MSNBC's O'Donnell claimed Penn "on his own brought up cocaine" -- but Matthews started conversation
SUMMARY: On the December 13 edition of Tucker, Norah O'Donnell asserted that during the same day's Hardball, Clinton adviser Mark Penn "once again brought up cocaine -- twice" in relation to Sen. Barack Obama and later claimed that Penn "on his own brought up cocaine." In fact, the entire Hardball segment was devoted to controversial remarks regarding Obama's past drug use made by Clinton's campaign co-chair, who later resigned. Chris Matthews explicitly asked Penn at least three distinct questions about the topic, and Penn had offered at least two specific responses before he used the word "cocaine."
During the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, guest host Norah O'Donnell highlighted an exchange from the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball in which host Chris Matthews interviewed Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) chief strategist, David Axelrod, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) chief strategist, Mark Penn, and adviser to former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Joe Trippi. Matthews and his guests discussed controversial remarks about Obama's past drug use made by William Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair who subsequently resigned. O'Donnell asserted that Penn "once again brought up cocaine -- twice" and later claimed that Penn "on his own brought up cocaine." In fact, contrary to O'Donnell's assertion that Penn "on his own brought up cocaine," the entire Hardball segment was devoted to the controversy over Shaheen's comments. Matthews explicitly asked Penn at least three distinct questions about the topic, and Penn had offered at least two specific responses before he used the word "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."
Talking Points Memo blogger-reporter Greg Sargent made these same points in response to an article by New York Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye, which contained the following sentence: "They argued with one another, and it was there that Mr. Penn dropped the word 'cocaine,' saying that the Clinton campaign had not raised the issue of 'cocaine use.' " Sargent wrote:
It's hard to overstate how reckless this representation of the facts is. Seelye simply tells you that the advisers "argued" without saying what they argued about -- and then says Penn dropped the "cocaine" word, suggesting he brought up the drug question out of nowhere.
But if you watch the actual exchange, which is posted over at Taylor Marsh's site, you see that virtually the entire segment was about the drug flap, and that they'd been talking about the drug thing for literally minutes before Penn said "cocaine." Even if you want to read something into Penn using the word "cocaine," rather than "drug," failing to tell readers that this whole conversation was about the drug flap is a blatant misrepresentation of what happened. And no, slugging this a "news analysis" doesn't make it okay -- this is a factual misrepresentation, and it is the key piece of evidence offered to support the entire speculative premise of the piece, i.e., that the Hillary camp wants to keep this alive.
Matthews first asked Penn, "Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say?" Penn replied, "Oh, I don't know," before going on to say: "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."
Matthews then asked Penn, "Did you tell him to step down? Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it. Do you think he did it in time to stop this from becoming a story?" Penn replied: "I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn't condone it. We weren't part of these -- of the story that he went on with. And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign."
Matthews continued, asking Penn: "These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I'm not sure how they're coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt?" It was in response to this third question that Penn said: "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." In total, Penn answered questions from Matthews and spoke for 1 minute and 43 seconds from the time he responded to Matthews' first question until he said the word "cocaine."
Matthews began the segment with Axelrod, Penn, and Trippi by asking Axelrod, "[A]re you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top?"
From the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
O'DONNELL: But this was a big issue on Hardball tonight. And Mark Penn, who is Senator Clinton's chief strategist, was on Hardball, and he once again brought up cocaine -- twice. Take a listen.
[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.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: That, of course, is Bill Trippi who is with -- Joe Trippi, rather --
BILL PRESS (nationally syndicated radio host) : Joe Trippi, right.
O'DONNELL: -- who is with the Edwards campaign, and Axelrod, who is with the Obama campaign. But Mark Penn, the chief strategist, on his own brought up cocaine. What does that tell you, Bill?
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, David Axelrod, are you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top?
AXELROD: Look, I have no way of knowing that. They say that, and we have to accept them at their word. I'll say this, Chris. When you, when you launch a negative attack and you say that this is the fun part of the campaign, you send a signal down the line to others in the campaign that leads to this kind of thing.
And so whether or not there was an instruction to Mr. Shaheen, I think it's important that a signal get sent right from the top of the campaign that this isn't encouraged, that it's not the fun part of the campaign, that we ought to be lifting up this country instead of trying to tear each other down.
MATTHEWS: Are you serving notice by your comment right now and your comment in the spin room that any further negative attack or suggestion by one of the Clinton people will come from Hillary?
AXELROD: Well, I -- I'm not suggesting that, Chris. But I will say this. Unless there's a strong, consistent signal from the top, unless we refrain from saying things like, "Negative campaigning is the fun part of the campaign," you're going to have that happening. There's sort of -- it's sort of a wink-and-a-nod thing. Everybody down the line says, "Oh, well, this is what this is about."
So, I would think that it would be important for all the candidates to send a strong signal to their troops that this isn't where we're going go with this campaign. We're not going take it into the gutter.
MATTHEWS: Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say?
PENN: Oh, I don't know. I think, though, I'm very disappointed by David's comments. I mean, you know, he's trying to rewrite history here. It is his candidate, Senator Barack Obama, on the front page of The New York Times that called Senator Clinton disingenuous.
He started a wave of direct, personal negative attacks. And the senator finally began to reply very substantively that his plan leaves out 15 million people, whereas hers covers every single person. And he kept bringing up an Iran vote that he, in fact, skipped.
So, 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.
MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down?
PENN: The senator made that clear.
No, he stepped down. And he made clear --
MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it.
Do you think he did it in time --
PENN: No. No.
MATTHEWS: -- to stop this from becoming a story?
PENN: I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn't condone it. We weren't part of these -- of the story that he went on with.
And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign.
MATTHEWS: Right.
PENN: And I think it's very important. She has been running a year-long positive campaign in which she's out there talking about ending the Iraq war and health care for all.
MATTHEWS: These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I'm not sure how they're coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt?
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.
What excellent and thorough analysis. Kudos to MMFA for highlighting it here. Let's hope the MSM pick it up. The ones who should really be on the hot seat now are Matthews and O'Donnell. What's up with these guys? Are they that desperate for ratings?
Worker for Madame Hillary/ AKA MMFA #1
Mindless stupidity on display, in every copiousignorance post
Thank goodness the Hillary camp is made up of good liberals. If a conservative or a republican was doing this to an African American, it would be racism at its worst.
Worker for Madame Hillary/ AKA MMFA #2
Do you think that gets more clever every time you post that? Maybe your mom is just humoring you, ever consider that?
Well of course it's the Matthew's fault for having the audacity to even ask questions about a Hillary backer planting smears about Obama to the media, and he of course forced Penn to say "Cocaine".I was curious how MMFA would attempt to spin this story.Lame guys.BTW, next time someone here writes Karl Rove, I'm gonna write back Mark Penn.Rove finally has an equally sleazy Democratic counterpart.Why am I not surprised he works for Hillary?
someone working for hillary outed an undercover agent? someone working for hillary broke their security oaths by revealing classified information? someone working for hillary destroyed a network of overseas informants? and what was bush's reaction when rove and libby did that? nothing. he should have kicked both their asses to the curb. i think your partisanship is a little obvious here.
Mark Penn is but a rookie [compared to Rove] but from what I've seen thus far [and remember this isn't the first time Clinton's camp has smeared Obama] Penn looks to be a quick study.
Have you seen/heard this guy? He's got sleaze written all over him.
He's got a ways to catch up to Rove, but he's got potential.
"sleaze written all over him" is your opinion, which you are basing on your dislike of hillary. my contempt for rove is based on fact. he has a long history of scummy behavior, capped off by his participation in the outing of a cia agent, something that damaged our national security. i can't imagine a president like eisenhower who would have tolerated something like that. but there was bush when rove left, gushing about what a great guy rove was. the entire republican establishment has never uttered a word of criticism of rove. rove is scum.
Jeter, I know you go from reasonable to wingnutty like the tides (mostly reasonable, for a Yanks fan), but did you get your skull mixed up with Tommy's in the gym locker room or something?
The item above is about O'Donnell's claim based on the clipped transcript.Your shiny-coin, look-over-here trick was as clumsy as a Tommy Special.
Jeter, I know you go from reasonable to wingnutty like the tides
Well let's first TRANSLATE Beach's above observation & what he really means:
Reasonable Jeter is the one that agrees with Liberals, or doesn't point out where MMFA is spinning stories to fit a certain Liberal bias/agenda. Another words if you agree with the bobbleheads, you are reasonable ;-)
Wingnutty Jeter offers up an opposing position/opinions/views. Sometimes asks WITH? Will point out the obvious like--->MMFA is spinning a story to fit their mission statement.
Ok, now Beach WHO said cocaine? Answer: Mark Penn.
Did he need to get specific? Answer: No
Matthews was asking a legitimate question about the dirty little trick the Clinton backer had pulled bringing up Obama's drug use. Matthews never said cocaine....
Let's not play stupid & pretend that Penn didn't purposely throw the word Cocaine into the mix.
So yes he brought up the word FIRST.
No misinformation, just more nit-picking thrown in with a dollop of disingenuous from MMFA. Spun well. Well actually, not too well. Very transparently as a matter of fact.
Now Beach I have to go snow-blow my driveway...we've got about a foot of snow already & it's still coming down. Hope the weathers nice out in Cali :-)
"Wingnutty" aside, HBL's point was valid. The article isn't blaming Matthews for anything. If you read it, then there should be no valid reason for saying that.
Also, the point isn't that Penn "said" cocaine. That's different from "bringing up" cocaine. That's not word-parsing, that's a genuine difference. If the problem is that he said the word first, then O'Donnell should have phrased it that way. Saying he "brought it up" while cutting the video to exclude Matthews' question makes it look like he broached a new subject or an unrelated aspect of a topic. As it was, Matthews asked about the publicizing of Obama's "youthful drug use", which involved cocaine.
Something else I'm curious about, if Penn was really so eager to make the cocaine reference, why didn't he throw it in after the first question to him? Why not for the second question? I find it remarkable that he knew he'd get a third chance on this specific topic, and that it would be phrased in such a way that using the word would be directly relevant to the question.
The weather's beautiful, Jeter. Your translation of my comment ,on the other hand, not so pretty. ;0)
Please don't bother "translating" my posts in the future.Let's just keep that alternate reality between your ears.
And I hope you didn't slip on the ice.I had to put on long pants tonight, if that makes you feel better. ;0)
The point isn't about criticizing Matthews for anything. The point is that O'Donnell misrepresented the conversation.
From what I've seen, Penn is underhanded, a win-at-all-costs operator. But let's make genuine criticisms instead of lying about him bringing up drug use here.
On Good Morning America this morning, they just reported that Penn brought it up . These stories leak all over the msm. good job MMFA
ok, media matters has officially jumped the shark
Reading the transcript here it's hard to even figure out what was going on. At first I thought Penn was off-camera but miked and mumbling out he word "cocaine" every few seconds over Trippi's comments while he was speaking - like some Beavis and Butthead skitt.
I had to view the actual footage before I realized, as I heard the audio, that I had this same Matthews show playing on the TV behind me as it aired live that evening and thought it so trivial I didn't even turn around to watch.
Mathews said nothing - or asked no questions - that aren't going to be asked elsewhere. For him, he was just doing his job. Matthews' intent is no different than someone like Savage - the only difference is Matthews uses set-up lines and trick questions to try and get his guests to spew tommorrows headline quote of the day, rather than actually saying the words himself. Either way, it's all about ratings - and neither is as dumb as they sometimes sound.
You completely miss the point. While the show was certainly discussing Shaheen's comments... Penn was the first one to bring up the word cocaine. If he were trying to be apologetic and disavow the remarks, then he would have use a less inflamatory word choice not a more inflamatory word.
While it may have been a factually correct statement... It would have been like a surrogate for Obama's campaign bringing up Clinton's indiscretions and then Axelrod saying we really are upset about this and wish no one were talking about the stain he left on Monica's dress.
Penn did it intentionally and it got the desired result. I am fully in favor of pointing out bias and false information in the media. However, on this one you are way off. Penn was attempting to further the story and smear Obama. That is why the Clinton campaign's claims of innocence rang so false.
I'm sorry, but isn't the key word in O'Donnell's assertion 'cocaine'? Isn't the point that Penn decided to say cocaine use when others were simply saying 'drug'? How is this anything other than Clinton misinformation?
Is that supposed to be some important distinction? As if the topic is drugs, but it's somehow a relevant point that Penn specified a drug? Wasn't that a drug that Obama is supposed to have used? Obviously it's relevant to the conversation.
I just don't see how that helps. She clipped the conversation, which hides the fact that they were talking about drugs, and makes it look like he brought up the whole thing out of nowhere. To suggest that O'Donnell knows that they were talking about drugs but still is trying to make a point about this would make her intellectually dishonest. I'd say that's worse than her being uninformed or just missing the context accidentally.
It's a pretty important distinction. Matthews said drug use. More than once he said it. Penn goes out of his way to say the word 'cocaine,' so instead of trying to generalize the story, and be done with it, he adds more information to the story. I'm not sure how many people really think the NH guy was working by himself on this, but the way Penn is handling it surely gives reason for some doubt.
Then he didn't "bring it up", did he? Specifying is not the same as bringing up a topic out of nowhere.
Please answer some questions so I know exactly what argument you think you're establishing here;
1)Where did O'Donnell's clip of the conversation begin?
2)What happened before that point?
3)Would someone watching the clip know that the topic was drugs?
4)Does the lack of context change the impression those viewers get?
5)When someone uses the phrase to "bring (something) up", does that normally refer to the broaching of a different subject, or at least something tangential to the subject at hand?
6)Do you really think that given the editing, that most people would accept this phrasing as a reference to Penn bringing up a word? Does it make a difference that the audience doesn't know that Penn was specifying?
7)Considering that Obama admitted using cocaine, and the topic was Obama's drug use, then why wouldn't Penn consider those two things to be synonymous? Is that connection really unreasonable?
8)If you have to use the same word over and over, do you not try to find a substitute for it? Isn't it fairly elementary for anyone writing or speaking to try not to use the same term repeatedly where a reasonable substitute can be used?
Finally, and most importantly;
9)If O'Donnell created a false impression about what transpired in the conversation, then how is that not misinformation?
Thanks in advance.
On the contrary, he brought up cocaine all on his own.
1)It did not begin at the beginning of the discussion on drug use, but it did begin just before Penn took it upon himself to utter the word cocaine making it perfectly reflective of O'Donnell's comment.
2)General discussion about drug use and the Clinton campaign-created story.
3) I think they could make the fair assumption, yes.
4)Lack of context changes an impression in terms of degree, but again, what O'Donnell said is exactly what happened.
5)He brought up cocaine. He did. No one else said it. He did.
6)He didn't bring up a word. He brought up a specific drug. The fact that he was specifying does not make it better. It suggests he's going out of his way to plant the word cocaine in the minds of voters. Not at all unlike the way the story got started in the first place.
7) Because Penn's not an idiot. It's not whether it's reasonable or not. It's the motivation behind the logic. Why say cocaine when the conversation is one you don't want to have? Why say cocaine if you don't want to specifically say cocaine? And if you do want to say cocaine, why do you want to say cocaine?
8)Actually, and I'm not looking at the transcript, it seems like this may have been the first Penn used either drug or cocaine. Either way, we all know there are different connotations behind the words drug and cocaine. They are not synonymous to the public at large. And that is to whom Penn is speaking. He's reminding the people at large that Obama used cocaine while at the same time saying it's not what the campaign is concerned with. It's textbook.
9)She didn't. What she said is exactly what happened.
You're welcome.
1)It did not begin at the beginning of the discussion on drug use, but it did begin just before Penn took it upon himself to utter the word cocaine making it perfectly reflective of O'Donnell's comment.
So it cut off the entire topic, essentially.
2)General discussion about drug use and the Clinton campaign-created story.
Yes, the topic was Obama's drug use. Not drug use in general.
3) I think they could make the fair assumption, yes.
How would that be a "fair" assumption? The viewer has no idea what the topic was at all. Why would they assume that O'Donnell means that Penn is "bringing up" a specific word as opposed to a topic, as the phrase is generally used?
4)Lack of context changes an impression in terms of degree, but again, what O'Donnell said is exactly what happened.
Only if the viewer is operating under the assumption that the topic was drugs. Otherwise, the impression is wildly different because it would appear that Penn was introducing the subject out of nowhere.
5)He brought up cocaine. He did. No one else said it. He did.
Blatant dodge. That's not even attempting to answer the actual question.
6)He didn't bring up a word. He brought up a specific drug. The fact that he was specifying does not make it better. It suggests he's going out of his way to plant the word cocaine in the minds of voters. Not at all unlike the way the story got started in the first place.
How is it going "out of his way" to mention a specific drug when the topic is the story of Obama's drug use and Obama used that specific drug? See, there's the context that the viewers didn't get. It might appear to be going out of his way when the actual conversation shows otherwise.
7) Because Penn's not an idiot. It's not whether it's reasonable or not. It's the motivation behind the logic. Why say cocaine when the conversation is one you don't want to have? Why say cocaine if you don't want to specifically say cocaine? And if you do want to say cocaine, why do you want to say cocaine?
Of course it's whether it's reasonable or not. If it's a reasonable and understandable use of a word, then you can't very well say he's "going out of his way" to use it, can you? And beyond that point, there's no way to question motivation, because there's no suspicious act to be analyzed.
1)Again, the question is not whether there was conversation regarding drugs or anything else before hand. The question was whether or not the conversation centered around--or even made reference to cocaine. It had not. Penn made the reference on his own under the auspices of claiming the Clinton campaign didn't want to talk about cocaine use. Just as I'm sure Huckabee doesn't want to talk about how Mormon's believe the Devil and Jesus are brothers.
2)More specifically, it was a conversation with a Clinton campaign official about how another Clinton campaign official had tried to attack Obama over drug use (even questioning whether or not he'd been a drug dealer).
3) Again, it's more than a word. But yes, it is a fair assumption in the context of the news day, that they were discussing the story of the day.
4) I understand your point. I just think you're wrong.
5) No, it's not dodging the question. It's asserting the question's fundamental flaw. It presents a false assumption.
6) The topic was the story. The story was the Clinton campaign attacking Obama's drug use. He was trying to dodge the story while perpetuating it.
7) It's not whether or not it's reasonable because reason doesn't mean just. It means reasoned. Rational. Logical. You can be reasoned and malicious. Also, if the prevailing way is to say 'drug' then to change that way and say 'cocaine' is to go out of your way.
1)Again, the question is not whether there was conversation regarding drugs or anything else before hand...
It doesn't have to center around specifics. If we're talking about the Mitchell report and you mention Roger Clemens, that's related to the subject, whether the name had come up beforehand or not. Obviously there's a difference between that context and you bringing up Roger Clemens when we're talking about Russian literature. It's not like if we're talking about the Mitchell report I'm going to make a point that you brought up a relevant aspect of the topic. It's not unreasonable, so there's no purpose to mentioning it. Even if you have a long-time hatred of Clemens, and have stated so before, I'd understand how you would mention his name in that situation.
2)More specifically, it was a conversation with a Clinton campaign official about how another Clinton campaign official had tried to attack Obama over drug use (even questioning whether or not he'd been a drug dealer).
Yes, that is the context the viewer was missing. That bolsters my point as to how "cocaine" is relevant, since that was part of the attack.
3) Again, it's more than a word. But yes, it is a fair assumption in the context of the news day, that they were discussing the story of the day.
Was this the big story of the MSM news cycle, or just what they happened to be talking about on Hardball? I agree it makes a difference, but it still calls on the viewer to make assumptions while a more complete video clip would make things clearer.
4) I understand your point. I just think you're wrong.
Based on...?
5) No, it's not dodging the question. It's asserting the question's fundamental flaw. It presents a false assumption.
Really? "5)When someone uses the phrase to "bring (something) up", does that normally refer to the broaching of a different subject, or at least something tangential to the subject at hand?" What false assumption is there in that completely generalized question? Do explain.
6) The topic was the story. The story was the Clinton campaign attacking Obama's drug use. He was trying to dodge the story while perpetuating it.
He was asked about the story. How could he avoid perpetuating it, even if he said "drugs" instead of "cocaine"? That doesn't even rely on different connotations.
7) It's not whether or not it's reasonable because reason doesn't mean just. It means reasoned. Rational. Logical. You can be reasoned and malicious. Also, if the prevailing way is to say 'drug' then to change that way and say 'cocaine' is to go out of your way.
But then malicious is an assumption. If it's reasonable, then you can understand the usage without malice. The "prevailing" way has nothing to do with it. Cocaine was directly involved in the charges of drug use, so there's no great logical leap involved there.
Again, what you're asking people to assume, and what you seem to be allowing yourself to assume is that Penn doesn't recognize a difference between 'drug use' and 'cocaine use.' That they truly are synonymous to him? Not just abstractly, and arguably synonymous, but in actuality. That's not a well-reasoned assumption. It's not entirely unreasonable, it's simply not very well-reasoned. In fact, it's sort of far-fetched. What seems far more reasonable is that he recognized the difference all too well; that he consciously chose to use what he knew to be the far more loaded phrase as opposed to the one repeatedly used prior; and that the most reasonable hypothesis would be that his motivations were something less than noble. Explain why this is unclear.
What a preposterous house of cards you're building.
So if Penn sees any difference between "drug" and "cocaine", then there's malicious purpose. Maybe considering that "cocaine" was the drug in question, he didn't see such a large difference that the reference would seem inappropriate.
Take a look at yourself. You're talking about me making assumptions when your entire argument is based on assumptions. People will know that the topic was drug use. If Penn sees any difference between the two terms, then it's nefarious. I never said he had to see some absolute, unquestionably identical meaning for the terms, just that they're synonymous. That can be abstractly or arguably synonymous.
So your post is based on a strawman. I never made that argument, and you're trying to make your load of nonsense look sensible compared to it.
I'm still waiting for you to justify your comments on question 5. What was the false assumption I was making there? Until you can address that question honestly, then you have no grounds to say this is not misinformation on O'Donnell's part.
On the contrary, cocaine was not the only drug in question. It was simply the most socially unacceptable of the drugs in question. That in itself is a pretty important distinction. One you may not be aware of, and one that may be causing your inability to recognize why this is obviously devious.
I don't think I'm arguing against making assumptions. I'm arguing against making stupid assumptions that have relationship with abstract thought. Your assumption is that people are stupid. Mine is that people are not. Neither the speaker nor his audience. If he sees the difference between the two phrases and still chooses to use the more loaded, more socially unacceptable of the two, then he's probably doing it for a specific reason. One that does not jive with his stated claim that it's not the campaign's interest to discuss cocaine use. Explain how this is nonsense.
As for number five, you were implying that Penn did not bring up a new or even tangential topic. That's not accurate. It's a misleading question because it's not apt in this context because, yeah, Penn did bring up cocaine. All by himself.
If cocaine is the more loaded charge, then obviously that is a reason to bring it up in itself. Because that's the most serious part of what the Clinton campaign publicized, then obviously that's a specific he can and probably should address. Bringing up the fact that there's more than one drug in question only introduces a valid reason to specify. Not a thoughtful argument there.
"As for number five, you were implying that Penn did not bring up a new or even tangential topic. That's not accurate. It's a misleading question because it's not apt in this context because, yeah, Penn did bring up cocaine. All by himself."
Actually, the question itself was general. If you thought that was a valid argument, you could have made it, explaining why there is some exception to the normal usage of the phrase. How is cocaine a "new or tangential topic"? It simply isn't. It's directly related and directly relevant to the publicized charges that Matthews asked about. Make up your mind. Earlier you said it was about bringing up a specific term, now you're going to argue that it's bringing up a new topic?
Try to make a little more sense.
If cocaine is the more loaded charge, then obviously that is a reason to bring it up in itself. Because that's the most serious part of what the Clinton campaign publicized, then obviously that's a specific he can and probably should address.
I totally agree with that as a rationale. I simply state that it goes absolutely against the narrative the Clinton campaign is trying to present: that the Bill Shaheen comments were totally unauthorized by the campaign. You can't disavow a story and then try and capitalize on it. Not honestly, anyhow.
Bringing up the fact that there's more than one drug in question only introduces a valid reason to specify. Not a thoughtful argument there.
Again, his stated intent is the exact opposite of the one you're putting forth to justify his use of the phrase.
Actually, the question itself was general.
It was general insofar as the language was not specific, but when viewed in context, you're speaking about something very specific. The answer to the general question: does bringing something up mean 'bringing something up'? is clearly yes, but in the context the question is misleading because the implication is an answer in the affirmative proves your argument. It does not. Why? Because Penn brought up cocaine all by himself. He brought up a specific drug in an attempt by your own admission to perpetuate a story that he's claiming to put to rest. The old topic was the story of drug use the Clinton campaign created and tried to distance itself from. The new topic is the use by Barrack Obama of not just drugs, but cocaine.
You seem to misunderstand the context of the conversation. Penn is trying to distance himself from the talk of drugs and cocaine. Or is he? It is, in the context of this general discussion, about bringing up the topic of cocaine. He's added new and specific information to a story he's claiming to disavow. That's what the O'Donnell comment was about. That's why Joe Trippi (Edwards' guy) had a fit when Penn said it. Whether we want to say it's a new topic or not (it's that too) is a new argument, but it doesn't negate what's already been said.
Try to think abstractly.
I totally agree with that as a rationale. I simply state that it goes absolutely against the narrative the Clinton campaign is trying to present: that the Bill Shaheen comments were totally unauthorized by the campaign. You can't disavow a story and then try and capitalize on it. Not honestly, anyhow.
Well, if he's specifically disavowing the cocaine story, then he can specify it by saying "cocaine".
It was general insofar as the language was not specific, but when viewed in context, you're speaking about something very specific...
That's bizarre. Specifying cocaine does not make it a new topic. That was part of the story of "drug use the Clinton campaign created". I simply don't see how you can say it's a new subject just because of specifics being mentioned about the original subject.
Incidentally, something is not "misleading" just because an honest answer proves my argument. That would be called "valid". I can see you in court now:
Defense attorney:So my client was caught on tape all the way across town when the crime occured. Is it possible for someone to be in two places at once?
You:Objection! The question is misleading.
Judge:How so?
You:It sounds like a general question, but in context the implication of an affirmative answer proves his argument.
Judge:Ummm..right. Overruled.
You seem to misunderstand the context of the conversation. Penn is trying to distance himself from the talk of drugs and cocaine...
What is new and specific? The cocaine story is old. Just mentioning the word isn't adding anything to the criticism of Obama's past behavior. And again, it's possible to disavow something while mentioning what it is you're disavowing. I don't see how Penn saying "cocaine" changes that. That's like some kid's verbal prank. "Did you say 'cocaine'?" "Cocaine? We didn't say that" "You just DID say it!" It's prompted by the conversation at hand. As for Trippi, he may believe what you do, or he may just be trying to make an opposing campaign look bad because they're rivals. Sort of odd to talk about how deceptive one person is but how the reaction of another must be genuine.
Did this attack against Obama help Hillary or hurt Obama? I don't believe it did either. So what I wonder is why would Penn, if he's as clever as you seem to think, want to mention it at all? And as I asked Jeter, why is it he waited so long to bring it up, if he was so eager to do it?
Dude, let's just for a moment go back to the nuts and bolts of this. While he was claiming to not want to discuss the story (which he said was over), that the campaign wanted nothing to do with the comments made by Shaheen, while trying in all ways to distance himself and the campaign from that story, did Penn bring up cocaine use by his candidate's chief opponent? Did he do this all on his own? So why would he do this if the Clinton campaign was not interested in reminding voters of Barrack Obama snorting cocaine? The most plausible answer is one you finally gave a couple of posts ago: that he's actually lying and really does want the voters to think about Barrack Obama using cocaine. Personally, I'm fine with that. Maybe Democratic primary voters should consider that part of a candidate's history to be relavent. In the same way they wanted Republicans and Independants to be turned off by W's alcoholism and possible cocaine use. Or maybe they should treat it like Bill Clinton's philandering. Or his not inhaling, or whatever.
In the end, a campaign uses these things because they suspect it will give them an advantage. I don't know whether this story has hurt or helped either Clinton or Obama. I know it's been a fairly bad media cycle for Clinton, but I also know what the Clinton's know: It's not going to help Obama for people in the midwest to see him as a past abuser of cocaine. Not everybody knows Barrack Obama has used cocaine. More people know this week than knew last week. And my feeling is that probably doesn't help Obama.
In the end though, this whole discussion began around one simple fact, during a discussion on Hardball, Penn took it upon himself to interject cocaine into the discussion. This interjection went directly at odds with the way he was trying to present himself. And regardless of how harmless you may believe it to have been, it was not incidental, nor was it accidental. It was deliberate.
His comments were first criticized by Joe Trippi: conservative misinforming extraordinare, and John Edwards spokesman. Following Trippi's suit, O'Donnell showed all necessary footage to make the accurate assertion that Penn had brought up cocaine on his own.
You may reply, but I cannot guarantee that I will see your reply for several days. I need to sleep.
You're not addressing anything. It's your assertion it was intentional, deliberate. Assumption. It's your assertion that "cocaine" is a new topic. Nonsense. It's your assertion that O'Donnell provided everything the viewer needed to see. Wow.
It's hard to imagine a weaker argument on your part. Based on your unsustainable comments, the lack of context and the unusual usage of "bringing up" is supposed to be understood by everyone watching O'Donnell. It's not misinformation because there's some convoluted rationalization for interpreting her meaning a certain way, where the average viewer has absolutely no means for making such a judgment, or even believing that it's necessary. As if the average viewer is sitting there thinking "well, I don't know what happened before that quote, but I'm going to assume that Matthews had already brought up the topic of drug use...and I'm also going to assume that O'Donnell means 'specifying a term', even though I've never heard anyone use the phrase that way before. What could be more obvious?" It seems much more likely that the average viewer would think that Penn brought up something completely unrelated, apropos of nothing at all. After all, there's no reason, and no context provided for the viewer to think otherwise.
Which would make them misinformed by O'Donnell's deceptive phrasing and editing. I'm sure you're not going to argue that it's unreasonable for a viewer to get the wrong impression from how she portrayed it, no matter how much sleep you get.
Again, I'm not a fan of Penn. If there's valid criticism of him, and I think there is, have at it. But this, in and of itself, is not valid. And O'Donnell shouldn't be behaving in such a way in order to create that impression.
8)Actually, and I'm not looking at the transcript, it seems like this may have been the first Penn used either drug or cocaine. Either way, we all know there are different connotations behind the words drug and cocaine. They are not synonymous to the public at large. And that is to whom Penn is speaking. He's reminding the people at large that Obama used cocaine while at the same time saying it's not what the campaign is concerned with. It's textbook.
That's a fair point. But again, if it's synonymous to him, then it's understandable for him to use the word. It came directly after Matthews talked about Obama's "youthful drug use" - which involved cocaine. Is the story a secret? Is that not the whole point, that the cocaine use was publicized? If the people watching didn't already know that, would they think that the drug use mentioned involved aspirin? If it was something innocent, then why would it be a campaign issue? Why isn't it a "fair assumption" for viewers to conclude that the drug use was something serious anyway?
So the charge here is that in a conversation about the Clinton campaign's publicizing Obama's drug use (cocaine), it's underhanded to specify the drug that they already publicized him as using. We can talk about that, just don't "bring up" what's already the topic at hand.
9)She didn't. What she said is exactly what happened.
Which is why you weren't able to answer question 5? Right. Again, it's only "exactly what happened" to viewers to make an unbased assumption, and who are of the mindset that "bringing up" refers to specifics of the exact subject being discussed instead of something unrelated. You're not going to tell me that that includes most viewers, I hope.
If she was being honest, why didn't she include Matthew's question in the clip? It wouldn't have taken that much more time. By your logic, we have to question her motivation for cutting all that out.
Look, I'm not a fan of Penn either. I'm not a fan of Dan Quayle, but when people bring up his "wish I could speak Latin while I'm in Latin America" quote, I still let them know that he didn't actually say that. It's not honest criticism. If Penn actually does go out of his way to bring up Obama's cocaine use, then criticize him for that, but don't do it when Matthews asks him a question about Obama's "youthful drug use". That's dishonest. And don't defend people who create that impression by cutting out vital context. Dislike him all you want, but let's see some fairness about it.
Don't see it BB. Explain it to me. What missinformation?
If Chris Matthews thinks his grossly unfair coverage favoring Obama and denigrating Clinton is going to help his ratings, or is going to cause his viewers to support Obama over Clinton, he is dead wrong on both counts as far as I'm concerned. I have been a regular viewer of his show until now. From now on I will switched to CNN when he comes on. Also until now I was undecided on which of the Democratic candidate to vote for. Now I'm for Clinton.
This has to be said - I'm tired of the Clinton sleaze merchants attacking Obama with the stupid excuse, "We're just saying what we know the Republicans are going to say in the general election" wink wink - nod nod
And then Hillary supporters keep yammering the, "well, it was only a Hillary staffer - how could SHE possible know what is going on in her own campaign?"
I do not trust Hillary or her campaign to engage in a clean or a fair fight. When Hillary was way ahead in the polls she pretended that she was going to be "above" the fray. Now that it's a real race with Obama gaining in the polls, Hillary's "Now comes the fun part" attack dog style is on display.
I hate to say it, but in many ways Hillary is truly worse than Rove.
I NEVER SEEN SUCH A CONCERTED EFFORT TO GO AT A CANDIDATE AS THERE DOING TO CLINTON. ALOT OF DEMS BLAME HER AND HER HUSBANDS CREW FOR GORES DEFEAT.THE REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT HILLARY IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING. THATS WHY THERE TIPTOWING AROUND OBAMA. ITS GOING TO GET WORSE FOR HILLARY BEFORE IT GETS BETTER.I BELIEVE WHEN THE DUST CLEARS SHE WILL STILL BE STANDING.
The biggest problem we have on the left is our tendency to eat our own. Progressives have at least five oustanding candidates to choose from, yet we allow ourselves to buy into right wing narratives that present our candidates as archetypes as opposed to complex individuals with stellar records of public service.
It is in our nature as Democrats (and independents) to be somewhat cynical and that's what seperates us from the more nationalistic, jingoistic and gullible conservatives. I think they too readily confuse love of party with love of country as is attested to by Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment" . . . "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Even if that fellow republican is an incompetent and inept boob that's taken the nation to the brink of ruin. They take that 11th commandment very seriously and do equate "anti-GOP" and "anti-American." Something that Huckabee will soon learn once talk radio picks up on his recent honest criticism of Bush's foreign policy.
Good points, Kromekom. The right wing base depends on a general agreement on mediocrity,and it keeps the Dems from having the balls to stop shooting for that average -to -lower- common -denominator vote.
It's the dilemma the left faces. Trying to secure the upper half of the average voter, while not alienating the lower half of the average (the cream of the crop of the con base.)
Unfortunately I don't think this phenomenon on the left is likely to change. It's just one result of actually having a true "big tent." I cringe whenever the Republicans claim -- with straight faces -- to be an inclusive party. Its easier to keep people in lockstep when you have optimal degrees of homogeneity. I wouldn't trade our cynicism for their gullability and pragmatism for anything. I just wish we wouldn't buy into right wing talking points like "Hillary's polarizing, O'Bama's inexperienced, Edward's is insincere," etc.
Cris for months now has acted like he's Obama,s campaign manager He pllayed the girl winking after asking Clinton a question 8or 9 times.On Fri show he couldn<t wait to hear who the DDes Moines Reg backed but on Sun.show that was mostly about Clinton, Not one mention of it. I had him tivo for 3 years I know have canceled as he is not acting very professional.It seems the only people he invites are people of like mind.On oterblogs tthere are many comments similiar to mine.
Norah O'Donnell isn't much of a pundit, or a journalist. She is also known to have a pretty serious pro-GOP bias. All the same is true of Chris Matthews. Therefore it is hardly surprising that she or Matthews would attempt to once again slander the leading Democratic contender...thankfully, nobody really cares what either of these two have to say...so it's a mute point.
Ahaa! So this Media-so-called'Matters' website are big Clintonite supporters?????
Well well well...what do we have here?
I'm gonna have fun w/ this...cause whats gonna happen when Ms. Hillary LOSES the nomination???
It sure looks like thats gonna happen...Forget about class, its so obvious - the Clintons orhcestrated this whole 'Cocaine' story...
This tactic was definitely not adapted by Machiavelli, but, by DESPERATION...Power Power Power..losing it or not getting it will make the Clintons very very upset..booooohooo
How many people care that Senator Obama did 'drugs' in college? Not too many..
However, how many people care that the Clintons might end up in the White House again? Waaaaaaaay too many...
There has to be a better reason to run for office than just WANTING to be there..Dont ya think?
See yall in 2012...Maybe Hillary can have another shot..tehetehetehe
If Hillary loses the nomination, there will be a hell of a lot of celebrating by almost everyone on this forum.
jacob,
"See yall in 2012...Maybe Hillary can have another shot..tehetehetehe"
Well, she should be running for reelection right about then if that's what you mean...
I'm not really sure what Jacob means. He may have a transistor radio with a weak battery, as it sounds like he's getting half of Rush Limbaugh's thoughts, and the Oxymoron himself admits that his act is produced by half a brain.
This must be what a quarter brain looks like.