Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy
At an Obama event in Oregon today, retired Gen. Tony McPeak compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, over Bill's remarks yesterday that a Hillary vs. McCain race would be a contest between "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country ... instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Many Obama supporters have interpreted Bill's comments as a subtle slam on their candidate's patriotism. "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," McPeak said, as he stood on the stage with Obama.
The Hillary camp slammed McPeak and demanded a retraction from the Obama team. "I think most Democrats were shocked to learn that a two-term Democratic president was compared to Joseph McCarthy," said spokesman Howard Wolfson.
The Obama camp isn't backing down, though, and they've sent out a memo containing numerous examples of Bill Clinton or his aides attacking the Republicans as McCarthyists throughout the 1990s.

Comments (222)
"I think most Democrats were shocked to learn that a two-term Democratic president was compared to Joseph McCarthy," said spokesman Howard Wolfson."
Actually, I think most people were shocked that a two-term Democratic president would resort to McCarthyism.
This is actually a nice slam for the Obama camp. Not only does it highlight a former Clinton military guy supporting Obama, but it is a fair shot at Clinton.
March 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not McCarthyism. Watch McPeak step down next week.
March 22, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, fuck that. This isn't Powers' 'monster' comment, this is not a personal attack. This is comparing the actions of a campaign surrogate (that's what Bill must be viewed as in this instance) with actions that are similar in style and in content to the kinds of subtle, fearmongering slander that Joe McCarthy perpetuated at the height of his witch hunts. If the degree isn't quite the same, the tactic itself certainly is.
Clinton can't just push Obama around like he's a smaller kid on a playground. He's a presidential candidate who's currently leading her in votes, states, and delegates. If she shoves him, he shouldn't just fall over- he should shove back.
March 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This over the top Clinton is McCarthy bullshit is just the crap to kill Democratic hopes in November. Why do Clinton voters line up behind Obomb if he wins but the Obombers get to stiff if they do not get their way??? Because they are the same babies who betray left of center Americans everytime and hand power to the right wing crazies. Thanks ahead of time. If Obomb thinks he can win by smiling when someone says Bill Clinton is Joe McCarthy then screw him for wanting power so bad. Congrats Prez McCain!
March 22, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the fact that "Obomb," as you so wittily call him, is winning the popular vote and has won more caucuses and primaries than Sen. Clinton, your vitriol is misplaced. Sen. Obama thinks he can win because he *is* winning. The purpose of my response is not to defend the Clinton-McCarthy comparison; rather, it's to observe that if one party will be responsible for handing the election to Sen. McCain in November, it will be Sen. Clinton. She continues her campaign despite the fact that the only way she can capture the nomination--even if the votes in MI and FL were counted--will be through smoky-back-room wheeling and dealing at the convention. And if Sen. Obama's supporters are angry enough to stay home on election day in November, it will be because they were discouraged from participating in the first place. Why should Sen. Clinton expect the votes of Sen. Obama's supporters if she's willing to reject them--in rejecting the expression of their will expressed in the popular vote--in her quest for the nomination? She's not entitled to our votes any more than Sen. Obama is entitled to those of Sen. Clinton's supporters. You can't have it both ways, Hollywood.
March 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just some cold hard facts man. Obomb has won most of the small red states that will absolutely be RED in November so that does not advance the cause of defeating Bush III one fucking bit. Clinton wins the big industrial swing states that will decide who is the next president. Sorry Acadia, that is how the system works. YOU CAN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE IN AMERICA AND NOT BE PRESIDENT !!! I know that sucks but those rules will be THE RULES in November. PLAN ACCORDINGLY! Super delegates are exactly and specifically designed to add a subjective element to the nomination process or OTHERWISE THERE WOULD ONLY BE CAUCUS AND ELECTED DELEGATES! Get it?!? And finally caucuses are the rat fuck of democracy as a primary election is the gold standard. Most people have jobs .... OK? .... and most people do not want to go stand in a noisy gym somewhere and shout out and fight about who they want to vote for. I DO NOT! Obomb wins caucuses because the faithful can run around in groups and exchange "excitement" and Clinton wins in elections ..... LIKE NOVEMBER.
March 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
McPeak, also know as McPuke, was in the military and retired in 1994. Clinton happened to just be President.
McPeak was involved in the campaings of Bob Dole, Geo. W. Bush, Howard Dean and John Kerry.
The comment is just off the wall attempt to take Bill out of the picture. Obama's camp has used this tactic before when they were down after NH. but obama likes to say hillary will do anything to get elected. this is dirty politics but obama denies he does it and the media lets him gets away with it.
McPeak needs to be ousted for his comments at Obama's campaign speech today.
OBAMA HAS PICKED SOME POOR ADVISERS. SAMATHA POWERS WAS LET GO. ANOTHER OF HIS FOREIGN ADVISERS WAS CONNECTED TO THE PASSPORT BREACH. OBAMA FLIPPED OUT AND WANTED IT INVESTIGATED. IT TURNED OUT THE COMPANY CONTRACTOR WAS OBAMA'S FOREIGN ADVISER, A FORMER cia.
NOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
March 23, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE QUALITY OF CLINTON BACKERS IS REALLY GOING DOWNHILL!!!!!!111
ALONG WITH HER CHANCES TO WIN THE NOMINATION LOL!!!!!1111112
March 23, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
In February, McPeak was forced to retract his comment that Obama "doesn't go on television and have crying fits" — a reference to Hillary Clinton's show of emotion while campaigning in New Hampshire. The Obama campaign in February said those comments "crossed the line," but it offered no retraction to McPeak's latest comments.
No need to parse those words.
March 23, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the video of the full quote from that speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlu7wjPEK4k
He was talking in the context of HRC's electability and CinC credentials (as he says at the end of this clip) after making the truncated remarks that are getting air-play right now.
March 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how old arguments can come back and bite a politician in his ass.
Obama 2008
March 22, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
here we go again (sigh...)
it is very unhelpful when either side attacks the other in this way.
calling bill clinton a racist or comparing him to mccarthy gets you nothing, but it does stoke the anger on the clinton side toward the obama campaign. anyone educated well enough to know who joseph mccarthy is also knows that bill clinton is no mccarthy.
unless this kind of crap stops i truly believe that the dems will self-destruct and we'll be stuck with 4 years of "president mccain."
i am not personally suggesting that i would ever vote for mccain, but it won't be long before the media really goes to town on the divisions in the dem party and tries to start convincing democrats that not voting in november or protesting the outcome of the dem primary by voting for mccain is a reasonable option.
March 22, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. Until Bill starts suggesting that Obama actually be put into jail, he's no McCarthy. Clinton's (implicit) questioning of Obama's patriotism was distasteful, but it was not McCarthyism.
March 22, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
why do you have a handwring-fest every time Obama hits back at the Clintons, but are silent when Clinton disparages Obama?
of course this was meant to draw attention to the comments themselves as much as the messenger, a retired General supporting Obama. of course the counterpunch was a bit over the top, but that's to get it (and thus the original comment) recognition, and it certainly isn't more over the top than either the original statement or any of a half dozen Clinton/Clintonista comments over the past few days.
March 22, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was the smarmy way that Bill Clinton attacked Obama (a backhanded smear on his patriotism) more helpful? I think it would be helpful if the Clintons stopped spitting in Obama's face and then crying, "We're the victim" when Obama rightly comes back at them.
It seems to me that Obama's happy taking the high road, but the Clintons insist on playing the rest of the game in the septic tank.
March 22, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can just see Obama against McCain, every Republican attack the Obama campaign screaming 'Not fair!'.
It's amazing how the Democrats have taken a sure win and are making it into a sure loser.
March 22, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just re-read what the good general actually said:
Seeing as how Bill Clinton did imply that Obama did not "love this country" or was not "devoted to the interest of" it, the general's statement isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. Sure, it was an unfortunate (and deliberate) juxtaposition with McCarthy, but he did not say that Clinton was acting just like McCarthy.
March 22, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Clintons already started the 'Vote for McCain if We Lose' theme about a month ago.
March 22, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Tom, And it feels sick.
March 22, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah right ...... Clinton and Obomb have almost identical positions on every major issue and you are petty enough to pretend if you do not get the whole O you think the Clintons really wanted more right wing facism???? You people make me sick ......!
March 22, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too late Obama has divided Democratic party beyond repair. However, if you understand that Obama is spewing the crap from his mouth, how can you possibly support him?
March 22, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
gee, i thought it was clear by now that i support hillary... but i will vote for obama before i vote for mccain. i am a democrat after all...
March 22, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes :(
March 22, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most Democrats were also shocked to hear a Democratic candidate compare her competitor to Ken Starr...
March 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
i really love that this mccarthy comment is getting all the play...while hillary's man, carville, gets a pass after comparing richardson to judas.
jesus.
(not intended.)
March 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riiight. You got a bridge you want to sell me? ;)
March 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it's "man bites dog" vs. "dog bites man". One of those is a story, the other isn't.
March 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Care to comment on the double standard, Eric?
March 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama stands behind the ridiculous comments.
March 22, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that the chain of inference is too complex for him.
March 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!! The right-wing media is totally playing into the hands of the clintons to demean obama's south carolina win. The clintons aren't stupid. They are liars and a host of other things, but not stupid. Why would they go racist in south carolina? That would be dumb and they didn't. It was NEW HAMPSHIRE to get that sliver of poor white dem voters that would buy into racial stereotyping to go for the clintons to eeek out a win. I really wish the gd right-wing media would be honest about this point at least. If they didn't do race baiting or whatever you want to call it in New Hampshire, this thing would have been over almost 2 months ago.
March 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid?
Cheap trick artist?
Self Serving?
Near a post Bush period(primaries, etc.), on the whole their actions have been stupid. These actions have not been to far from the drama at the W.H. for eight years.
These folks have long overstayed their welcome, just do not believe that they merit an ongoing major presence in the political arena.
March 22, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granted, any comparison to McCarthy is an exaggeration. But tell me, Clinton apologists, what DID Bill mean by his comments? Was he dismissing the patriotism of his wife's Democratic rival or was he just mindlessly talking out his ass? Which is it?
March 22, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was wishing that there could be an election free from media-manufactured bullshit and anti-patriotic smears. There's nothing there about the two candidates being McCain and Hillary. It's not there. It's the goddamn lazy reporter's goddamn lazy fault for presuming that that's what he must have meant. And it's the fault of everyone else who buys into it when reporters decide that they're too hungry to listen properly to plain goddamn English.
From the original piece:
"From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann (see update)
CHARLOTTE, NC -- At a small VFW hall in Charlotte, NC, today, former president Bill Clinton contemplated a McCain/Clinton general election matchup"
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Note the update:
"Update: Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna clarifies the former president's comment: "Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism.
He was lamenting that these kind of distractions 'always seems to intrude' on political campaigns. This consistent with his criticism of the 'politics of personal destruction,' which dates back 16 years.""
March 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am searching for the full quote. The couple of paragraphs before this one are spent discussing just Hillary & McCain so the one we all know is absolutely about a Hillary & Mccain matchup.
The reason I bring this up is because when I first saw the quote, I didn't think it was possible to tell who he was talking about, and I said so elsewhere. But as soon as I saw the fuller quote it was plain as the nose on my face what he was up to.
When I or someone else finds it, I assume it will get posted.
March 22, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the video of the full quote from that speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlu7wjPEK4k
March 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a lot of nerve calling Obama supporters naive if you honestly believe that Bill Clinton wants a campaign focused on issues. You don't make a stealth case to SD about Rev. Wright and disparage Obama and pump up McCain at the expense of your party when you want to focus on issues.
These naive arguments are idiotic. Was Clinton acting like McCarthy? Obviously not (it was a foot-in-mouth thing to say, but not McCarthyism) But neither are the Clinton's hankering for an honest, fair fight.
But I don't know, maybe even making this criticism puts me on par with Ken Starr and Karl Rove tactics.
March 22, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the quote with the prior paragraph as well. Hey Flip yr Whig, I would assume we can now safely agree he was referring to McCain and not Obama now. what say you??
Quote as follows:
"He paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that, And he has
some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in
torture, he supported campaign finance reform, and he doesn't think global warming is a myth... So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him."
"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," he said in Charlotte, N.C. "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."
March 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the problem. Clearly he was talking about McCain and Obama. What two people did you think he was talking about? ;)
March 22, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
_Perhaps_ he's saying something mildly positive about McCain and his service. He is still not saying anything about how only with Clinton and McCain would there be a matchup where both candidates loved their country. And he is still calling out the media for creating distractions. Obama did the same thing.
March 22, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's totally obvious he's saying "Obama's a f*g and a fellow traveller Communist and a card carrying member of Al Qaeda". Right? It's written all over it. How can Hillary supporters not see this? Don't they understand English?
March 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is about time that megalomaniac Bill got slammed and slammed hard for his garbage. He destroyed the Democratic Party during his terms and now it is comiing back to bite him in his triangulating butt.
LMAO
March 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
March 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We weren't born yesterday, we know about FOX noise. Very little could shock us these days.
March 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch Bill Clinton step down next week.
March 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to the "my campaign doesn't whine" meme Obama used to run on people?
Here's Obama's problem. Pretty soon someone is going to point out that every foreign policy position he has taken in the last 20 years is totally consistent with Reverend Wright's preaching.
While you and I know it's just a coincidence, some dumb voters may think it's no coincidence that a guy whose spiritual guide was teaching that 9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost thought invading Iraq was dumb. 9/11 is America's chickens coming home to roost! I'm against dumb wars!
Obama postponed the inevitable by bringing race up again, but ultimately he faces an impossible challenge: To prove that he came to his position on Iraq on his own and not through the influence of Reverend Wright.
I'm not saying that's fair or just or that things should be that way. Water is wet. Rocks are hard. The dominant culture is going to elect a President it trusts to defend it.
March 22, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
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!
March 22, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have been waiting a long time for someone to step up and give "The have you no shame" to the Clintons.
March 22, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, the whole thing makes me nostalgic for the days when Clinton attacked Republicans instead of Democrats.
March 22, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now Bill Clinton had a "below average" presidency?
Wow. You Obama supporters denigrate the legacy of a Democratic President while extolling the "difference" of your candidate, all in the same breath. Amazing.
Doesn't sound very hopeful to me. Good luck with that.
March 23, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fact is, Bill has become a total a**hole. Obama's team is just being polite.
March 22, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politeness is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.
March 22, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way he says: "What'd I do?"
March 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
if i'm not mistaken, this was exactly obama's point last week when he said that we can keep allowing these ridiculous distractions to decide our elections or we can move on to discuss the real issues...
by focussing on what bill clinton meant or didn't mean, you are doing what obama has condemned. just assume that clinton meant that whoever is running (by definition) loves their country and that all this other crap is ridiculous.
now what about the real issues???
March 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lord have mercy, there's at least one person left in the world who hasn't completely given up on, you know, comprehension.
March 22, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you giving Bill Clinton a pass? His comments were the genesis of this chapter.
March 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am giving him a pass because his comment could be interpreted in a completely benign way as i suggested above. he never mentioned obama, so why assume that there is any reference to obama at all?
i might ask why you and some others insist on interpreting bill clinton's words in the most unflattering manner? bill clinton has never made a personal attack on barack obama, so why would he start now?
if you want me to change my mind, then show me an exact quote of a personal attack made by bill clinton on obama that doesn't rely on some nefarious interpretation of what clinton may have meant...
March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"smoke and mirrors" "fairy tale" "roll of the dice" "taking down other Democrats"
These are all high compliments, right?
The real art of politics is getting people to believe not just what you say, but also what you don't say. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. By not including Obama as someone who loves his country and is devoted to the interests of the country while putting McCain in that club, Clinton disparages Obama's patriotism. I don't expect him to make favorable comparisons between Obama and Hillary, but character assassination by inuendo is not in character with the noble political warrior that you would have me believe Clinton to be.
March 22, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"smoke and mirrors" and "fairytale" were not personal attacks. i believe that clinton was discussing obama's claims on his record regarding the war in iraq. whether you agree with clinton or not, he was discussing obama's record, so that doesn't count as a personal attack.
"roll of the dice" was a reference to the fact that obama was more of an unknown than hillary and did not have a long enough public record or enough scrutiny of his record. again, this is not a personal attack. in fact, "roll of the dice" suggests that there are two possible outcomes: obama is not experienced enough, or he is... we just don't know which one it is yet.
as for "taking down other democrats"... i don't know this one... do you have a link for this that provides some kind of context?
i am unpersuaded that bill clinton ever attacked obama "personally"... you can't just imagine it and say that it happened.
March 22, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill’s recent comments are not a personal attack on Obama either; they are an attack on his patriotism.
McPeck never accused Bill of McCarthyism, he said those comments remind him of the McCarthy era; not a personal attack either. It is the Hillary’s campaign who is taking offense, by taking it out of context, and demanding an apology.
Somehow Hillary forgot to extend her apology for calling Obama Rovian or for her campaign comparing him to Ken Starr.
March 22, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Smoke and mirrors" (a reference to the candidacy and it's author, the candidate) = magic/magician = deception/deceiver. A direct personal shot.
"Fairy tale" again refers to the candidacy ("this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen"). Who's telling the tale? The yarn spinner, the fictionalist, the liar. Personal shot or not?
"Roll the dice" = gambling: risky, dangerous, dubious, and (in some places) illicit and immoral. Is that the kind of character reference you'd take impersonally?
"Taking down other Democrats" (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/17/bill-clinton-blames-obama_n_87098.html) I'll admit, this refers to Obama's argument about the politics of the past, so it's not a personal attack.
Forgot this one: calling Obama "kid". I guess as a former president you might feel empowered to demean a U.S. Senator as a juvenile, but I don't think that there's a policy statement.
It would seem that I am not the only one who feels that Bill Clinton's role as attack dog was overplayed. There were numerous reports about party elders calling him up to reign in his personal (some even called them "racist") attacks. He lost key endorsements for Hillary with his intemperance. I guess my "imagination" is similar to that of Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, et al....
March 22, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, you couldn't be more wrong here (in my humble opinion)...
fairytale was never a reference to obama's candidacy. you remember the spin very well, but you are ignoring what bill clinton said completely.
"smoke and mirrors" and "roll of the dice" are commonly used to mean "distort/hide" and "take a chance" respectively... you don't want to go down this road or we could spend the next 5 months picking apart every word out of the mouths of every candidate and his/her surrogates.
you may be in good company if you wish to take umbrage at every perceived slight, but that doesn't make it true. for every obama supporter who agrees with you, i can find a clinton supporter who agrees with me. we're wasting time and pissing into the wind by taking this any further.
March 22, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
kendsdad,
It is not benign that in the middle of the Primaries the campaign of one Democrat spends time glorifying an opponent from the Republican party!!
Just the first part of his comment, I won't even get into the "benign" put down to Obama' patriotism. Please notice the last line in which he is speaking as if Obama is not part of the equation. Beat McCain?? She is not the nominee, she is not even leading the race!!
I don't agree, these are "benign" comments! Bill is campaigning, in the Primaries!, for the Republican nominee!!!!
"He paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that, And he has some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in torture, he supported campaign finance reform, and he doesn't think global warming is a myth... So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him."
March 22, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
first off... i said that bill's comments "could" be interpreted as benign. you guys have him accused, convicted, and put to death on what could be interpreted as benign.
second, what is wrong with being honest about your opponent? mccain is a war hero, right? he does have some views that are not in lock-step with the worst of the republicans like his views on torture, campaign finance reform, and global warming... hello??? what good does ignoring this do us? god help me for defending mccain, but he is not the worst of the worst as far as republicans go. clinton is saying that we shouldn't underestimate mccain! clinton is asking democrats to be realistic about the challenges that mccain poses...
honestly, i don't think there is anything wrong with praising your opponent when he takes a stand that you agree with. isn't it your candidate, obama, who wants to end the acrimony in washington. isn't it your candidate who says that there isn't a blue america and a red america, but only a united states of america? if you can't even admit that mccain has a few redeeming qualities, then i don't think there's much hope for what obama is promising to achieve if elected. you are his supporter, right? one of obama's main selling points is that we won't be going back to the days of dems and repubs tearing each other down instead of building our country up. if his own supporters don't believe in that, then how do you expect republicans to get on board after january of 2009?
sorry, now i have to go take a shower for defending mccain repeatedly in one post!
March 22, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Background and translation for slow-reading Obama supporters:
Bill Clinton is supporting Hillary Clinton. They are married. He is supporting the other of 2 Democratic nominees.
He is promoting the hypothetical November election of Hillary vs. McCain. That is why he used the subjunctive tense: "...if we had..."
If Obama doesn't like the subjunctive tense, I suggest y'all do your best to get him to win the nomination. Until then, I suggest you don't jump the shark, but then again, do what comes natural, hate to hold you back.
March 23, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kens dad,
It is the sin of omission. Bill Clinton knows exactly every word that comes out of his mouth. From "sexual relations" (by his definition, a BJ was not a form of sexual relations) to the meaning of is, Bill knows the power of what he says. By setting up the situation heaping praise on McCain (see the full quote, which I posted above) and then referring to 2 candidates who love their country, it is obvious the distinction he is drawing.
Another example of inference. In Richardson's speech yesterday he said a house divided can not stand. It was a clear warning to Hillary and a message to superdelegates. He never mentioned Hillary by name there but it was obvious what he was getting at. As an interested voter, I read between the lines of what Richardson said.
Your defense of Bill's comments suggests that we should never read between the lines of what our politicians say. That's where most of their important points come from.
March 22, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course, you are free to read between every line spoken... you are free to draw your conclusions. the problem, however, for me is that once you have drawn the conclusion that benefits your point of view, then you apply it as the gospel ignoring any other possible interpretation.
of course, you are free to do that, but i am just as free to disagree and to point out my disagreement.
March 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kensdad,
By heaping praise on McCain and immediately making the second statement that he made, there is extremely little wiggle room to see otherwise.
But I guess that is the beauty of Bill. He chooses his words so very carefully that each statement can become a case of Rashomon for people who hear them.
My history with Bill leads me to my opinion on this matter. And I have years of his statements as supporting witnesses.
March 22, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice reference to Rashomon... nothing like a little kurosawa to elevate the conversation!
March 22, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it would be if they didn't do a mash-up of Kurosawa and Hello Kitty.
March 23, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama has a charming intelligent wife. he would never think of abusing her by cheating on her with other women."
What does that mean?
March 22, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
March 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of Clinton's moments calling Bush a McCarthyite came in 1992, long before the years of unfounded investigations. It's a rhetorical card that Clinton frequently used to score political points, so it's utterly disingenuous for him to get mad about it in reverse - especially when he's calling John McCain more patriotic than Obama.
March 22, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main issue, as per Hillary's campaign, is vetting and ability to take on the Republicans. The general is merely tossing the latrine.
March 22, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party is its own worst enemy right now. President Clinton's remarks were uncalled for, and indeed insulting to the 3rd person, unnamed, who apparently doesn't love this country (according to President Clinton), but they are far, FAR too subtle to be called McCarthyist. See the response of Billy Glad, who missed the point that the 3rd person, left out, was Obama, while 'twas Senator Clinton and John McCain who were hinted as the only 2 possible candidates for President who loved this country. It is indeed an attack on Obama's patriotism, but doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, erm, McCarthyist remark.
March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
March 22, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
carville called richardson a judas... i assume that carville knows richardson personally. if he chooses to call him that, then carville should be held responsible for that comment, not bill or hillary.
we are all going too far in assigning blame to the candidates for comments by surrogates, even when the surrogates may be speaking for themselves personally (and there is a difference.)
if carville was asked what the clinton campaign or hillary thought about richardson's endorsement, then i stand corrected and the clinton campaign must stand up and take a position on carville's words. if he was speaking for himself, then so be it. james carville is no shrinking violet and obviously believes in political loyalty.
March 22, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink