Matthews, repeatedly using "cocaine," falsely asserted Clinton strategist "raised drugs"
SUMMARY: On The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews falsely asserted that Mark Penn "raised drugs again when I had him on Hardball." In fact, that entire Hardball segment was devoted to the controversy over remarks made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's then-campaign co-chair about Sen. Barack Obama's past drug use, and Penn was not the first to "raise[]" the issue. On the December 14 edition of Hardball, Matthews accused Clinton's campaign of engaging in "dirty politics"; Matthews and his guests went on to say "cocaine" a total of 10 times during the show.
During the December 16 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews falsely asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) chief strategist, Mark Penn, "raised drugs again when I had him on Hardball that same night this week." Matthews was referring to an exchange he had on the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Penn, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) chief strategist, David Axelrod, and adviser to former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Joe Trippi. The exchange concerned controversial remarks about Obama's past drug use made by William Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair who subsequently resigned. Contrary to Matthews' assertion that Penn "raised drugs again" on Hardball, the entire Hardball segment was devoted to the controversy over Shaheen's comments, and Penn was not the first to "raise[]" the issue, as Media Matters for America documented. Matthews explicitly asked Penn at least three distinct questions about the topic, two of which directly referenced "drugs" or "drug use," and Penn had offered at least two specific responses before he said "cocaine," which he said in direct response to Matthews' question about whether "going after his [Obama's] perhaps youthful drug use" is an "appropriate shot[] at the opponent or ... below the belt." Indeed, prior to using the word "cocaine," Penn disavowed the tactic, saying, "I'm really disappointed. I think this thing with Billy Shaheen, he's stepped down. It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable." Moreover, the video clip of the Hardball exchange aired on The Chris Matthews Show did not include any of Matthews' questions and began with Penn's third distinct answer, the first in which he mentioned "cocaine."
Similarly, during the December 14 edition of Hardball, Matthews thrice aired a video clip of the exchange from the December 13 edition of the show. In all three cases, the clip did not include any of Matthews' questions and began with Penn's remark. Matthews introduced the clip the third time by stating: "Let's take a look at Mark Penn last night on Hardball, the way he brought up the issue of cocaine." Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon also asserted that Clinton has "gone negative just in stupid ways," citing as an example "Mark Penn's raising the cocaine issue on with you yesterday." Matthews replied, "Yeah, right here."
Further, while Matthews accused Clinton's campaign of engaging in "dirty politics," he began the December 14 edition of Hardball by asking, "Is the Clinton campaign pushing the drug story? When it comes to stopping Obama, do things go better with coke?" Matthews and his guests then proceeded to say "cocaine" a total of 10 times during the December 14 show:
- Matthews asserted that "Hillary Clinton's top message man, Mark Penn, came on Hardball and dropped the word 'cocaine' twice amidst the storm of criticism that Hillary Clinton was already going too far in attacking her opponent."
- Matthews said that Clinton's "top man, as we just saw -- her top message man late last night mentioned cocaine twice on Hardball."
- NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory said that Penn was "on this program, and he's saying, 'Well, we're not raising the cocaine issue,' even though he says 'cocaine' twice."
- Matthews asserted that Obama "must be thinking, 'Wait a minute, I scolded her, and later in the afternoon, she responded to my scolding by having Mark Penn come out and nail me for cocaine twice.' "
- Matthews said that Obama "as a teenager admitted having used drugs -- including cocaine."
- Gregory asserted that "Mark Penn said this last night on the issue of the cocaine use with Barack Obama, say, 'Oh, no, we -- this issue is dead now. This is over. Everybody's moved beyond this.' "
- Simon said that Clinton has "gone negative just in stupid ways," citing as an example "Mark Penn's raising the cocaine issue on with you yesterday."
- Matthews asserted, "Let's take a look at Mark Penn last night on Hardball, the way he brought up the issue of cocaine."
- Matthews said, "Well, that was Joe Trippi brilliantly grabbing -- notice how the camera guy, he pulled the camera over to him so he could call the guy for saying "cocaine" twice."
Matthews also used two slang terms for cocaine during the December 14 Hardball, referencing the Coca-Cola Co.'s 1963 slogan "Things go better with Coke" three times, as well as stating, "Well, the weather isn't the only thing that's turning nasty in December. Lots of buzz about snow today in Washington, but it's not the kind you're thinking of."
Matthews also further distorted Penn's remarks, claiming that Penn "says, 'Barack Obama called my candidate disingenuous, so I'll suggest he's a drug dealer. That's not exactly even-steven." But Penn never used the term "drug dealer" during the December 13 Hardball, and his reference to drugs came directly in response to Matthews' question about whether "going after his [Obama's] perhaps youthful drug use" is an "appropriate shot[] at the opponent or ... below the belt."
As Media Matters noted, during the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, guest host Norah O'Donnell highlighted the exchange from the December 13 Hardball. O'Donnell asserted that Penn "once again brought up cocaine -- twice" and later claimed that Penn "on his own brought up cocaine." Moreover, the video clip of the Hardball exchange aired on Tucker did not include any of Matthews' questions and began with Penn's third distinct answer, the first in which he mentioned "cocaine."
From the December 16 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Where do they have alligators that you know about? Anyway, even after Hillary apologized to Obama, Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, raised drugs again when I had him on Hardball that same night this week.
[begin video clip]
PENN: The issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that's been made clear.
I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator --
TRIPPI: I think he just did it again. He just did it again.
PENN: This kindergarten thing, after what the senator did --
TRIPPI: Unbelievable.
[video break]
PENN: Excuse me.
TRIPPI: This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: That was Joe Trippi, who works for Edwards, taking a shot at Penn for saying, "Hey, you're the Hillary spokesman. You write his [sic] ad copy, and there you're pushing the cocaine issue."
From the December 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Is the Clinton campaign pushing the drug story? When it comes to stopping Obama, do things go better with coke?
[...]
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. Well, the weather isn't the only thing that's turning nasty in December. Lots of buzz about snow today in Washington, but it's not the kind you're thinking of. Billy Shaheen, a co-chair of the Hillary Clinton campaign nationally, resigned after raising questions about Barack Obama's youthful drug use yesterday. Then last night, Hillary Clinton's top message man, Mark Penn, came on Hardball and dropped the word "cocaine" twice amidst the storm of criticism that Hillary Clinton was already going too far in attacking her opponent.
[begin video clip]
PENN: Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising.
[video break]
TRIPPI: No, no, Mark, excuse me.
PENN: Excuse me. Excuse me.
TRIPPI: This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again. It's like --
PENN: I think you're saying "cocaine."
TRIPPI: No, no.
PENN: I don't know. I think you're --
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: Well, he said it twice. More on dirty politics in a moment.
Plus, Hillary Clinton has apologized -- or, actually, been forced to apologize -- personally to Senator Obama for the drug comments by one of her people. You can take that for what it's worth, given that her top man, as we just saw -- her top message man late last night mentioned cocaine twice on Hardball.
[...]
MATTHEWS: David Gregory, the old slogan was, "Things go better with Coke." Who's this issue helping? Is it helping Barack, being the victim of what looks like a dirty attack, or is it helping Hillary by diminishing the electability quotient of Barack Obama next November?
GREGORY: Well, if that's her intention, if that's the Clinton campaign's intention, they seem to be missing the mark here. The question of his electability, of his strength and his experience -- that's exactly where they want to attack him, but that's not what's happening now.
I mean, what was striking last night on this program is that here is Hillary Clinton's chief strategist -- not just message man, strategist, her guru, besides her husband, the guy who has predicted historic female voting patterns for Hillary Clinton, the guy who's written a book about all the microtrends in the country -- and yet he's on this program, and he's saying, "Well, we're not raising the cocaine issue," even though he says "cocaine" twice. He basically says that "he" -- Obama -- "started getting mean before we did," and that, "Oh, by the way, he's too ambitious," something that nobody would accuse the Clintons of.
So if that's a sign of where their campaign is --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
GREGORY: -- on the heels of Bill Clinton attacking the press and misstating his position about the Iraq war, it's a sign of defensiveness.
MATTHEWS: You know, it's like he said last night, as you point out -- I want to show the clip right now, David, but he said -- this is Mark Penn, who I always thought was a really smart guy, and I think he is, generally speaking. And Mark Penn, her chief message man, who writes the copy for her TV ads, so you can't say he's off message -- this is the message -- he says, "Barack Obama called my candidate disingenuous, so I'll suggest he's a drug dealer." That's not exactly even-steven.
Let's take a look at what Mark Penn said last night. As you said, he used the "C" word twice.
[begin video clip]
PENN: Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that's been made clear.
I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator --
TRIPPI: I think he just did it again. He just did it again.
PENN: This kindergarten thing, after what the senator did --
TRIPPI: Unbelievable. They just literally --
[crosstalk]
PENN: Excuse me.
TRIPPI: No, no. No, no, Mark, excuse me.
PENN: Excuse me. Excuse me.
TRIPPI: This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again. It's like --
PENN: I think you're saying "cocaine."
TRIPPI: No, no.
PENN: I don't know. I think you're saying "cocaine."
[crosstalk]
TRIPPI: You just did it.
PENN: I don't know why you're saying it.
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: OK, Joe Trippi's turn.
[crosstalk]
TRIPPI: No.
MATTHEWS: Joe Trippi's turn.
TRIPPI: What happened -- no, look, the person who the person who won today was John Edwards. Why? Because he's speaking to the frustration of Americans about something that's going on, how greed's taken over Washington and stopping health care from happening, stopping trade -- you know, trade deals that go through that talk about corporate profits. He was talking about real stuff that is really, really affecting working people here in Iowa, who are frustrated and worried about their jobs, while we listen to this garbage that's been going on for a couple of days now. It needs to stop.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: You know, it's amazing. We all think back on The Wizard of Oz -- I always did -- to the men behind the curtain. Who is the man behind the curtain? We just saw three of them right there, Axelrod, who was outside, but the two guys inside were mixing it up.
[...]
MATTHEWS: He's scolding her still for letting her people speak this way.
ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent): Exactly.
MATTHEWS: Especially, he must be thinking, "Wait a minute, I scolded her, and later in the afternoon, she responded to my scolding by having Mark Penn come out and nail me for cocaine twice."
MITCHELL: But then he sent out -- he, Obama, sent out a fundraising letter. He has -- they've made the calculation, the Obama people, that they have more to gain by showing her playing old-fashioned politics, negative politics -- the way they would cast it, at least -- than to lose from bringing this up, at least in a Democratic primary context.
MATTHEWS: What's the weekend line on this? David Yepsen, you're political columnist for The Des Moines Register. You're reporting this weekend, what is the score on this? Is Obama winning because he's the victim of what looks like a sleazy campaign effort to tie him up as an old drug dealer, literally, or is it Hillary, who's been able to damage him as electable?
YEPSEN: No, I think it's John Edwards because of the reasons Joe Trippi said. If Edwards can stay above the fray, the pattern out here has always been, that candidate comes out ahead. And John Edwards, as you just mentioned, took a hit, started going negative, his numbers dropped. He's backed off. He's Mr. Nice Guy now. And Obama and Clinton -- you know, this doesn't sell very well.
MATTHEWS: Well, what do people make out there -- what do people make out there, David -- and then David Gregory jump in. David Yepsen, what do people make in Iowa of the charge that a guy, who, as a teenager, admitted having used drugs -- including cocaine, if you read the book -- and did it quite candidly about the part of growing up and making mistakes and wasting his life as part of his sort of rite of passage, if you will? How does that play, just that fact, if it's clear that he did use drugs?
[...]
GREGORY: Well, there is a cynicism about this, this approach to, "Well, I can put something out there that's clearly going to have some impact, that we hope to have some impact, and then I can bring it back in, say I'm sorry personally, and then it's all put to bed."
You know, Mark Penn said this last night on the issue of the cocaine use with Barack Obama, say, "Oh, no, we -- this issue is dead now. This is over. Everybody's moved beyond this." It can all sort of be, you know, contained in that way. Yeah, there's something eerily similar to the Mike Huckabee incident against [Mitt] Romney and Clinton against Obama.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Do you accept the law of physics that an object remains in motion unless operated on by an outside force? In other words, if you let things go, he continues to rise?
SIMON: Yes. She's got to change the conversation, but I think she's doing it the wrong way.
She's gone negative in direct ways. She's gone negative in sly ways. She's gone negative just in stupid ways -- Mark Penn's --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
SIMON: -- raising the cocaine issue on with you yesterday.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, right here.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Well, let's look at that. I love the way you talk. Let's take a look at Mark Penn last night on Hardball, the way he brought up the issue of cocaine.
[begin video clip]
PENN: Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that's been made clear.
I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator --
TRIPPI: I think he just did it again. He just did it again.
PENN: This kindergarten thing, after what the senator did --
TRIPPI: Unbelievable. They just literally --
[crosstalk]
PENN: Excuse me.
TRIPPI: No, no. No, no, Mark, excuse me.
PENN: Excuse me. Excuse me.
TRIPPI: This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again. It's like --
PENN: I think you're saying "cocaine."
TRIPPI: No, no.
PENN: I don't know. I think you're saying "cocaine."
[crosstalk]
TRIPPI: You just did it.
PENN: I don't know why you're saying it.
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: OK, Joe Trippi's turn.
[crosstalk]
TRIPPI: No.
MATTHEWS: Joe Trippi's turn.
TRIPPI: What happened -- no, look, the person who won today was John Edwards. Why? Because he's speaking to the frustration of Americans about something that's going on, how greed's taken over Washington and stopping health care from happening, stopping trade -- you know, trade deals that go through that talk about corporate profits. He was talking about real stuff that is really, really affecting working people here in Iowa, who are frustrated and worried about their jobs, while we listen to this garbage that's been going on for a couple of days now. It needs to stop.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: Well, that was Joe Trippi brilliantly grabbing -- notice how the camera guy, he pulled the camera over to him so he could call the guy for saying "cocaine" twice in the midst of what looked to be an apology campaign by Hillary.
STEPHEN F. HAYES (senior writer for The Weekly Standard): Look, this is politics by paraleipsis. Basically means Mark Penn brought this up in a way that made it look like he was dismissing it. But clearly he was not only bringing it up, but he was going deeper. I mean, it was clearly by design.
MATTHEWS: He said the "C" word -- let me go -- do things go better with coke with this campaign? I mean, this is going to help him, right? They think it's going to help him. Jennifer [Donahue, senior adviser at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics], I want your thoughts on this.
DONAHUE: Chris, can I just jump in?
MATTHEWS: New Hampshire may not have the sensibil-- you don't have to jump in, you're in. Does New Hampshire have the same sort of sensibilities of Iowa, which is they don't like nasty campaigning? Or do they say, "Hey, Hillary's pretty tough. She's pointing out the guy's drug use. That may hurt him in the general"?
Why are people acting like this is some big secret that just popped up? Obama wrote about it in his book, admitted he did some drugs, and then moved on with his life. I'd say he represents probably about, oh, I don't know, 85-90% of the people that I personally know. You do things when you're young. doesn't make you a bad person, or incapable of leading a country, it makes you fairly human, and sniffing a little coke, smoking a little pot, I know I don't care if he did it back in his younger years. I mean, if he was still doing lines in the men's bathroom, we might have an issue, but he's not, so no big deal.
Move on people, move on. In this case, there really IS nothing to see here as it pertains to Obama's past indiscretions concerning using illicit drugs.
To think, Obama could have just ended all of this with a little W, "when I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible", or whatever W said to deflect the rumors of cocaine use INTO HIS 30'S!!!
Personally I have more respect for the person who admits their mistakes and explains the lessons they learned than those who dodge them, whether that dodge be "young and irresponsible" or "I didn't inhale".
On a completely different note, am I the only one who read the title of this post and thought that Matthews was the one using cocaine? My first reaction was "Wow, I would have suspected crack or PCP is what is addling Matthews' mind."
Actually, I wondered how you raise drugs? Was Barack a good father?
But seriously, what a bunch of crap. All this reporting on pettiness when we have right wing candidates who's children hang dogs and get away with murder while the investigator gets fired? Since when is abuse of power not an issue?
It's time for the republican party to acknowledge that by letting Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and all the other right wing hacks distract the country by claiming that the democrats have been taken over by the extreme liberal wing that the real truth is you can't find an extreme liberal in quantity in office, but you can find plenty of right wing hacks running for the highest office in the land, and too many die hard republicans who can't stand them will vote on party lines to continue the line because getting a bone thrown to the true conservatives is somehow better than quid pro quo.
"On a completely different note, am I the only one who read the title of this post and thought that Matthews was the one using cocaine?"
Ha! Me, too. I can hear O'Reilly now: "The lunatic lefties at Media Matter have trashed Chris Matthews with a headline that screams, and I quote, 'Matthews Repeatedly Using Cocaine.' Have these people no shame? Turning now to the war on baby Jesus..."
'Actually, I wondered how you raise drugs?"
Hydroponics.
"Why are people acting like this is some big secret that just popped up? Obama wrote about it in his book, admitted he did some drugs, and then moved on with his life.."
It's actually not a little thing.
The new issue is that he might have dealt drugs as well. For some reason, Obama never wants to talk about his first two years of college, at Occidental in L.A., and there might be a reason why.
This is a valid issue that the MSM is ignoring-- until he gets nominated, when that's all they will talk about....
Good Grief! Are you insane? A male Clintonite? or just another of the Republican slime chorus? Do you have any evidence of your slander? Of course not! You are speculating for the sake of slime, and well. I guess this reflects only on you and the dirty politics that you value. This is the stuff that the rest of the good ole USA is tired of: the politics of innuendo, slander, and personal destruction...and to what end?
Your comment is emblematic of why candidates like Barack Obama attract the interest of Americans of both parties - he takes the unfair hit, remains reasonable, resolute, and dignified, and responds fairly - and he takes responsibility as the leader and doesn't allow his surrogates to slime back. I suppose, in the end, this is the best of American politics - leadership, personal dignity, and fair play.
I am saddened by the Clinton machine - Mr Shaheen, the smirky Mark Penn, and now Bob Kerrey. I really like Hillary, she is a great Senator and a super role model, I am just worried that her male attack dogs are undermining her with these stupid and vicious smears. They are hurting her, not helping her. And pushing women like me to Mr Obama. How he responds to this stuff provides proof that he is a better man than the men who work for Hillary. She did the right thing with Bill Shaheen, she has to demonstrate that she is in control of the these smirky Rovian guys who support her.
I agree... it's micro politics.. and that's what made this country bad to begin with. I don't think Clinton meant to do it.. but now people are focusing on it...
The only thing to be seen here is Chrissie's sense that he can get a twofer at the expense of the Dems - blaming them for casting the stone that bears his fingerprints. Should be good enough to get his next paycheck?
Why is Chris Mathews and Tucker so dedicated on trouncing Hillary? They dedicate their whole programs on attacking the Clintons. I truly believe that they do a dis service to the viewers. Their shows should not be aired because they are to bias. Chris Mathews has a passion of hatered toward the Clintons. His guest have to be like him and he never presents an oppsite view.
MMFA is beating a dead horse here.
An important Clinton backer planted the idea that Republicans might bring up Obama's youthful drug use & even suggested one might wonder if he dealt the stuff. An attempt at sly dirty tricks by a Hillary backer pure & simple.
That is the REAL story here not what Matthews said or when he said it..
But of course placing the blame where it belongs-- at a Hillary backer's feet or any Democrat for that matter, is not what this site is about. Better to try to spin it...
BTW, Penn hardly seemed shy about throwing the "cocaine" word into the mix.
J,
I was about to say the exact same thing, and you beat me to it......
The number of times Matthews and his guests used the word "cocaine" is a little ridiculous, considering the seed was planted originally by a Clinton-ite.
Of course, for anyone to keep repeating in any context is only to put Obama in some negative light, or is just to keep one off of Hillary?
How could it be planted by a Clinton-ite when the man admitted that he used drugs in the first place? Sure the whole dealing thing was planted by Clinton's staffer, or he made comments to that effect, and he resigned because of it.
Obama used drugs as a young adult. So what? I wish that these guys would just get off of the subject, it's pretty freakin' stupid.
I am talking about now, not in Obama's book. There was no reason to bring it up at all, by anyone - so for Matthews to get skewered for it when the onus should be on the Clinton staffer in the first place, is just silly.
Mag,
As Tommy wrote we're talking about now. Yeah Obama admitted drug use in his youth, but who was talking about it? No one. So as an excuse to get it into the news, a Clinton backer speaks to a reporter suggesting that the Republicans might bring Obama's past use of drugs up. Then goes on to throw in the little chestnut that they might ask if he was dealing drugs.
Very sly stuff by a Clintonite to get it out there.
Quite frankly the Republicans don't even need to say a word if Clinton's camp is going to do their dirty work for them.
Now former Senator Bob Kerrey has joined in:
Some Obama supporters have asked why former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., who endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., today, mentioned her opponent Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's middle name in remarks published in The Washington Post. (LINK)
"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim," Kerrey is quoted as saying. "There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
Obama supporters see this in the same light that they see Clinton strategist Mark Penn's remarks on MSNBC's Hardball (LINK) -- that, as far as former Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen's remarks about Obama's youthful drug use, "the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising."
Too clever by half, they think.
A clear attempt to raise an issue while pretending not to raise it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/why-did-bob-ker.html
You guys are acting like Matthews had to do two segments on this. He didn't. Blame the "Clintonite" for throwing the bait in the water, but blame Matthews for biting.
"Blame Matthews for biting" ???
Let me try to understand this in another way. There is a hunter, carrying his gun. There is a duck, doing what ducks do...fly from pond to pond. The duck fly's past the hunter and the hunter raises his gun and pulls the trigger and shoots the duck. Who is to blame for the death of the duck?
Duck? No, just doing what ducks do. Gun? No, just doing what guns do. Hunter? Yes, the hunter chose to knowingly do something that would harm another. IMHO the hunter is hilary, the gun is matthews and the duck is obama. But, it seems that everyone, here, seems to forget that guns don't kill, people kill.
Put the blame where it belongs: hilary. She's a low-life scum for running her campaign like this. She may as well be a republican.
Your analogy is flawed. Matthews has the capability to ignore non-news, he has the ability to report real stories instead of rumors. Instead, he chooses to take non-news and smear it across the airwaves by continuing in rumor-mongering - all because it's about a Democrat.
I agree that Hillary should be shamed and shunned for her pursuit of the bile of american politics, but Matthews is not without blame, and he is not an automaton - he had the choice to further the rumor mongering, and he eagerly devoted two segments to attempting to discredit a legitimate democratic candidate.
That is interesting. I didn't get that from watching Hardball on that particular day. Seemed to me that he used this story to relentlessly pound Hillary rather than Obama. Unless of course you are referring to Clinton in your last sentence.
Bias may very well color my lenses. I am not a fan of Hillary, and I detest her embrace of "the fun part" of politics.
I haven't been a big Hillary supporter up to now, preferring Edwards or Obama. I'm switching sides and going for Hillary in light of the incessant attacks from those on the right since I believe they fear running against her.
OBAMA TALKED ABOUT HIS DRUG USE! End of story. There is no there, there.
Tommy and Jeter, I don't think we've ever had anyone on our team as nasty and divisive as Lee Atwater (who apologized to all his former opponents and the nation on his untimely deathbed) or Karl Rove, who've taken Machiavellian pinciples to new hights in modern politics. Yours is the party that used resistance to segregation and the voting rights act to build a majority in the South (the Southern Strategy which I'm sure you to are very proud of).
If you suppport Hillary, more power to you.
Lee Atwater is not only off topic, but as you mention, he is also deceased.
I am not a Republican, so your scolding is misplaced.
Segregation, the voting rights act and the southern strategy is also off topic, as well as any pride Jeter and I may take in any or all three.
Tommy I think you are only pretending to not understand the linkages I am making here. I mention GOP tactics and their history of dirty tricks because many on your side have a habit of projecting the things you are most guilty of and have a very to clear historical record of doing onto your opponents, in this Hillary and Bill Clinton, both of whom have served this nation well regardless of what you and Jeter think.
So in short, it's not off topic!
Yep, the US is a better place since that great D president Eisenhower federalized the National Guard in Arkansas to stand up to the lowlife R governor Orville Fabus and integrated Little Rock High School.
and don't forget that democratic president, harry truman. he integrated the armed forces by executive order in 1946.
I thought that D icon FDR had done that earlier. Thanks for the history lesson!
it was truman, but the date was 1948.
There is no such thing as dirty tricks from the Democratic Party. Hillary is squeaky clean. She will be able to unite this country even though she is by far the most polarizing individual in the race. Oranges are really red.
tommy attacks democrats constantly, but then insists he is not a republican, so you cannot criticize him. tell us who you are voting for, tommy. and who you voted for in the last two elections. put up or shut up. you huff and puff and lecture others who are honest about who they support, while you refuse to do the same.
Your blustering is quite entertaining, although I have stated numerous times on this website who I voted for in recent presidential elections, so look it up if you are that concerned about it.
And I am sorry to disappoint you that I am not a registered Republican. Unlike you, I am not joined at the hip to a political party, and I have no idea where you get off thinking that I have to be a member of one to criticize another, so if you don't like it, I'd suggest you just skip on by my posts - save yourself the stress, I guess.
i'm not "joined at the hip" with any political party. my position on immigration is exactly the opposite of the democratic party. no blanket amnesty, and if it takes a fence to enforce the border, so be it. and i have asked you before who you voted for, and been told it's none of my business. so if i missed you saying so, just repeat it.
You are right, I apologize for the "joined at the hip" comment.......your illegal immigration stance is commendable.
Bush in 2000 because I was no Al Gore fan. Kerry in 2004 because I didn't think Bush deserved re-election.
Sorry guys . . . of course I meant resistance to "integration." Anyhow you get my drift. As the man said, "you hypocrites! Remove the plank from your own eyes so you can see better to remove the speck from your brother's eye." If it wasn' for the rank hypocrisy of the right I would really consider their social platform more thoughtfully.
Yours is the party that used resistance to segregation and the voting rights act to build a majority in the South (the Southern Strategy which I'm sure you to are very proud of).
How nice of you to make assumptions of what I might take pride in.
Sorry, but I was a wee tyke, if I was even born yet, during the so-called Southern Strategy...
Well I guess the fact that you don't know how your party ascended to power and maintains power, gives you an out. But just so you're clear for future reference, here's a little history lesson -- and its very recent history.
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states.
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[1], but merely popularized it[2]. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."[3]While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the racially progressive Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. But with Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 presidential campaign proclaiming support for "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer, the Southern Strategy was back to stay. Although another Southern Democrat, Bill Clinton, would twice be elected President, winning a handful of Southern states, he did better outside the South, and would have won without carrying any Southern State.
Again, this does have indirect relevance to this thread since I am talking about the right projects their pragmatic and nasty approaches on their adversaries to gain and sustain power.
Krome,
I am well aware of Republican Party history, but thanks for the review.
My point is that you made a wrong assumption about both Tommy & I based on that history. That history has nothing to do with me. And BTW your whole spiel is off-topic & has diddley to do with a Clintonite playing dirty tricks. But it's clear you'd rather not discuss your own parties indiscretions.
Also I'm a moderate Conservative first, a Republican second. However as I've said numerous times here I am looking at both fields of candidates & not necessarily voting Republican in next years election. I would consider Obama, Biden or Dodd.
Political dirty tricks are NOT confined to one party as clearly exhibited by Hillary's camp.
Blame the Republicans when they deserve it, not when it's a member of your own party indulging in the politics of personal destruction.
Jeter, perhaps I haven't been clear. I do not believe that any Democratic candidate could or would use the dirty tactics or strategies entailing "personal destruction" on a fellow Dem. This is a right wing tactic that they are projecting on Hillary and unfortunately some independents and "soft dems" buy it.
Look in your own backyard for that approach not in ours. Didn't Rove use dirty tricks on John McCain -- claiming something about illegitimate black baby in South Carolina? Now that's real "personal destruction."
Whether it's more commonly used by the right or not, there's nothing about any tactic that precludes use by Democrats. It's simply not a fair argument to say "We don't do that because the other guys do".
I don't think it makes anyone "soft" to acknowledge such a basic concept.
Jeter, it's possible to have more than one valid story on the same subject.
Penn can be an underhanded bastard. The Clinton campaign can push this issue with Obama, and now be getting burned by it.
At the same time, Matthews is flat-out lying. "Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, raised drugs again when I had him on Hardball that same night this week." Raised drugs? That's even more dishonest than O'Donnell's comment. The whole conversation was about the publicizing of Obama's drug use. Matthews used the phrase "youthful drug use" before Penn said "cocaine". How could Matthews have forgotten this so quickly?
Even saying that he raised the "issue" of cocaine is absurd, considering the context. Cocaine is clearly part of the issue, and directly related to Matthews' question. But to say that Penn raised "drugs" is completely unsupportable. As an aside, you might want to revisit the O'Donnell thread, as you might gain a little perspective on your argument.
Again, both things are valid stories. An obvious example of conservative misinformation is still a "real story", even the Clinton camp got caught smearing Obama. It's hardly a valid criticism to say that MMfA is covering someone in the media instead of criticizing a Democratic candidate.
"when I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible",
Sorry but that excuse only works for Republicans...
Chris Matthews devotes at least half of his show to Hillary Bashing. He has a terminal case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. He's transferred his man crush from GW to Giuliani and is doing what he can to promote him. As Rudy has had a very bad few weeks ,what with the public funding of his mistress's transportation and dog walking, Chis is trying to divert attention. Since he feels that HC has a much better chance of winning the POTUS than Obama he's promoting Obama by default. When Bush's team of thugs smeared people CM called it hardball. When Clinton campaigns he calls it smearing.
wow.. saying cocain twice means you're pushing something. I can see how someone can indirectly do it.. but that doesn't seem to be the purpose. It hurts being direct.
I understand that the purpose of hardball is to push issues.. but I think they're off the ball.. and created their won through the process.