding? What, unless he held tight, his hands wouldfly uncontrollably together whenever Bush paused?
Milbank is either trying very hard to earn somestupid repas being "funny" and "edgy" (Glen Beck?) or he is just a complete moron who thinks political commentary should reflect the same journalistic standards as celebrity gossip mags.
Pathetic.
Maybe there's an opening at the Fox Noise Channel.
And Millbank is trying to pad his resume?
If I were Martin Scorsese, I'd be p----sed
Olbermann better name him Worst Person in the World and ban him from his show. Otherwise Olbermann is a phony. This is not the first time that Millbank has spewed lies and hate, he has done it to Bush as well saying Bush was clearing brush and that was the reason he didnt want to come back earlier for the Ford Funeral.
Millbank you are the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
Be a man Olbermann and name him what he is.
Milbanks doesn't even make my top ten for this week in W.P.I.T.W. (and it's only Wednesday)
"I don't think Martin Scorsese could have staged this one better..."
I thinks perhaps he meant to say that Dick Morris could not have staged it better... partiularly now that Dick Morris is coming out with his Hillary Clinton film that's intends to take her down.
One wonders if Corporate Media hacks like Milbank act out of a beltway groupthink or if they are handed scripts on how to portray politics. There seems to me to be far too much uniformity in their behavior to be mere accident. Are they just generally aware that they should cast Democrats in a certain light and Republicans in another? How is it that supposedly objective journalists always portray Conservatives as authentic and Democrats as calculating opportunists? The Washington Post appears to be consistent in inflating Democratic non-scandals (Solomon), attempting to tie Democrats to Republican scandals (Howell-Abramoff) and glossing over evidence of Bush administration malfeasance (Downing Street memos). Milbank's mocking coverage of Democratic hearings on the Downing Street memos were particularly obnoxious. WaPo also has a glaring double-standard concerning their editorial policy as evidenced by the differing standards for accuracy applied to Froomkin and Hiatt. It would be interesting to see leaked memos from the Washington Post giving directions to their reporters like the leaked memos from Fox News directing it's anchors to tie Democrats to terrorists.
Mindblank, the anchor of the first graduating group of the Kerry Institute of "How not to be funny."
Here's why this is a problem:
Imagine if Obama had been sitting behind Clinton. Or if McCain were behind Clinton.
Does anyone here honestly think that the same comment would have come out of Milbank's mouth, only in reverse? "McCain's going to knife Clinton in the back"? Not a chance. Why is that?
First, it's sexism. Clinton wants to be president, so she's "ruthless." Not McCain, he just wants to "serve."
Next, it hypes a right-wing script that has been pushed since 1990: Hillary Clinton is cold, calculating, and a bitch.
There is NO reasonable basis in fact to buy into that, any more than "Bush is a guy you'd like to have a beer with" or "Al Gore is a robot" or "John Kerry isn't like "regular" Americans."
These are SCRIPTS, pushed by hacks like Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts, Joe Klien and others. They replace reporting and analysis, which is hard work.
And, overwhelming, they favor Repulicans, as is the case here.
This "humor" on the part of Milbank is similar to the "jokes" about Al Gore inventing the internet. They reinforce an RNC-approved narrative that attempts to make national elections about phony personality constructs. They create just enough doubt about Democrats to swing elections, and they fly in the face of any notion of "liberal media bias."
Milbank should demand better from himself.
I think it used to be called the news angle - the core concept, tone or meat deliverd by a news story. Which is fine, any event can have a number of angles. But now these angles don't have to be based on an event.
When the script is spawned, it no longer has to have any relation to an event or series of events. It lives on it's own like any good work of fiction.
Tommy, it's another example how the media has disevolved from the informed, investigators they used to be to into some sort of newsertainment entity. Journalism used to be about fact and truth. It used to be about keeping the public informed, as our founding fathers intended. It's another glaring example of what this site is truly about: misinformation. If they're not going to discuss or analyze the state of the union address for substance or lack thereof, it's, in my opinion misinformation.
What's up with the Right and the violence thing? Every time you turn around some personality is talking about some left leaning person getting offed. Sure it's all meant as a joke and all...but it comes up over and over and over.
Personally -
I think most of you are whistling in the wind with regards to to change Tommy's mind about threads like this. Yes, I know it's just opinion. When I read items on MM and in the comments I see a Tommy post about "what is this item doing here" I pretty much just continue reading on because it really doesn't matter if he or anyone else thinks an item should or shouldn't be here. It's here because MM thought it should be here. That's good enough for me. If i think it's bogus, I just move on to the next article.
The discussions on here are usually very interesting and thought provoking. I like hearing people's takes on these issues and items.
I don't mean this to sound critical. Please don't take it that way. It sure does seem like Tommy does this often though. I'll just add one thing about passionate vs dispassionate views. One could read that a dispassionate view on issues indicates a lack of concern and caring. What is unimportant to one person may be very important to someone else. I don't think any of us are in the position to judge such.
For examples of right wing media/public conciousness manipulation:
Liberals are: poor on defense, anti-gun, pro taxes, pro spending, etc.
When the truth is usually the reverse or more towards the middle. I do like the indepth coverage though, I mean where else can you actually hear what the democrats are thinking to themselves? I mean, hello? I would never had known that Kerry was fighting so hard not to clap, if the right wingers had not read his mind and told me so!
Well, I've sent my message to MSNBC regarding this. Last time I sent a complaint email in to a news organization, I never received a response. We'll see if I get anything this time.