I agree (or rather, disagree) with both you and Plouffe. I tend to think that Bill was insinuating that Obama’s patriotism should be questioned, and that this election should focus on the issues instead of tricky things like “race.” But Plouffe is handling it incorrectly. He should have said 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.”

You left the most important part off of Bill Clinton's statement:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So, that's my pitch for her."

In other words, this was his pitch for choosing Hillary in a Democratic primary where the only other candidate is...Obama.

Greg, thank you for your honest attempt at the analysis, but here is why you are deeply, deeply wrong:

He seems to be clearly envisioning an ideal world in which two people could run against one another without there being any questioning of their patriotism and without such charges being hurled back and forth.

This came in the context of discussing what a Hillary vs. McCain race would be. Yes, you're right he didn't mention Obama. That was the whole point: he's saying that this is the kind of race it would be IF it were only Hillary vs. McCain.

I repeat - he concluded by saying this was his pitch for Hillary in a race in which the only other candidate is Obama.

I don't know if there's a pattern of questioning Obama's patriotism, but there is a pattern of building up John McCain as a great leader, patriot, and commander-in-chief. Don't you find that odd?

Finally there's this:

To interpret them in this fashion requires that you want to interpret them this way.

Ah yes, the old pre-emptive strike against those of us who will disagree with your analysis. The only way we can possibly read something insidious into Bill Clinton's saying is because of us, not because of him. It's because WE are hopelessly partisan and eager to attack a guy many of us adored until recently.

Since you left out the most important part of Clinton's quote, I would say your analysis was wrong. But I guess that's just because of what I WANT to read into it. Silly me.

Seeing that statement on a blog that is supposedly about reporting the news was the low point on a site I've otherwise really enjoyed reading.

I'd say the pattern is more one of pandering to the dark side of Reagan Democrats with vaguely paranoid attacks that try to frame Obama as the "other", not one of us. It's simply the Karl Rove play book. It's the summation of everything I've despised about the Bush administration and now it's trying to take over my party.

Fear mongering, blind nationalism, none to subtle appeals to racial bigotry, religious bigotry, ethnocentrism - all the garbage, all that's worst in Americans.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree with you. Hillary and her surrogates have shown themselves to be willing to go to any low. This past weekend, James Carville compared Hillary Clinton to Jesus and Bill Richardson to Judas. Seriously, when it comes to the Clintons, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt any more. They just do not deserve it.

When Wolfson offers preposterous talking points they are posted here without critique. When Obama's offers their interpretation of an event you can count on Greg to attack it!

Welcome to HillaryHub.talkingpointsmemo.com - enjoy your stay.

The day I agree with Andrew Sullivan about something like this is the day I give up being interested in politics.

This is a sincere question: What do you all think of the fact that Bill Richardson and particularly Andrew Sullivan don't think there's anything here?

Bill's sly patriotism angle is one thing. But then there's this other...

"And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

All this other "stuff"..presumably the Rev. Wright stuff and, oh god, the race stuff that seems to intrude itself on our politics. How rude of it all. And isn't Bill, of all people, so sad over this state of affairs. Of course, we needn't worry about the Clintonian scandals the GOP is salivating to unleash in that benign general election Bill so dreamily envisions with his wife and her good friend, John McCain, hand in hand...

We've been around Bill too long, Greg, and we all know he's a very clever man. As he toys with his wording in the first sentence (which you and others focus upon) he's fully implying Obama will bring distracting "stuff" to a general campaign, as if his own wife will not. And not one media messenger has called him on it.

The McCarthy label did go too far-but Bill Clinton is as you know, famously careful with his public wordings, and by not including Obama in the list there is by implication a lack of patriotism in Obama. He is by this carefully worded statement allowing people to paint in their own minds the image of the missing lapel pin and lack of a hand over the chest during the national anthem.

Are you kidding me?

Look, Bill's latest comment is in the same vein as the "fairy tale" comment. Period.

The quote makes no sense unless you want to impugn someone's patriotism. Has any election ever been between two people who did not love this country? Also, why not quote the full wording? Bill ended that quote by saying "And that's my argument for Hillary." The assumption being Obama does not fall into the category of those who love this country.

I think the way the Obama camp is handling this is wrong.

They should AGREE with Bill that the campaign should be about the issues, they should argue that Obama has a better chance to do that than Hillary.

Both McCain and Obama have agreed that a civil campaign, free from personal attacks, is the way to go.

The Clintons, despite their words, have not acted that way from the very beginning, with Mark Penn bringing up Obama's drug use.

das2003 I'm with you on this. If there were more people in the race still this could be innocent. But with only one other candidate the fact that he ISN'T meantioned is the point. I am not paranoid. If Obama had said the same thing about himself and McCain I would think he was implying that Hillary didn't love our country. I'm not simply trying to pin everything on the Clinton campaign.
If the Monica debacle showed us anything, it is that Bill is able (while under great stress) to control his exact phrasing. After that great lie, I'm sorry any hypercritical review of everything you say is your own fault.

Greg

Quick question: Do you think it should bother democrats that Hillary's campaign continues to put herself and McCain on a higher plain than Obama? I wonder why she feels the need to continually fluff him up when drawing contrasts between herself and Obama. It is not a reach to come to this conclusion, is it?

If I'm on Team Obama, I'm asking several questions regarding this “Commander in Chief” test HRC’s campaign constantly pushes:

Is the test essay, multiple choice, or short answer?

Does Kaplan or Princeton Review offer study guides or tutorial services to pass the test?

Will I need a #2 pencil or is the test administered electronically?

Are there other abstract concepts with no real definition you can continue to spoon feed to the popular media as “the truth”, and continue to get away with it?

Here’s what Mr. Wolfson & Mr. Penn don’t want you to know. The surprise math page at the end of the “Commander in Chief” test. I’ve obtained a copy of that page, here it is:

1408-1251 = ?

$55,000,000 - -$3,000,000 = ?

30-14 = ?

Note: ? = Victory for Obama, defeat for Clinton

OK, fine, so Bill Clinton "seems to be clearly envisioning an ideal world in which two people could run against one another without there being any questioning of their patriotism." So why is it that the only candidates he sees in that ideal world are McCain and Clinton? If he wasn't questioning Obama's patriotism, then wouldn't it be clear that whoever was the Demeocratic nominee, we'd have a race where no one's patriotism was being questioned? But he specifically says that he's making an argument for Hillary's candidacy. The implication is clear.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to believe that Bill Clinton was trying to play the patriotism card here. If you look back at the campaign in recent weeks, it is becoming clear that the Clinton "kitchen sink" strategy, which is focused on making Obama unelectable, has three legs: 1) challenging his experience to be commander in chief, 2) race, and 3) Obama's patriotism.

There is no amibiguity on point #1. Hillary actually stated that Obama did not have the chops to be commander in chief while she and the Republican do. On #2, the timing of the Ferraro eruption and the emergence of the edited Wright tape seems mighty fishy. So what's left? To challenge Obama's patriotism. No doubt the Clinton's regard this as a Republican attack strategy in waiting, what with Michelle Obama's statement about being proud of America, Barack's American flag lapel pin and Wright's "goddamn America."

There is really no credible reason to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this.

It's really funny.
When Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.",
what she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grass-roots movement for change."
For Obama, the words are not just words, words have hidden meaning that typical uneducated voters might not see, and from now on that meaning will be interpreted by high priests of Obama church.
According to high priests Plouffe, Clinton words have a hidden meaning that Clintons are really evil and HRC should drop out of the race before PA.

Or...

Not to interpret them in this fashion requires that you don't want to interpret them this way.

Ofercryinoutloud. When Bill Clinton said "two people who loved this country" he was not only obviously referring to his wife and McCain, he was also clearly impugning Obama's "love of country" (read: patriotism) by omission. That would be the same Obama who, in Bill's construction, apparently also bears responsibility for "all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." (Interloping ingrate.)

Just because Bill is rhetorically skillful enough to couch his ad homonem attacks in a veneer of civility doesn't make them any less disparaging. IMHO, to suggest there has not been pattern of such attacks of Obama by Bill Clinton would seem to me to require either a. an intentional exercise of political diplomacy (Richardson) or, b. of certain degree of willful obtuseness (Sullivan, et al).

Greg Sargent agrees with the Clinton camp's take on things.

I'm shocked, shocked, i tell you.

I prefer to think of it as "we have two candidates who sent 4000 Americans to their deaths for nothing costing taxpayers $3,000,000,000,000, or $50,000 for every family of 5".

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

The key is in "all this other stuff." It's inspecific and thus open to projection. The audience can project whatever issue they want onto it, most likely race or patriotism, and they will use that to reinforce their idea that Obama is unpatriotic or that having a black candidate is too divisive and distracting.

But no one can nail those interpretations down, so Bill maintains plausible deniability.

It's a perfect dogwhistle.

I won't say it's McCarthyism, but it is classic Clintonism.

Greg--How naive you are. Bill Clinton, a shrewd politician, knows exactly how to push buttons by implication. He was indeed call Obama's patriotism into question. Right now, Hillary's campaign is desperate--if they can say or do anything to damage Obama, they will do it. Bill Clinton is saying to voters (white voter, we can assume) that Hillary and McCain are "more like us." That is what McCarthy did. It began with implications and ended with trials and blacklists.
Bill and Hillary Clinton seem to think they own the Democratic party and the nation. Hillary began this primary season with EVERY advantage--name-recognition, money, the Party machines in all the big state, like NY and CA, favors to call in among Democrats she's known for 20 years--everything was in her favor. But she is behind--she has never overcome her high negatives, NEVER--even among Democrats. Without the Dem Party machine in NY, CA and NJ, she wouldn't have carried those states--and it is Rendell's machine in PA that is helping her there. If Hillary is behind in pledge delegates and the popular vote in the Democrat's race, what in heaven's name makes her think she would do better in a race against Republicans who loathe her? Narcissism and denial, that's what. Right now, the Clinton's think there only option is to turn superdelegates against Obama by damaging him--even it it hurt the Party. They care only about themselves and holding onto power. Enough of their prevarications and dissembling. They've been spinning the truth for so long, I don't think they know which end us up. As Richardson said, it is time for a new generation of leadership. The Clintons are proof of the adage that power corrupts.

Watch the video of Bill Clinton making his remarks about his dream of an election race with two patriots: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dlu7wjPEK4k

The two-line excerpt being repeated leaves out the context that shows this was a dirty attack on Obama - like repeating a quote that says "I love everything" (but leaving out the rest of the original sentence that went, "about killing childrene and their pets.")

1) It is all a speech for Hillary, explicitly so, and against Obama.

2) The slur is not just against Obama's patirotism, but also about race ("all that other stuff that intrudes"

3)Bill Clinton made these remarks at the Stonewall Jackson VFW Post - named after a Confederate General.... You think Bill didn't know that? You think his audience in North carolina didn't know that?

Does Bill need to wave a Confederate flag while denouncing Obama's patriotism to make you guys thing there is something wrong here?

Here is my take:

Obama has been hit (unfairly) about his patriotism, based upon the Rev. Wright hit job. Bill thinks this has distracted attention from the real issues, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the distractions will continue in the general election.

But...if Hillary is the nominee, nobody will question the patriotism of the two candidates.

Bottom line: Obama is tainted by the words of Rev. Wright, and if Obama is tne nominee, the debate will not be about the issues.

Bill doesn't need to question Obama's patriotism, that is already being done, and will be done.

So, it is only an argument that Clinton is more electable than Obama. Of course, by making this argument, Bill is himself not talking about the issues he wants discussed.

Bill Clinton's Undeserved Halo
Bill Clinton lied about his gross sexual indiscretions while on the job in his office, put the Nation through a torturous legal proceeding, weakened the Democratic party and, therefore, his successor, and in so doing, paved the way for the last eight monstrous years of neo-con degradation and murderous violence. He didn't do that alone, of course, but he was the central figure.

Now we're supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, when for at least the second time, he lifted up John McCain as considerably more worthy than the other premptive strike crowd. Not. I guess McCain has a halo too mostly because of having been an honerable prisoner of war, but support for this war is a horrendous resume item. And no progressive Democrat in good conscience should be lifting him up for any reason.

Whether in the remark in question Bill intended to cast aspersions on Obama's patriotism or wanted, as he more clearly did in previous comments, to discredit Obama's readiness to be president, is a fine point that truly is difficult to ascertain. However, a subtle but inescapable implication of Bill's remark in question truly is that Obama does not love his country as much as Hillary and McCain.

Were it not for the Clinton's failure to join with Obama in defending Pastor Wright, this implication might have less weight. To me, this failure is as unconscionable as any other degrading maneuver Bill, the supposed first black president, could have made. Hillary's and Bill's silence concerning a man who ministered to Bill with respect and conern and also supported Bill's candidacy, helps make the Obama camp's case that the Clintons don't have the degree of character and concern for others we're looking for in a president.

Of course, they do care about many people much of the time, but when the going gets tough and their political lives are on the line, their character cracks, and they revert to the kind of duplicitous, deceitful junk they normally are against.

Bill has been a totally self-involved creep too much of the time, and we have too little evidence that he has changed. It's important to try to understand why his creepy, destructive stuff is there and why it emerges when it does. In the end, empathy and concern for him does rule. But let's not subject ourselves to his destructiveness again. He hasn't earned the benefit of our doubt.

One piece of context that we have to take into account, is something joeschmoe just brought up. The audience.

Obviously anything these camps say is intended for both local audience, and hopeful resonation with a national one. But the national echo only comes to be through either controversy, concerted effort, or exceptionally sharp wit.

So if we are to imagine this comment as unintended for a national audience, and just the local Stonewall Jackson VFW Post in North Carolina, is it possible to now see how these implications and subtle insinuations are intended ?

Bill Clinton is playing chess not checkers here, ladies and gentleman. These are controlled and prepared situations, not gaffes. He is extremely intelligent, and dismissing his comments as though he somehow was attacking every OTHER election in history, or that it was just unfortunate phrasing is to completely underestimate his ability to affect the national political discussion.

Bill Clinton and his use of the English language is so carefully constructed that we even created a term for it: Clintonian.

I could recite chapter and verse of instances where he used exactly precise language to mislead the listener. Certainly "sexual relations" comes to mind. That cute turn of phrase almost undid his entire Presidency. And remember how indignant he looked, leading us to believe that this statement was unscripted? Bullshit.

The notion that he was speaking off the cuff in any way is simply laughable. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is not thought out well before hand.

If there is no mention of "patriotism" by any Clinton surrogate between now and the convention, then I will withdraw my comments here. But he injected it in to the political bloodstream and it's now out there. This is the new "Patriot Games" portion of the campaign.

Greg, if you could post a transcript of the whole speech, then the context becomes clearer. The entire paragraph before the now famous one is spent praising McCain.

So I guess I disagree with the central thesis of your post.

I think this situation betrays a real weakness in Obama's position. It seems the only thing they have to throw at Clinton is a series of character assassinations against Hillary ("divisive", "disingenuous") and charges of victimization by her surrogates (Bill, Geraldine). Don't they have anything substantive to throw her way? If she's using the kitchen sink against Obama, then I have to say he's using the toilet against her. The long-awaited "First Lady" papers no doubt made a lot of Obama staff go blind from poring over them, but yielded nothing that stuck. The tax returns (promised April 15th which has some meaning to those of us who are adults and actually pay taxes) will be another big yawner.

Hang in there, Greg. You are right. And these people in the wrong can't stand up to a man in the right, if the man in the right just keeps coming. You keep calling them like you see them. We're behind you 100%. Obama, like the rest of us, chose his own baggage. If he wants to carry Wright into the debates with him, that's his choice. We'll see how that plays out during the next debate. If Obama wants an ex-President for a surrogate, he should go get Jimmy Carter. It's not reasonable to expect Bill Clinton to mention him in his speeches. As usual, the brilliant Obama campaign is picking the wrong fight at the wrong time.

I think the closest Obama himself has come to a "move on" argument against Clinton is his statements about how he doesn't have a frame of reference that derives from the '60s. There I detect a similar exasperation, a note of "Do we really have to go through _this_ for the rest of the year?"

I'm not quite sure this example really substantiates your "pox on both houses" argument, but there again we're back to inference and interpretation. Anyway, point(s) well taken.

The quote being taken somewhat out of context doesn't help in trying to parse it. I think like many things Bill Clinton says it was off-the-cuff. I don't think that this was a swipe at Obama at all. It was about having a campaign that focuses on the issues with the assumption that both candidates are partiotic. And that the patriotism issue is a canard.

But Obama's people are always looking to find an angle.

Politics as usual.

I've seen this thing quoted a whole bunch now and it amazes me that it keeps being used completely out of the whole context. Here is what was said directly before the now famous quote, from Media Matters:

John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy. They have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn't shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this.

That's the kind of leadership this country needs. And I think... often quoted part inserted here

Greg, this is an obvious smack at Obama. There is no other way to read it. He praises McCain as a grand friend, devoted countryman, and flat out says that the leadership of Hillary Clinton or John McCain are the kind of leadership this country needs.

I wasn't around during McCarthy's days, so I can't tell you if they deserve to be compared - but I certainly don't begrudge General McPeak and his right to that opinion. I personally would say this is a continuation of Hillary's earlier comments about thresholds. They are Liebermann and Zelleresque to me. And frankly I'm rather amazed to hear a former Democratic President praising the Republican nominee before our Democratic front runner - even if his wife is the other candidate. Can you imagine Carter saying something like this?

you know, i presumed that part of the magic having this historic campaign where we'd nominate either a female of an african-american as the democratic candidate for president was that we were saying, de facto, that both candidates were big boys and girls and could play by the same rough and tumble rules of politics that all other presidential elections have been decided by, and that we didn't need or want to have a differentiated set of rules applied to our female or african-american nominee because that would patronizing.

yet with every obama camp rush to cry "victimization" over this statement or that statement, the more i feel like obama is running like the candidate who rides the short-bus and just wants to play football with the big kids and, well, you know...it's just not fair to treat him the same as the other big kids playing ball. you gotta cut him some slack...show him some favoritism...take a dive on few tackles...you know, treat him with kid gloves.

as an african-american, i'm embarassed for him. in this historic opportunity to play with the big boys, why don't you actually try playing like a big boy and stop crying foul every time someone challenges you on something, or worse yet, chooses to passionately advocate for their candidate of choice (see Bill Clinton) without including the opposition (Obama) in his advocacy.

didn't know kid glove rules had extended all the way to now being required to be your opponents advocate as well as your own.