Again, I ask of you – why are people not calling for Bill to just come out and clarify his own statements? Enough of this silly parsing between camps. Plouffe, you stooge, you have mishandled this. In your next conference call, put the ball back in the Clintons’ court by saying something like this:

“We are not sure what to make of the former President’s statements. One reading of them suggests that he thinks Senator Obama is not as patriotic as the Republican nominee, John McCain. We feel as though that is a very odd thing for a former Democratic President to say about another Democrat, and we politely request that Mr. Clinton further clarify his statements.”

Greg:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/was-bill-clinto.html

This was the context of the conversation below:

Citing hypothetical match-ups between the Democrats and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the former president said his wife beats McCain in Ohio, Florida and Arkansas, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would lose to him in those states.

"So she can win this election," he said to applause.

"And we need to change the direction of this country," he continued. "But it won't be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man ... and he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other."

He then told about how she and McCain had worked together on global warming.

That's the context that led to the quote, Greg.

I love how the Clintons accuse everyone of things that they themselves are guilty of.

Karl Rove could have learned a lot from Monster Inc.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

"And we need to change the direction of this country," he continued. "But it won't be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man ... and he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other."

Well damn Bill - this is supposed to make me want to vote for Hilary? She's friends with McCain? So is George Bush, for the love of god - what the hell is going on here?

Funny coming from a person who's entire campaign is built on lies about her own record, and then lies about her opponent for her attacks.

The hypocrisy of Hillary has always pissed me off the most.

Greg, what else could Pres. Clinton have meant besides implying that if Obama isn't a patriot?

I really don't understand how else it could be taken. I'm not saying this to make a point. Literally, I don't understand how else that can be taken.

You bore me Greg. Find something substantive to talk about.

Could we call a moratorium on the conference calls from the campaigns? This is getting tiresome. Bill made a remark, got caught at it, the Obama campaign is trying to blow it up, and meanwhile, Hillary's little "we were told to run with our heads down and there was no greeting party" whopper gets no notice.

The Clintons, playing the media, again.

And how about the new Clinton argument? It's the electoral votes that really matter.

I want this over, now.

Look, any way you look at it, it was morally obscene for the Obama campaign to make the accusation of McCarthyism on the basis of Clinton's remarks.

Clearly, other people, including both Bill Richardson and the famous Hillary hater Andrew Sullivan recognized that Clinton's remarks had an entirely benign interpretation, and they could not be taken as questioning Obama's patriotism without evidence vastly more compelling than anything present in the context.

Is it a lie to insist, as the Obama campaign has done, that Bill's remarks were questioning Obama's patriotism, when there is, obviously, a benign interpretation of those remarks? I should think it is close enough to a lie: it is to claim that something is effectively certain when you know perfectly well it isn't.

And, no matter what, it is a moral obscenity to accuse someone of something as vile as McCarthyism when you know perfectly well the remark that inspires that charge has a benign interpretation.

And the worst part of this disgusting act? That Obama stood there, in full aggrieved mode, while that reckless charge was made.

Look, any way you look at it, it was morally obscene for the Obama campaign to make the accusation of McCarthyism on the basis of Clinton's remarks.

No, if you really look at what he's saying, the patriotism thing is irrelevant. What he's really saying is that he thinks the Republican candidate, McCain, is more honorable than the Democratic front runner.

As a Democrat in an election year - I don't care how badly Hilary wants it - you do not do that.

You do not start throwing the frontrunner to the wolves in favor of the Republican and Bill is clearly doing that in the video, the statement - the whole damn thing. Talk about traitors! You don't do that in an election year.

I can't see the video from this computer, but comment from a reader on the Andrew Sullivan site:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/dissent-of-th-7.html

"I felt the same way as you about B. Clinton's "love America" remarks, until I saw the whole thing: he ended with the words (as I recall them) "That's my argument for Hillary." In saying that, he, in fact, made it particular and implied that the same would not apply to Sen. Obama. As you have noted many times, there's not much they say that's not carefully calibrated. So whereas I agree with the core of his sentiments -- that it would be nice to have a campaign strictly about issues -- he actually made a differentiation between Hillary and Barack. I'm a strong Democrat, and a (former) admirer of both Bill and Hillary. I heard her talk a year or two ago in Seattle and was highly impressed. Now, I find myself wanting to switch channels when I see her; as I do when I see Bush."

Bill Clinton: "That's my argument for her." watch the video of Bill's speech

1) This was calling Obama unpatriotic.

2) All that other stuff that intrudes. . . is he talking about race?

3) Look at the podium!!!!! Bill was speaking at the "Stonewall Jackson Post," a VFW Post named after a Confederate General!!!! You think Bill did not know that?

The media incessantly repeats the two sentences of Bill's about the "wouldn't it be great" election without the surrounding context that makes it unavoidably obvious he is attacking Obama.

That's like repeating this statement "We could have such a beautiful world" (without the rest of the sentence that goes, "if we could only get rid of the blacks and the jews.") Or, "I love everything" (without the rest of the sentence that goes, "about killing innocent children and their pets.")

How can the major media get away with this? Even reporters and commentators who are often critical have been willing to swallow the truncated source without looking at the original, and the original video of the event is two clicks away on the web!

Come on, people! Do your f'ing jobs!

I agree. This whole thing has gone a bit over the top. Hopefully no one is paying attention, because neither candidate looks good here.

Bill Clinton should come out and clarify, rather then having each campaign argue over parsing.

Neither side looks good here.

Lies indeed.

When will the
sniping of the Hillary camp stop. I mean they keep shooting off their mouths hoping to land some points, but are instead turning this election into a war zone. Can't we just have a civil nomination process and celebrate the victor instead of having to run through these barrages of attacks.

I messed up my tags and the second part of the quote didn't make it into italics.

It should have read:

If you mention Obama without praising him - you're a racist.

If you don't mention Obama at all - you're McCarthy

I don't want to leave the mistaken impression that I was saying the second part of that quote.

Ok There is a pattern of tactics used here by the Clinton campaign starting as early as New Hampshire with the "fairy tale" comment -
First its the "plausible deniability" to Bill's very deliberate word selection and omissions (together serving to brand the public's psyche) followed by
Hillary (or Bill etc.) acting or being portrayed as victim - (no one wants to see a former first lady as victim) - check out Howard Wolfson's comments about Hillary this morning on Morning Joe!

It's not really fair to call "Hillary's little "we were told to run with our heads down and there was no greeting party"" lie a whopper.

She hasn't talked about it at every campaign rally and in ads like she has how she got SCHIP through as first lady "got health insurance for six million kids,". I think we should save "whopper" for lies like that "Clinton role in health program disputed"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/
This article along with loud whispers going way back seems to clarify that she not only did not help get it passed but the Clintons had to be pressured to get the bipartisan bill signed.

As far as this patriotism dispute goes there's nothing innocent about it as he concludes his "argument for her." but of course it can't be proven. It could sound benign if you know nothing about Bill or campaigning or the current situation when media distortion of Rev Wright has hyped up the Obama as not patriotic claim.
McCarthyism is a strong term to use but does it fit?
Definition:
"The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence."

An ex-president speaking to veterans, knowing his words will be made public, strongly implying someone is not patriotic? That could be taken as McCarthyism-lite, the lite added since it was only implication and not direct accusation. We can rarely accuse Bill of being direct.

I am an Obama supporter and detest both Cintons, though I will vote for the eventual demo nominee; and I did not understand Clinton to be questioning Obama's patriotism.

OK, so Bill's argument is that Hillary and McCain are friends who respect each other, so if she's the nominee the general election campaigns will be all about policy differences and we won't have to hear about "all that other stuff" during the GE.

Right.

Shorter Bill Clinton: my wife is the better candidate because she's not black.

(To be fair, even if you think Clinton didn't have race in mind when he said "all that other stuff" - do you *really* buy into his fantasy of the general election being a great policy debate rather than a kitchen-sink mud wrestling match, were Hillary to get the nomination? And if so, may I solicit your assistance in claiming a large sum of money that is currently languishing unclaimed in a Nigerian bank account?)

Yeah, when you say something that's implicit meaning is X, but you meant to say Y, it is your responsibility to apologize for the confusion, and not only clarify your intended meaning, but to renounce the false implication. "Wouldn't it be nice if we had two candidates who love their country," means implicitly that there is some risk (say by nominating Obama) that we won't have two such candidates in November. If that isn't what he meant, he was not misinterpreted; he mispoke. If he meant what they now say he meant, the correct way to say it would at least be, "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone agreed that all the candidates love their country."

If I had said this statement in a VFW hall no less, I would have immediately recognized the implication and have said, "I want to clarify that I know that all three candidates love their country euqally and I meant that it would be nice if people didn't make false accusations of non-patriotism all the time." Strangely Bill didn't see this. Predictably, it is now Obama's responsibility to take the most charitable view of his misstatement possible.

As far as I know, the Clinton camp still have only "clarified" that Clinton didn't mean to imply Obama was not a patriot, but have not put out a statement that Clinton believes absolutely that Obama ,does love his country. Until he does that, I don't undertand why he should get the benefit of the doubt.

Plouffe is clearly out of line here, and I don't think he should be worried that Clinton's YouTube
performance will be used by the Republicans. But as for Michelle Obama's "Pride in the Name of Barack!" video--I figure that'll spot McCain about three states.