Morris' evidence that Clintons were behind Obama-madrassa smear? "Obviously they were"
On the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, despite admitting later in the program that he had no basis for his accusation, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris once again asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was behind the discredited allegation first reported by InsightMag.com that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a madrassa in his youth. Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, claimed: "[Clinton] is very dangerous in the way she uses the resources of her private detectives, her private payroll. Do you honestly think that that negative story about Obama happened from the vast research budget of Insight?" When asked by co-host Alan Colmes if he had "any evidence the Clintons were behind the smear piece on Obama," Morris replied: "No, I just -- obviously they were." Morris made a similar baseless claim on the January 30 edition of Hannity & Colmes, as Media Matters for America documented, even though the smear against Obama had been discredited, and, as ABC News reported, the accusation that Clinton is responsible for the smear "remains unproven and unsubstantiated" as well.
Morris' smear came in response to Colmes' request that Morris "explain" his earlier statement that Clinton is "a monster."
Additionally, Morris predicted: "You are going to see one after another after another derogatory information about [former Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC] and about Obama, and it's all going to be coming from the Clintons." As Media Matters has noted, this is not the first time that Morris has predicted that Clinton would smear Obama. Recently, Morris falsely reported that Obama voted against an amendment to a Senate ethics reform bill that would have prohibited legislators from hiring family members to their campaign committees and political action committees. He then asserted that Clinton "will probably use the Illinois senator's vote against him in the presidential primaries." After Media Matters noted that his accusation of Obama was false, Morris apologized and retracted it.
As Media Matters has also noted (here and here), Morris reportedly intends to "Swift Boat" Clinton. As syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote in his January 20 column, Morris "is asking for a contribution between $25 and $100 or more to finance a critical film documentary of Sen. Hillary Clinton."
From the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
MORRIS: That [former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R)] was a president. [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ] on Meet the Press was a senator.
HANNITY: I didn't even have to ask you a question.
MORRIS: McCain on Meet the Press was a senator. And Hillary's a monster. But that's a president. That's a president.
[...]
COLMES: Can you help me understand why she's a monster, so I can --
MORRIS: Come on. We've been through this already.
COLMES: No, no. I want to understand. Because I may have to, you know, vote -- explain that.
MORRIS: That she is the closest thing we have in America to a European Socialist.
[...]
MORRIS: But my point is that Hillary is as close as we're going to come to a [former Prime Minister of France Lionel] Jospin, or a [former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard] Schroeder, or a [Harold] Wilson, the former prime minister of Britain, a straight left-wing socialist.
And the other part of it is that she is very dangerous in the way she uses the resources of her private detectives, her private payroll. Do you honestly think that that negative story about Obama happened from the vast research budget of Insight?
COLMES: Come on, Dick. You want to blame that on the Clintons? I think it's outrageous to blame a smear piece that conservatives have kept repeating about Obama and blaming it --
MORRIS: Insight magazine pays $800 bucks an article. They're gonna send a reporter to Indonesia on $800?
COLMES: They're the ones who printed it, Dick. It didn't come from the Clintons.
MORRIS: You are going to see one after another after another derogatory information about Edwards and about Obama, and it's all going to be coming from the Clintons.
COLMES: Do you have any evidence the Clintons were behind the smear piece on Obama? Any evidence whatsoever?
MORRIS: No, I just -- obviously they were.
COLMES: So you just decided they are?
MORRIS: Because news media organs don't have the budget for that.
HANNITY: You guys, this is a fight that will never end between you two.
COLMES: He called her a monster.
Morris....the smear machine is kicking into second gear...please turn off your cell phones and be ready for this train wreck of a commentator to come crashing into your living rooms...
Wow. Despite the MMFA defender I often find myself to be, this picture of Morris is over the line. Makes him look like a raving lunatic.
Yeah yeah, I know... =)
ok you have to admit colmes did a good job making morris look like a fool here. i know no one likes him because he doesnt play dirty like sean and isnt rude but at least he has his self respect and dignity.
I beg to differ.
Yeah, I can't imagine that Alan has a shred of self-respect left...
bill asked him to gloat over the death of air america and colmes refused saying that just because they stooped to a low level to berate him didn't mean that he would go to their level. i respected that.
I'd like to join in on your begging. Colmes could have more clearly stated the facts: Morris has NO substantiating evidence that this came from the Clinton camp, the right-wing has a strong history of using second and third-tier media outlets to smear strong candidates, and all of this BS (if it worked) would more strongly impact the RNC than the GOP.
Insight publishes a piece of lies that effectively smears TWO DNC candidates. Who does that benefit?
Alan, Give it up > "Can you help me understand why she's a monster.........". He is pathetic. Morris knows he can get away with grade school insults around Colmes because that's the level of Colmes arguments. What next > "Can you help me understand why she is a disguisting and gutter tramp?"
I think the problem with the question is that via his wording, Colmes appears to accept the premise - that Hillary is a 'monster' (whatever that might be. He asks for an explanation of WHY she IS a monster.
Such an unsubstantiated, childish comment deserves dismissal. Straight up, Colmes should tell his guest he's being ridiculous.
Agree. He should have said "Your irrational hatred of anything Clinton is ridiculous. Talk to Sean, I'm bored"
Wouldn't that be refreshing? Morris is such a cartoon. If COlmes had any cajones, he'd demand that the graphic "toe sucker" be present any time Morris is speaking. That would be sweet! He'd never come back!
You owe me a keyboard.
"Cartoon" is right on the money. The fact that Morris is on FNC more than once a decade (and then it should only be for comic relief) really makes the case against FNC about as effectively as anything. Does this guy have any real insight into anything?
I don't think Alan is accepting Dick's assertion that Clinton is a monster. He's challenging it by trying to force Dick to substantiate it. However, sometimes you're better served to just state your point than to try to be too clever with maneuvering.
Indeed. The Socratic strategy doesn't work too well if the opponent is willing to admit his ignorance, but maintains his conclusions anyway.
Takes one to know one...
Speaking of "news media organs ", Mr. Morris sure does have a fitting first name.
European Socialist?
This guy's really dumb. He thinks he sounds smart though. He has no idea what he's talking about. Just insult after insult.
What a sad, bitter little man Dick is. This creature has no principles at all - he will go where the money and the cameras are - the Clintons were right to get rid of him. He is an intellectual lightweight who revels in guttter politics - naturally, he feels at home on Fox. What a pathetic double-smear tactic this is - lie about a Democratic candidate and when the lie is exposed, blame it on another Democratic candidate....then, if there's time....toddle off to have an affair with a hooker (sorry Dick, is it impoite to mention that??). This guy knows that he's a tenth rate mind and will do whatever it takes to be considered a player again - i can only imagine the self-loathing that he seethes with. I won't be surprised when he's found bloated and fly-blown in a cheap motel room with some hooker's severed toe in his mouth and a bottle of pills in his piggy little hand....sad, sad little man.
This is absolutely the funniest thing I've heard in a long time:
What more can one say, really. "No, I don't have any evidence...but I believe."
Modern conservatism in a nutshell.
This really is the best that Fox Noise can do. Obviously something is true because Dick or BillO or Hannity or Hume says it's so.
I think if they were ever required to come up with...oh, say facts, the entire operation would shut down.
"Do you honestly think that that negative story about Obama happened from the vast research budget of Insight?"
No, I believe Insight pulled it out of its collective sphincter. What an idiot. We're supposed to believe that people in the Clinton camp went to an obscure right-wing online magazine to spread this story, instead of believing that the obscure right-wing online magazine didn't just make it up? Please.
Right-wingers have called CNN the "Clinton News Network". If CNN likes the Clintons so much, why wouldn't Hillary's camp go to them with the story, as it has more credibilty and would reach more people directly? And hey, if Hillary is smart enough for this sort of double-reverse backstabbing technique, maybe she's more qualified for the job than I've given her credit for.
Right-wingers have called CNN the "Clinton News Network". If CNN likes the Clintons so much, why wouldn't Hillary's camp go to them with the story...?
True that. I hadn't thought of that; it's an interesting point. The very idea that the Clinton campaign would "leak" such patently false information in the first place is ludicrous; but the idea that they would do so to a flaming-partisan right-wing rag is downright daffy.
Dick Morris and Col Roy should be roommates. They'd get along swimmingly. One would lie continuously, and the other would be the incessant apologist. They're interchangeable in that respect, methinks.
I'd take minor exception, because politics is dirty;it's plausible that the Clinton campaign could smear Obama. But the Insight idea is laughable, because what more could a right-wing rag hope for but to smear Obama, then turn around and release the name of the Clinton lackey who gave them the "information" (surely there's some proof of where it came from...letter, email address, phone records...something). Then the Clinton campaign has a scandal on their back.
That's really the big proof to me that the whole thing originates with Insight. How could they resist stabbing Hillary in the back if she handed them a knife and turned around?
I have to disagree -- it's not yet plausible that the Clinton camp would smear Obama, because it's too early in the game.
Look to this Fall/Winter for the smear machine to gear up in time for primaries, but not before. They'll place nice with each other until then.
That's probably true...I still wanted to modify that it's not really "ludicrous" that the Clinton camp would smear Obama, it's just ludicrous they would do it through Insight.
It is a bit early to be playing their cards that way, that's true. The risk/reward ratio isn't exactly in their favor.
Brab, I was going to paste the same line re: Insight's budget.The funny part to me (and Lonely Dick is ALWAYS funny to me) is this-
Dick's argument against the Obama smear coming fromInsight is that Insight doesn't have a colossal budget for research.
Uhh... what 's the current price of a good chunk of fabricated BS?Let's see-
Dick Morris attends a support group for middle aged closet cases who've had their hearts broken by the charming presidents they worked for and had schoolgirl crushes on, and whom they plan to spend the rest of their pathetic embarrassing lives trying to attack.
Can I write that off?
"what 's the current price of a good chunk of fabricated BS?"
Exactly, what a subtle crock of carp he threw into the mix there. The story's been debunked, but he's talking about it like it was an actual news story that had legs.
It does seem like "anti-Clinton" is the first priority with this guy. Logic and accuracy are just luxuries, not that important.
I'm still just trying to understand what Morris is arguing. Is he actually claiming that Insight doesn't have enough money or resources to practice bad journalism? And what is this theory that Clinton had enough money to hire private detectives to dig around Obama's past... and then still make up a story about him? Since when did it take more money to get a story wrong?
What's shameful is how Colmes doesn't challenge or ask for clarification of any of this.
gttntoobed5295 - thanks for the advice, but I'm just fine thanks. If you're feeling a little depressed, try thinking of all the lovely, wonderful, heart-warming people in your life and the tremendous wonders of the world around you...you might find it uplifting. Sorry that things aren't goin so good for ya - hang in there and I'm sure it'll brighten up.
Oh, yeah - anyone care to discuss the issue at hand?
zing!
And why do they insist on still billing Morris as "former Clinton adviser"? Where does he get his paycheck from now?
Indeed.
Not a whole lot of MSM people calling Cheney a "former Halliburton board member," or Ann Coulter a "former minion of Beelzebub."
What gives?
Correction - Beelzebub still employs Coulter, although its mainly in a consultancy role - no longer a full time gig.
And all this time I thought she was Beelzebub in drag. Oh, well, so much for that theory.
And nobody on Fox News is calling Bill O'Reilly "long time tabloid journalist" or Oliver North "former convict."
The Clintons should sue this clown for defamation. They'd win. No question about it.
Really Genius,
Cause the Folks who broke the story are begging to be sued, guess what Champ?
They never will be sued, you figure out why and get back to me.
Thats easy idiot because its almost impossible to prove MALICE whichi s necessary to win a Libel suit when a public figure is involved, that is especially difficult against non journalistic rags like Insight
So Solame,
now it's the difficulty of the fight as the measure of it's it worth it to fight?
Come on,
winning a case over a rag would do wonders for her campaign.
It is not just Morris. It is Fox for repeatedly giving him a platform to propagandize.
The Clintons should sue this clown for defamation ...
=================================================
Nah ... they seem to give this pathetic little twerp just the reaction he deserves.
They ignore him.
It is just funny to watch Dick Morris try to convince people that Clinton is hiring "detectives" and her "payroll" to come up with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. According to Morris all she has to show for the vast resources that she has supposedly expended is the fact that Obama used cocaine when he was young (COST: the price of a copy of Obama's book "Dreams of My Father") and the fictional madrassa story (COST: $0, use quote from the same book and create fiction). Hillary REALLY needs to get more for the massive amounts of money that she is spending on her secret research.
I have learned from sources inside the McCain campaign the Mit Romney attended an Illinois Band Camp as a teenager. As you know, band camps are know for their sexual depravity and radical pro math agendas. By Dick Morris’s logic, the alleged source if not the story must be accurate, because I lack both the time and the resources to travel to Ohio to investigate the story first hand.
It's quite simple really:
FOX is fair and balanced. Why? Because they say so.
Bill O Reilly is an Independent. Why? Because he says so.
Bill O Reilly operates in the No-Spin Zone. Why? Because he says so.
Iraq has WMD. Why? Because Bush says so.
Liberals are the cause of all evil. Why? Because Rush says so.
Clinton is behind the Obama smear. Why? Because Dick Morris says so.
It's so obvious, I don't understand why you people can't follow this "logic".
I have a question: is it common for these guys to imply that european has a negative connotation? I mean, the guy said socialist, which obviously does have negative connotations for them (let's not discuss this topic too much), but i am much more interested in why he said european, and what he means to imply by that. I myself am european (been following mmfa for about a year i'd say), so i'm a bit curious as to how these idiots view europe...
AR, there are different levels of Europhobia among the right wing, but most ,in my opinion, play to an audience that never sees much of the world outside of their small town or immediate family.
"Europe" is shorthand for many conservatives, and has been carefully designed over several years to imply a few things;
Socialist (meaning taxes are put to some uses beneficial to citizens, not only war contractors)
Non-traditional (society changes, as it always has, and equal rights are expanded.)
Secularism ( Government is run by fewer people relying on magic)
France, in particular, is singled out and characterized as effeminate wine-drinkers who surrender easily.As compared to rugged cowboys.
I, too, find this Europhobia among many Conservatives fascinating. Its most hilarious manifestation was in the idiotic renaming of everything French with "Freedom"...Freedom Fries, Freedom Ticklers, etc. I think it partly springs from the Troglodytes' inherent fear of the U.N., plus their resentment of Europe's more progressive secular nature, as you pointed out.
The screen shot of Dick is priceless.
Rusty,re: priceless dick screen shot (words I thought I'd never have to write), can
t you almost hear that Charles Nelson Reilly laugh coming out of that twisted little mouth?
"Nyah-ho-ho=ha"
Oh yeah. Dick should be on Match Game. He might not have enough integrity though.
Looks like he's pinchin' a loaf...
"Obviously they were"
Obviously...???
What's obvious is that Dick Morris is a vindictive little weasel who will say anything to attempt to destroy Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations.
What's obvious is that Sean Hannity and FOX News are perfectly willing to afford Morris a platform to spread unsubstantiated claims.
Why doesn't Alan Colmes ever question Morris about his firing from the Clinton White House and whether Hillary Clinton was partly behind it?
I have no idea why anyone gives Dick Morris the time of day, although Fox obviously regards him (ridiculously) as a world-class expert on Bill and Hillary.
In my mind, the guy is just pathetic, eeking out a living based on a childish obsession with the Clintons.