CNN political contributor and reported McCain campaign adviser Castellanos suggested Clinton would poison Obama
SUMMARY: A week after echoing the myth invoked by the Bush administration that there was a link between the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Republican media consultant and CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos stated that if Sen. Hillary Clinton were Sen. Barack Obama's vice president, "I think Barack Obama would have to hire a food tester."
One week after falsely linking the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Iraq, Republican media consultant and CNN political contributor Alex Castellanos said on the May 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that if Sen. Hillary Clinton were Sen. Barack Obama's vice president, "I think Barack Obama would have to hire a food tester ... because these are the most politically ambitious people on the scene in America today." After Castellanos said "food tester," CNN commentator Jack Cafferty said, "Oh, yeah."
On-screen text identified Castellanos as a "GOP Media Consultant," but The New York Times reported on May 12 that he is "now an outside adviser to [Sen. John] McCain's advertising team." Blitzer introduced him only as "Alex Castellanos" and, returning from live coverage of an Obama speech, as "Alex." CNN transcripts of the appearance identify Castellanos as a "CNN political contributor." At no point was his reported link to the McCain campaign noted. By contrast, Blitzer noted that Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons is "a major Obama supporter."


As Media Matters for America noted, during coverage of returns from the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries on May 6, Castellanos echoed the claim furthered by the Bush administration that there was a link between the 9-11 attacks and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. During Castellanos' appearance, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, referring to the war in Iraq, asked of a potential Obama presidency: "Will he take us to war on a lie and see all of our troops die on a lie? And not ask for forgiveness?" Castellanos then interjected: "The planes crashing into a building. ... Planes crashed into a building. It was not a lie."
As Media Matters has also noted, Castellanos created the racially charged "Hands" advertisement, which ran on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) during his 1990 re-election campaign against Harvey Gantt, the first black mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. The ad featured a pair of white hands crumpling a job-rejection letter while a narrator says:
You needed that job. And you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority, because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is. Gantt supports Ted Kennedy's racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications. You'll vote on this issue next Tuesday. For racial quotas: Harvey Gantt. Against racial quotas: Jesse Helms.
Castellanos produced another racially charged ad that Helms' campaign ran in the weeks before the election. According to a November 2, 1990, New York Times report, the ad claimed that "Mr. Gantt obtained a television license in 1985 under a program to assist minority businessmen and that he and his partners soon sold it." Gantt denied that race had anything to do with his obtaining the license, a claim reportedly backed up by a Federal Communications Commission official. The Washington Post reported on November 4, 1990: "In fact, the racial preference program played no part in the FCC's final decision [to award Gantt's group the license], according to William Johnson, deputy administrator of the mass media division. Johnson said all qualified competitors to the Gantt group dropped out, and minority participation is a factor only in competitive decisions.
From the May 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Let's take a look ahead to what we're about to hear from Barack Obama.
Joining us now for some analysis: our own Jack Cafferty, and Gloria Borger, and Alex Castellanos.
We're looking at these live pictures. The senator in Missouri, Claire McCaskill, a major Barack Obama supporter, Jack, is introducing Barack Obama. He's made a very important decision tonight. He's not in one of these states that still has primaries. He's already moving on. He's in Missouri, a state he narrowly, narrowly carried in the state's primary earlier in the year, which he would desperately need to carry if in fact he goes against John McCain in the fall.
So, he's made a decision. He's going to be speaking tonight, and he's also going to be speaking before the results in West Virginia come in. In fact, she's just finished introducing him, and he's about to start speaking. You can see the people standing up to hear him -- hear his remarks. He's got a lot of ardent supporters there. And it's significant that he's doing this before the results come in.
Let's listen in to Barack Obama as he speaks. These will be his only public -- this will be his only public appearance tonight.
[...]
BLITZER: You know, but, Alex, that same poll showed that McCain is pretty competitive with both Obama and Clinton in a hypothetical match-up, at least right now.
[...]
BLITZER: I'm going to walk over to our other analysts and get their thoughts on what we've just heard. Jamal Simmons, a major Obama supporter, if I must say. What do you -- what do you think about this strategy of forgetting about West Virginia -- at least on this night -- Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, the other remaining states, but already leapfrogging over to Missouri?
[...]
BORGER: And I think, you know, going back to this -- to this marriage of convenience that we all seem to want, you know -- one thing I think of when I think of Hillary Clinton as vice president is don't forget, she spent eight years observing the vice presidency very closely. Some in that White House, particularly those who worked for Al Gore, thought she was undermining the vice president for much of that time.
CAFFERTY: No.
BORGER: She has a very interesting view of the vice presidency, because she did have a big chunk of his job, some would say. She might not think a lot of the vice presidency. You know, I'm not sure that -- that it's --
BLITZER: Alex, go ahead.
BORGER: I think she would take it, but --
CASTELLANOS: And I think Barack Obama would have to hire a food tester --
CAFFERTY: Oh, yeah.
CASTELLANOS: -- because these are the most politically ambitious people on the scene in America today. And hey, look -- it cancels out. It's matter and anti-matter. His message is change. And I think as Jack said, to pick as a vice presidential running mate someone who represents experience and the status quo, to the degree she does, I think would shut him down.
BORGER: And McCain has to go for change, right? And youth and inexperience, right?
CAFFERTY: And plus, he hasn't asked her yet.















Exactly - funny how the DC madam hanged herself just as she was thinking about finally naming names.
And I'm sure that virtually all of those names on her list had an "R" after them.....
When he's not in Washington, David Vitter can be found at the Starbucks in my neighborhood on any given morning. I have been sooo tempted to give him grief... ;>)
When he's not in Washington, David Vitter can be found at the Starbucks in my neighborhood on any given morning. I have been sooo tempted to give him grief... ;>)
Oh, do - PLEASE do!!!! :-)
ELITEST!!!!
I'm no elitist - I just like to see politicians squirm.
For example, I used to live in NJ and my Congressman at one point was Dean Gallo - a man who had been a director of one of the many savings and loans that went belly-up during the S&L scandal. And every time he was running for re-election and I saw him outside the local mall shaking hands, I would say in a loud voice, "Oh, look - It's DEAN GALLO - THE BANK BOUNCER."
(I think you can tell I never voted for the guy....)
But didn't the Clintons' kill a whole list of people to get where they are? Hell, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the idiots keep preaching that the Clintons' had something to do with Vince Fosters' death. Tommy, do you really think that many of the RightWinger Weenies wouldn't think that. Not believe it, but think it and repeat what Castro has to say.
P.S. Who is this squirrel Castellanos? Is he on the roster or do I need to buy a new scorecard?
If he wasn't serious, then that means he was just trying to be funny.
What is the joke?
What about discussing and debating the validity of giving Castellanos, someone with no credibility on the subject at hand, air time to deliver his hackery?
Is it just not patronizing enough for you?
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama." Hillary Clinton today on the campaign trail
Versus this hack suggesting that she won't! He exaggerated by saying that Clinton might poison the guy, but the fact that it was an exaggeration doesn't excuse the behavior.
That's the issue. It's not a joke. It's not funny. And it's not accurate either. It promotes the conservative agenda that Hillary is a backstabber.
Oh, and I almost forgot...
After all, isn't this what we watch a "news" channel for? To see GOP hacks making conservative funnies about Democrats poisoning each other?
I think the Dept. of Homeland Security should investigate whether or not Alex Castellanos in funneling money to Al-Qaeda.
And the Secret Service might be interested in interrogating someone talking about poisoning a presidential candidate.....
Well this is said tongue in cheek of course & I've heard several others [including a few folks on MSNBC] say something similar, but I suppose this type of remark is best left for late night talk show hosts & SNL.
Of course whether it's Jay Leno or some pundit-- it's the same message, just a different messenger.
I laughed. But hey I know it's just humor & not meant to be taken seriously. Some won't agree, I'm sure....
J,
It's just the way MMFA presents it, as if this Castellanos guy were serious in his "suggestion", it's ridiculous. At least qualify the entire thread by saying it was a tasteless, stupid joke - which it was......but reading the copy of this thread you'd think he really believes and is suggesting that a major presidential candidate would actually poison another.....just silly.
By treating this as some serious suggestion is ridiculous, when it is not. If you don't get my point Gov, tough.
Nevertheless, Castellanos does raise an important issue... I think John McCain would have to hire a diaper changer.
He already has. Her name is Cindy Lou. :-)
WRONG!
MMFA asks its readers to "TAKE ACTION" and "contact" both Wolf Blitzer and CNN:
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
...just silly?
Yea...perhaps to sane, rational people. However, folks like Rush Limbaugh, with millions of devoted listeners, have repeatedly implied or suggested, if not directly stated, that the Clintons are not only capable of committing murder. In that context, these present remarks in question are not that bizarre.
Oh please, so your argument is because some wacko may believe this as being serious that somehow justifies MMFA treating it as such? If that is the case, then Hillary should sue for defamation of character, or slander, will she?
Or does she know, like the rest of us, that it's politics and partisan punditry......gee, imagine that.
It's just a joke. But you know how it is here ;-)
No Gov, the stupid part is even giving it a thread.
Protesting? Nah, just voicing my opinion. I understand you don't know the difference. No surprise there...
This is no big deal. Only an idiot wouldn't get the humor.
And yes Gov, humor is allowed when talking politics.
After watching the video, the guy seemed pretty serious to me, it was the others that laughed.
It was NOT meant as a joke.
Im personally really sick of the horrid people on "news" shows saying these types of things about people. What the hell has happened to people these days.
"At least qualify the entire thread by saying it was a tasteless, stupid joke"
Wait just freakin' minute. Wasn't it you who said that humor is a matter of personal taste? A matter of opinion?
Perhaps it's an opinion we may see expressed by the likes of Foser or Boehlert in an opinion piece, but now you're changing gears and expecting MMFA to deliver a psychoanalysis of every person at the center of a "joke" item?
Do you also expect them to beak with their normal methodology on falsehoods and start making conclusions such as "lying" or "just plain stupid"?
Pete, If you think Castellanos was serious in his suggestion, then fine. I don't. MMFA putting this thread up is tantamount to saying Castellanos is serious. If they believe that he was, then it's pretty damn serious and there should be legal action taken, slandering a public official by suggesting she is capable of plotting an attempted murder is serious stuff, don't you think?
If they don't think it's serious, then MMFA is being disingenuous, at best. You tell me which it is.
On target, Pete.
So now it's about credibility? Goalpost shift, much? Is Paul Begala credible when he discusses GOP politics, or Donna Brazile, or any other admitted partisan when they are on these networks? He is clearly labeled a GOP consultant, providing the viewer with proper information and context to evaluate his partisan comments.
This intolerance that many have for another viewpoint is getting a little ridiculous.
Not limiting discussion to your rigid framework is not a goalpost shift.
That's the issue. It's not a joke. It's not funny. And it's not accurate either. It promotes the conservative agenda that Hillary is a backstabber. It's not a goalpost shift at all. It is the exact target of Media Matters.
Pete, If your claim is that this goes to credibility, then if this "poison" statement was made a rightwinger who is far more credible in your book, then you're saying that MMFA would have no reason to put it here? It's only here because Castellanos is not credible and is in no position to speak of this?
Is that your argument now?
"Is Paul Begala credible when he discusses GOP politics, or Donna Brazile, or any other admitted partisan when they are on these networks?"
Link me to whatever Newbusters item your referring to and I'll meet you there.
Here's a funny one from Paul Begala commenting on his own party:
-- We cannot win with eggheads and african-americans --
Now that's funny...I don't care who you are.
Geez Snoop you could have warned me your link was to a Gay website!
Not that theres anything wrong with that ;-)
Down my throat :-O
hehehe...watch it Snoop!
Why don't you ask those who have laid out their Alzheimer's references to McCain on these threads in a "joking" manner, what's funny about that?
Again, show me where I ever expressed amusement at tasteless joking about McCain's age and I'll gladly own up to it.
I don't religiously enforce decency standards on MMFA posters because (A) it's not my responsibility and (B) their lack of reach, credentials and notoriety make it a waste of my time.
I have, on occasion, let people know what I think of tasteless statements made here, but it's not why I'm here and I don't make a conscience effort to address them all. Besides, I don't have to with the likes of you and Jeter around.
I never said you specifically did or didn't.....that was not my point. My point was that these "jokes" are nearly always partisan driven, what's funny to a staunch Democrat is insulting to a stauch Republican - and vice versa.
This throwaway comment by Castellanos is ridiculous, and if you think it rises to some conservative misinformation threshhold, then we disagree.
We don't think that it rises to that level. We know it does, and so does Media Matters.
This guy exaggerated by saying that Clinton might poison the guy, but the fact that it was an exaggeration doesn't excuse the behavior.
That's the issue. It's not a joke. It's not funny. And it's not accurate either. It promotes the conservative agenda that Hillary is a backstabber. It is a smear. Hillary said today
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."
It's the misinformation.
I call BS.....
This is the reason MM reports on this, this guy is a McCain adviser and to spread stinking lies and innuendoes like this is something McCain has said HE WOULD NOT DO!
So much for honesty from McCain, and if he does not tell this guy to take a hike, I will have lost what little respect I had left for McCain.
Lorelei, McCain already has forgotten that he said that yesterday.
All of these McCain consultants speak for some part of his campaign so they should be called out on everything, just like the consultants for the Dems. The difference being, when a Dem(MS FERRARO) says something, he/she is evil. When a Republan says something wrong, it is just a JOKE??? Therefore, this whole Presidential campaign will be won on who has the funniest consultants. PROJECTED Winner: John McCain...with a special thank you to Rush Limbaugh
Well, that is part of my problem with all this. Republicans don't seem to have much issue with torturing captives either, so I am guessing that they might not really have an issue with someone murdering another either which is why they can be so frigging cavalier about these inane statements.
It is so EASY for them to just drip those kinds of things right off their forked tongue.
Honestly, they scare the crap out of me.
This is certainly not a major example of misinformation, but I think it is valid for MMFA to point it out.
Clintons as murderers (Hillary was having an affair with Vince Foster, and she and her lesbian lover offed him by the Tidal Basin etc) has been a mjor wingnut talking point for over twelve years. It is not just a few whackos who have bought this story- it is widely accepted by (I would guess) millions. When Castellanos makes a comment like this, he knows EXACTLY what he is saying, and what talking point he is promoting, even if it is in the form of a joke.
It would be similar if a Democratic shill said that Gramps can't choose Condi Rice as his running mate because people would think she is the mother of his child: a bad joke that serves to keep a lie in circulation.