Funny how old arguments can come back and bite a politician in his ass.

Obama 2008

Oh I don't know. I still think comparing Obama to Rove was more of an insult.

But seriously, comparing Clinton to McCarthy may have been over the top but you'd think a "two term Democratic" President would a) have a thicker skin, b) know better than to make comments that simultaneously questions the patriotism of a fellow Democrat while pumping up the Republican front runner.

Then again, the Clintons do seem to have playing-the-victim down to a science.

Luckily the Obama supporters love cheap shots, misinterpretations, and gratuitous slime when it isn't aimed at them. Clinton's statement meant nothing even remotely close to this, and now we get to hear a stampede of all the usual high horses. And all because the reporter who covered the initial story decided that the statement wasn't just an innocuous wish -- in EXACTLY THE VEIN OBAMA WORKED in his "race" speech, wishing for an election free from gotchas and smears and distractions -- but some double-bankshot gambit against Obama. Pathetic. McPeak is pathetic, anyone who buys this is beyond pathetic. I've had it.

Once again Bill denies the obvious about what he is up to. When he went racist in North Carolina, he acted shocked when people pointed it out. He acts shocked now. The sooner we can be rid of him and Hillary the better off the country will be.

First of all, Mcpeak was passed over by Bill Clinton, for Joint Chief of Staff Chairman. Clinton named General Shalikashvili instead. So the way I see this, is that McPeak is getting payback on Clinton by saying Clinton is like McCarthy. He only endorsed Obama to start with, because he's holding that grudge. He backed Dole, and after that.... Guess what?..... He backed Bush!. So by all rights, he would normally have backed McCain. Second, If what Bill Clinton meant, was that the GOP would run 527 attack ads that show everyone with their hand over their heart during the star spangled banner except Obama, then Bill's right

Oh, I wouldn't let let Mr. Clinton's remarks slide either.

Do we remember back before the Democrats took charge in 2006? If you were anti-Iraq War, you were a traitor.

The Republicans had so much much power even I was afraid to say much myself. It doesn't help that I live in the middle of a county that went 70-29 to Bush in 2004, and in the middle of a state that went 60-39 to Bush too.

For him to say what he did about Obama not loving his country was by far the most offensive comment I have heard this whole campaign.

He needs to stop campaigning for her. Right NOW.

Obama did not let a surrogate say that Hillary is a monster, although if you think about it, you can figure out what she is talking about and "politically speaking" she went too far.

He really needs to go home like Ferraro did & Power did, because he's done something a lot worse than they ever did.

The quote that everyone is seeing actually sounds pretty benign at first. When I heard the two paragraphs before this, it is extremely clear he is trashing Obama's patriotism.

I've been scouring the internets for the longer quote and will post it if I find it. Too tired from the last weekend of skiing!

I'll be surprised if one of the 30 or so Admirals and Generals supporting Clinton don't step up and level McPeak's karma for him. Obama and his aides are defending McPeak by proving that Clinton accused REPUBLICANS of McCarthyism? Really? Bill Clinton attacked f**king Republicans? How dare a two-term Democratic President who was hounded for 10 years by a relentless Republican attack machine accuse them of McCarthyism? Which party do Obama and his aides belong to? I rememer McCarthy well, and I have often accused the Republicans of using his tactics, because they do. This is the first time I have been disgusted by Obama. Please tell me he sent no such memo out.

Bill Clinton is for Bill Clinton. Obama is going to be nominated---but Clinton has already done a lot to sink his wife's chances, and now he might be helping to elect another incoherent republican bumbler, which will make his below average presidency,(unless you are a moderate republican)look like it was great.

Obama really does represent a change from Bush-Clinton-Bush.

The disingenuous brigade is out again. Slick Willy said what he did with the usual wiggle-room that he needed. He's certainly improved his spinning skills since his disbarment.

"I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it,"

Are all of you missing the point? He didn't say he is trying to throw people in jail. He said he grew up when McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors. If he is mentioning he grew up with it, he obviously remembers it, and he is recalling it.

Until you've been unpatriotic and a traitor, you wouldn't know how it feels. I for one know how it feels.

I think people are taking more from what he said than what he really said. Clinton was acting like McCarthy in the respect that he's calling people traitors. McPeak grew up with McCarthy, and I grew up with a friend who had to be a registered Independent because he works for the local government and if he was even remotely thought of as being a Democrat, he wouldn't worked his way to where he is now.

Comparting Bill Clinton to McCarthy is distasteful. The former President is not a racist but a cheap political slut.

I still admire Bill though- esp. when he honors the diginity expected from a former President. Calling Richardson a Judas was a classic case how much Clintons respect few democrats in high office, when the chips fall the other way.

Thanks to Penn and Hillary surrogates- Bill's legacy is running down stream in the sewer off late.

It seems like just yesterday when we were all concerned that Obama was too much of a wimp to stand up to negative campaigning.

If someone criticized me for being unpatriotic, I would not hesitate to accuse them of McCarthyism. McPeak did not cross any line that members of the Clinton campaign have not crossed already. Wolfson's show of being offended is too much.

Josh has a piece about how we all come together behind the nominee when this is all over. I hope he is right because the longer this goes on, the less chance there is of that happening. If the delegate totals, popular votes and states won between Obama and Clinton were reversed, Obama would have been drop kicked to the dustbin of also rans by now. Yet, the Clintons do not seem to care if they take the Party down, ruin the Democratic chances in November, drag this out for months even though the math makes it impossible for them. That fact alone should generate some action from the DNC and the Supers to end this NOW! Is everybody in the leadership afraid of the Clintons?

McPeak who is a Bush backer....lolololo

To the defenders of Bill and/or persons worried about lowering the tone:

The problem here is that over and over and over again in this election, Bill has made a point of saying things like this that can be interpreted two ways, one vicious and one benign. Each time, the vicious interpretation has been at least equally, and usually, more plausible than the benign one. Each time Bill and Hillary's campaign act all wounded and victimized when they're called on it as if we haven't seen them dance that dance a thousand times before.

The first, second or third time, you get the benefit of the doubt. The tenth time, if you're one of the best political minds in the nation with a reputation for, shall we say, slickness, you don't. At a certain point, you are assumed to know what you're doing, particularly when your wife's campaign has left no sink unthrown.

To everyone:

For both the Clintonites crying because McPeak compared Bill to McCarthy and for the Obama supporters saying "yeah, and he deserved it too!" You're both wrong. Could we please leave the wringing of every last drop nuance out of statements to the MSM. McPeak did not compare Bill to McCarthy. He said that after growing up under McCarthy attacks on patriotism, even left handed ones, offend him deeply and Bill should know better for the same reason.

Ben, nice, you put it more pithily than I did. But why does your screen name keep getting longer? At this rate, it's going to take over the entire blog.

There seems to be a desire to find the most malicious interpretation of each person's statements. Clinton was talking about a Hillary McCain matchup in contrast to the Kerry-Bush and Gore-Bush matchups of the past that have not been about issues, but about swiftboating, personality and gotchas.

He was contrasting the hypothetical of this year against the past, not against McCain-Obama. If you weren't so desirous of another whine you could see that quite clearly.

I think this desire for gotcha and whining is rooted in lack of understanding of your own candidate. You seem unable to speak for him, but only against him. If you knew more about Obama, you could advocate for him without this gratuitous crap. Even as a Clinton supporter, I could make a better case for voting for Obama than this constant carping and whining from the Obamaniacs here.

Excuse the second post, but i should add that this reflects badly on the Obama campaign. Accusations of McCarthyism are one thing when directed toward real McCarthyites like Rove and Ari Fleischer who warned people to be careful what they say and equated good people with Saddam Hussein in political ads, but irresponsible and inflammatory in this case.

And completely out of line.

As I have said, the worst thing about Obama is his base - petulant, self-righteous whining adolescents.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/20/politics/main3855129.shtml
On Monday, Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee that "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.
Obama himself gave a similar explanation during an interview Tuesday with WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas. Expressing frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder,

I’m curious why it’s OK to turn into political fodder every word of Clinton but it’s not OK to turn into political fodder every word of Obama?

It is amazing to witness firsthand the obdurate stupidity of posters here who seem to believe that, when Clinton speaks of two candidates who are patriotic and care for their country (as opposed to an implied third who--implicitly--isn't and doesn't) he is making some reference to Gore-Bush or Kerry-Bush and not the immediately topical reference to Obama--the man who won't wear a flag-pin, the man whose wife has been portrayed by the right wing smear machine as unpatriotic, the man whose black pastor has suddenly become an important issue. It makes so much more political sense for Clinton to draw a contrast to Obama--who, lest we forget, is currently running against his wife for the party's nomination--than to refer to Gore/Kerry-Bush that only an idiot, or someone willfully perverse, could interpret Clinton's language as meaning to suggest anything else.

And yet, here come the Clintonistas from under the rock, displaying once again their natural stupidity or practiced mendacity--the two kinds of Clinton voter that can always be counted on.

kash79, I am no innocent and, like many others around the world, have been following this race very closely. I know the Clintons are no angels, but the demonization of them and the deification of Obama just don't make much sense to an outside observer. Totally agree that Hillary went too far in challenging Obama's CIC credentials, but his campaign has been assiduously chipping away at all of her accomplishments, which stack up pretty well against his.

Could all you the is black or white folks and I think that's all of you, please do me a huge favor.

In a one word reply, saying nothing about your preferences, which matter only in the secrecy of the voting booth, vote YES or NO on the following question:

If my preferred candidate (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Zippy the Pinhead, etc.) does NOT win the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, will you vote for the Democratic candidate.

No conditions, cavils, clarifications, etc accepted. YES or NO.

Let's get a feel for what might happen.

steven@bobker.com

Former Georgia governor Zell Miller yelled and screamed at the left wing liberals in the last General election. Now I know why? I am following him. I owe him an apology. I am a McCainocrat now. Hell with Tom Daschles, Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys for endorsing Obama. My respect for these fellows is bullshit.

After reading President Clinton's leading statement in full, and then reading the Obama criticism, I think that the Obama camp decided that Clinton implied that Obama could not have an equally respectable campaign against McCain, and, assuming that to be the case, responded with their McCarthy accusation.

But I think the Obamas jumped the starting signal. Yes, that certainly is a possibility, and yes, it could even be intentional. The confrontational style the Obama camp uses here does not serve Democrats well, because it directly demonstrates an inclination to not pursue a respectable campaign now, and presumably in the next phase against McCain.

What they should have done is asked President Clinton the simple question: are you implying, Mr. President, that the Obama campaign would not be between two candidates who love their country and etc.? I think Senator Obama would have loved to have been able to ask that question, he would have asked it very well.

I don't like how the Hillary Clinton campaign has been going in general. I still find this Obama reaction to be an amateurish, mistimed non sequitur. It is not a well-aimed statement against the Clinton campaign.

Look, people complaining about this brutal campaign are missing the point: neither camp can back down, because they are at war.

This will get worse and worse until someone is forced out.

Superdelegates: make up your mind! You know the candidates, pick one now, before we kill each other.

i've always wondered...

if Bill Clinton is, to his supporters, "The Big Dog", what does that make his wife?

I repeat the question: Why should Sen. Clinton expect the votes of Sen. Obama's supporters if she's willing to reject them--in rejecting their will expressed in the popular vote--in her quest for the nomination? I get that superdelegates are intended to add a subjective element to the nomination. Fine. But when you factor human nature and emotion into the equation--and I think that's critical--a lot of people are going to see Clinton's usurpation of the nomination as yet another instance of the power of the few trumping the will of the many. In the still-recent aftermath of the 2000 election, that's no small thing. And even if it doesn't spur anger, it would at minimum result in widespread disenchantment and disinterest in the political process. That phenomenon would be just as dangerous as another GOP presidency, with the added factor that it would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the Democratic Party, not to mention American democracy.

Also, re. caucuses v. primaries, I reiterate: Obama has won 15 primaries to Clinton's 13. And please do not discount the impact that the Rush Republicans have had on Clinton's margins in the few states she has won. If Rush Limbaugh is promoting her nomination--and he has clearly already had an impact--there's a good chance his mob would turn out in droves to vote against her in November.

Bottom line: Senator Clinton polarizes the Democratic Party; she polarizes independents; and she attracts the passionate ill will of almost all Republicans. She is simply unelectable.

A few points, for context.

Retired Gen. McPeak didn't claim that Bill Clinton was just like Joe McCarthy. Nor did he claim--contrary to what some headlines would have you believe he said--that Bill Clinton likes to have intercourse with McCarthy's dead corpse. McPeak said, effectively, that he was tired of politicians accusing good Americans of not being patriotic. Which, in close reading, is what Bill said of Obama.

Retired Gen. McPeak said what he said before a small crowd in Medford, Oregon. Perhaps you've never been to Medford. I have, many times. There's a Shell station there with really clean restrooms.

Retired Gen. McPeak said what he said early Friday (March 21) morning. By the time I saw him speak in Eugene at 9pm, he repeated that he didn't care for Clinton's comment, but there was no mention of Joe McCarthy. Given that Gen. McPeak struck me as something closer to 'doddering old man' than 'four-star Top Gun Blue Angels Desert Storm General,' I'm guessing that someone in the Obama campaign may have suggested against the McCarthy name-dropping. McPeak didn't seem to have mentioned him later that morning in Portland, where it certainly would have gotten more coverage.

So, in short: Elderly fellow makes comment insensitive to modern media hysteria; media craps pants; hilarity (Hillarity?) ensues.

Wehn it looked like Bill Clinton was going down in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton brought in Lee Atwater (and Dick Morris). That pretty much tells us everything we need to know, doesn't it? End of debate. That's who these people are.

"I don't believe President Clinton was implying that," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former presidential candidate who endorsed Obama last week. "But the point here ... is that the campaign has gotten too negative — too many personal attacks, too much negativity that is not resounding with the public."

'Nuff said. Or is the Obamatons's favorite governor too stupid to know better.