Key Obama Iowa Adviser Invokes 'Monica's Blue Dress' When Assailing Bill Clinton's 'Patriotism' Comments

So this would be a PRO-Hillary site?

To Neil-Because there would be no one left in Congress?...Because she addressed it with her husband a long time ago...and because it's none of your business?...or because creepy people just want to know the details?

I believe an earlier post here says it all:

The fact Barack Obama spends more time and energy on such things instead of offering substance is quite telling.

Where's the beef? Obama looks more and more like he has nothing but empty rhetoric to deliver. I am very disappointed with him. He lets his henchmen say this type of filth and then "rejects" it -- after the damage has been done. Here's the good news -- more and more people see through these pathetic efforts.

Senator Clinton delivered a fabulous economic plan again today -- why instead do you choose to cover and give air time to this other insignificant and shameless drivel.

Well,if G.Ferraro and others can make direct personal attacks on Obama and H. Clinton denouncing it, is called a good campaign strategy. Got Obama to give majestic speech.

So why cry foul when Obama camp is using the same tactic and bringing Monica Lew.. front and center into this.

Why should this country elect a president who cannot address the adulterous husband issue one way or another. Don't you think GOP is going to talk about it.....

Hey vmcgreen-Sounds like your concerned, conservative Christians have been dreaming about the blue dress. hmm...Are they also dreaming about which of the two Democrats they're going to vote for in November?

PH writes:
"And yet the Obama campaign is said to be 'pure.'"
------
You'd THINK having Republican General McPeak as a CO-CHAIR -- what with the connection to Bob Dole and all -- would be worth some little flurry of wonderment in the media, some little Viagra joke, SOMEthing. But nooo.

I'm getting a bit weary with the explicitly personal attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton--whether by Gordon Fischer, the MSNBC crowd or whoever. Clinton comments about Jesse Jackson, "loving country," were not directly anti-Obama, but had to be interpreted to be such. But the Obama responses require no interpretation, they are explicit. And yet the Obama campaign is said to be "pure."
PH Chicago

Mara,

check the Political Radar blog here at ABC for that incredible Bosnia story.

You're totally right, THAT is serious stuff. It's about the presidential candidate producing plain lies about her foreign policy experiences, and there's pattern already in these lies. It's not about aides, spokespersons, pastors, anti-Hillary movies, corrupts sponsors etc - it's about the candidate lying about what is at stake in this contest, and Hillary is the only one doing just that.

In CNN:Obama supporter references Bill Clinton and 'blue dress'

"In a radio interview on the "Michael Smerconish Show" that aired Monday in Philadelphia, Obama defended the church, saying it is "not some crackpot church," and pointing out that Bill Clinton also had ties to Wright.

Clinton invited Wright to the White House when he was going through his impeachment crisis. "

---------

Don't know what others think, but does Obama really think Cliton's "tie" to Wright is comparable to his? Is he playing with people's brains or what?

SO writes:
"then McPeak, an Obama supporter calls Bill Clinton a McCarthy and the same media gleefully report that without condemning it."
-----
Republican General McPeak -- whose last political campaign was for Dole in 1996 -- is an Obama CO-chair, a defense contractor, and older than John McCain. He flew in Viet Nam, and came up with the idea of bombing Iraq's water resources in Desert Storm.

Could the talking heads on teevee -- who were so quick to gang up on ... Geraldine Ferraro and whoever -- be CHICKEN to cross McPeak, lest they lose their, uh, plum positions in the political pecking order?

I misdated or mispoke - take your pick. It's 3/24. Pick a date - he lied, he was my President, it was wrong, and she lied, and there was no sniper fire.

Is there a reason why this blog is about a blue dress instead of the latest Clinton lie? Remember Hillary and all that sniper fire in Bosnia? All that foreign policy experience? Now, the Clinton campaign says she "mispoke."

NYT 3/25
"I spoke with William Nash, who was the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia and was at the Tuzla airport with Hillary Clinton. He said there was no threat of sniper fire at the airport during her visit. He said that Mrs. Clinton was gracious during her visit and took pictures with the soldiers, but “she never had her head down. There was no sniper threat that I know of.”

Misspoke is probably better than lying and then lying about lying:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." Slate, 9/13/98

Now, who is playing dirty politics?

Obama is in for a rude awakening if he were to win the nomination.

Carville calls Richardson "Judas" and CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and FOX say how terrible, then McPeak, an Obama supporter calls Bill Clinton a McCarthy and the same media gleefully report that without condemning it.

Guys, look at yourself in the mirror.

So, let me get this right.

Are the Clinton supporters trying to say that it's not a sitting President staining a girl's blue dress in the White House, while the First Lady is two rooms away, who is scandalous, but that it is some guy who dares to remind of that scandalous act on his blog many years later who is scandalous?

What kind of people are these Clinton supporters? Think of it. And think of having such scandals in the White House again. With a return of the Clintons America would lose a last possibility to restore its heavily damaged credibility and moral reliability in the world. That damage was done by a Clinton and a Bush; we need to get rid of these families who are transforming our great republic into some decadent oligarchy.

I though Obama was a unifier on issues. He's going to unify the country around the war. McCain wants 100 years. Hillary says six months. What's Obama going to do, split the difference and make it 50 years? The audacity of hope!
=======================================
COUNT Florida!
COUNT Michigan!
COUNT all the votes!
HILLARY stands up for all voters!
BOYCOTT the DNC til all votes count!

elaine writes:
"Okay Navarro, point taken. You first. Write some more about McCarthy other than the first two lines of Wickipedia."
-----
Young folks who want to know about Senator McCarthy should find a copy of "Point of Order", an educational film which includes television footage of the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. "Point of Order" did much to disabuse 1960s-era college students of fear of "communists".

Or they could look it up, online or in a real library:
"This film is a documentary of the Army-McCarthy hearings that were televised live for 36 days from Apr. 22 to May 24, 1954, to an average daily audience of 20 million. Emile de Antonio used kinescopes of portions of the hearings to make this film. The hearings were held by the Senate committee on Government Operations investigating the Army's induction of Roy Cohn's friend G. David Schine, Army's honorable discharge of Major Irving Peress who had refused to answer Loyalty Board questionnaire, and Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens' refusal to allow officers to testify before McCarthy's committee."

The good guys won. McCarthy -- who seemed to be drinking (or something) a good deal -- was eventually censured by the Senate. Joseph Welch was the hero.

Oh: and the "friend"ship 'twixt Cohn (co-villain with McCarthy) and Schine was not a very nice one, by 50s standards.

Okay Navarro, point taken. You first. Write some more about McCarthy other than the first two lines of Wickipedia. E

elaine writes:
"Navarro:, ah, quoting an online encylopedia is not exactly research."
-----
It's sufficient to correct info posted here that listed the wrong political party for Joe McCarthy.

If your own amazing "research" shows some new and amazing information about McCarthy, maybe you should just post it, huh, and leave me out of it?

Another desperate comments from Obama camp. So much so for the candidate of post racial divisiveness. Obama is the divisive candidate! I'll vote for McCain if Obama wins.

Navarro:, ah, quoting an online encylopedia is not exactly research. Oh well, I tried. All this talk about the infamous blue dress. Doesn't anybody care that a grown man in the most powerful job in the country used and abused a young woman? It may be old news to some of you lefties, but to me it still is an important telling character trait! And to have a wife like Hillary. Words fail me. It has nothing to do with white, black, woman, man.....none of them are worth what they think they are. Have any of them had to live on less than $25,000 a year? Have any of them struggled with long term illness and the mountain of bills associated with it? Have any of them gone without anything? Of all of them McCain might know. Can any one of them profess their faith with the big BUT that follows? Sick of the whole mess already. It's not that I'm not full of hope, it's that so many Americans run around making ridiculous, statements - I say, let's take the internet offline as well as all the 24 hour news channels and all their pompous pundits.