Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Was Bill Clinton Questioning Obama's Patriotism?

March 22, 2008 8:17 PM

Former President Bill Clinton, laying out "the three reasons" for his wife's candidacy at Charlotte, N.C., VFW post 1160 Friday, said, "She'd be the best for the veterans, she'd be the best commander-in-chief, and she'd be the best at managing this economy."

Then he got into some trouble with a fourth reason: electability. Citing hypothetical match-ups between the Democrats and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the former president said his wife beats McCain in Ohio, Florida and Arkansas, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would lose to him in those states.

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

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

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

"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," Clinton said, "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 argument for her."

Watch the remarks HERE.

As reported by ABC News' Sunlen Miller, an Obama surrogate saw in those remarks the former president by omission implying that Obama was not a candidate who loved this country -- and that his nomination, as opposed to his wife's, would mean a non-issue-based debate, i.e., "all this other stuff."

“Both Barack Obama and John McCain are great patriots who love this country and are devoted to it," said Obama campaign co-chairman Gen. Tony McPeak. "So is Hillary Clinton. Any suggestion to the contrary is flat wrong.”

To reporters, he likened Clinton's comments to those of red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wisc.

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

Was Clinton implying that Obama was less that patriotic?

NBC's Carrie Dann says that considering the context of the last week -- the Rev. Jeremiah's Wright's inflammatory comments, the GOP making it clear it will attack Obama's patriotism -- "Clinton's comments could be seen as an effort to draw attention to the issue of patriotism in a state with a high population of veterans."

Andrew Sullivan didn't see it that way. No Clinton fan, he, Sullivan wrote: "I don't think he's implying that Obama doesn't love his country or is not devoted to the interest of this country (although you could, with some strain, parse it that way). He's actually hoping for a substantive, non-swift-boating, non-Coulter, non-Hannity campaign. It's pretty close to my own hope for an Obama-McCain race. Now why Clinton didn't include Obama, who is the current front-runner, and who has shown an ability to speak and talk constructively and civilly for the entire campaign, is an interesting question, isn't it?"

The Clinton campaign writes: "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 is consistent with his criticism of the 'politics of personal destruction,' which dates back 16 years."

(Does he really think that a Clinton-McCain race would be a cleaner race than Obama-McCain? That seems, at best, a naïve notion.)

In any case, the Clinton campaign is now attacking Obama's campaign for likening Bill Clinton to McCarthy -- which seems interesting given that Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson once likened Obama to another Democratic bogeyman, former independent counsel Ken Starr.

Not to mention that, as McPeak referenced, in 1992 then-Gov. Bill Clinton himself once invoked McCarthy after then-President George H.W. Bush was attacking him for allegedly "demonstrat[ing] against your own country or organiz[ing] demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil."

Said Bill Clinton in 1992: "You have questioned my patriotism. ... When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong. And a senator from Connecticut stood up to him named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war, but I love my country and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. We've got enough division. I want to lead a unified country."

I asked Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer to explain what could be seen as a contradiction.

"President Bush actually employed a McCarthyesque tactic, to which Bill Clinton responded," Singer said. "Bill Clinton didn't question Obama's patriotism."

As for the second point, Singer said, "Ken Starr raised questions about Sen. Clinton's ethics. The Obama campaign is doing the same thing."

I asked Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton to explain how Obama could claim to be trying to bring in a new kind of politics when his surrogates are on the attack -- McPeak with the McCarthyism, and Obama campaign manager David Plouffe in a full-out assault on Hillary Clinton on "character" issues yesterday.

He said Obama making a positive case for himself did not mean they wouldn't push back against Clinton attacks or correct the record.

And the beat goes on. ...

What do you think Bill Clinton meant?

-- jpt

March 22, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary, Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (621)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bob4USA I appreciate your knowledge of history and articulate expression your views. I also live in a predominately Jewish neighborhood of holocost survivors and feel great kinship with and sympathy for them. However your post has made me realize that the plans of the Bush administration have throughly worked! They have made us so fearful that we cannot even make a fair judgment anymore.

My first post was simply to remind people that Democratic party needs to stick together and focus on winning the presidency... but the mud slinging against Obama would not stop. Page after page of comments with fearful undertones that made me wonder what they were really trying to say… and finally you said it. You are afraid that an angry Black man will take over one day and take his revenge on us all. He will be like Hitler. He will pretend to like us and as soon as we give him the power he will kill us all.

Until this day I really that Black people were exaggerating just a little when they described how we treated them in this country. I believe them now. Basically what you are proveing is that there is a no-win situation for Blacks in America. If a black man running for public office is articulate you see it as cunning. If hes thinking you see it as a plotting. If hes smart you call it sneaky. As if the only reason his parents paid all of that money to send him that ivy-league school was so that he could come out and wring our necks with his cap and gown.

Meanwhile it was not even the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, or any other group of Black radical extremists you can name that tricked us into giving away our civil liberties by luring us into a bloody war for under false pretenses (where we lost 4000 of our children and counting), or crashed our dollar down to the lowest value it has had in hundreds of years! Farrakhan himself did not let Bin Laden, the radical Muslim extremist who attacked us escape while using a smoke screen to focus our attention on Hussein.

Did you know that the Bush family ACTUALLY has ties to Hitler! Did you know that GW Bush’s great grandfather gave contributions to Nazi party during the Holocaust AFTER it had began (knowing full well what they were doing)? We elected that same Bush family into presidency two times … and now we questioning this not even black but half-black man’s intentions just because he’s educated, articulate and people like him? For that alone you compare him to Hitler?

Newsflash people… we are not in danger of some disgruntled former slave coming into power one day to put America on a Hitler-like course to destruction. This country is ALREADY on that Hitler-like course of destruction and the best chance we have of surviving it is to get the Democrats back in office ASAP if it not already too late! This will not happen if we do not stop slamming eachother.

Posted by: lyne | Mar 25, 2008 7:06:48 PM

I believe that Barack and Rev Wright appear to be very motivational and ambitious speakers, however, Obama’s words are carefully chosen to be socially accepted. I once saw Obama as an eloquent newcomer who did a better job than most politicians at sidestepping issues and telling people what they want to hear. No one really knows his accomplishments (except he drafted a bill that never got passed), yet millions jumped on board because he said he stood for “change”. As much as I wanted to admire him, that wasn’t enough for me. Unfortunately, I know see him as someone who was once struggling internally and found his way, his spiritual calling that helped shape him in to the man he is today by someone who is very anti-American. He then went on to marry someone who was never been proud to be American and continues to be inconsistent about his financial transactions with Rezko. He makes excuses for these people yet is critical to family that made sacrifices to raise him. Yet, he’s still getting support because he gives a good speech. I pray that his supporters haven’t been duped. I hope if he somehow continues to receive votes and makes it into the White House that “changing America” “changing the way things are done in Washington” has a positive result for all of America. I hope he doesn’t have 20 years worth of ideas to implement a secret Farrakahn agenda to a country already in crisis.

Posted by: Jen Michelle | Mar 25, 2008 12:08:17 PM

NO, this is just another Obama stretching the facts. The Obama is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for attacks in the last few weeks. If HIllary threw the kichen sink at him the he has obviously been throwing the dirty bathtub at her! Obama is playing using the dirtiest of tactics...the only difference is he tend to hide behind his attack dogs where Hillary and Bill is real enough to own their own words.

Posted by: Richard | Mar 25, 2008 11:13:08 AM

I'm outraged that here in the USA, two States and millions of people, are being denied a vote to determine the next President of the USA. It�s creating an unfair Democratic Primary and is unprecedented. No matter whom you are voting for, if anyone wins unfairly, the damage will reverberate for years to come. So please take the time, to take action so that all voters in the USA are heard and counted.

Let Florida and Michigan Democratic Voters Vote!

FL & MI Citizens Deserve a Democratic Vote

The fifteenth Amendment (1870) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged, by the United Sates, or any other State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, on account of sex.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964) promises:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election... shall not be denied or abridged...

Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971) promises:
The right of Citizens of the United States, who are 18 years old age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any other state...

Posted by: Paul | Mar 25, 2008 1:01:50 AM

What I find humorous is how one underestimates Clinton's cunning, political savviness. C'mon folks. There is reason behind every statement that the Clinton's make, and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Some of the comments I read on this board serves to substantiate the very motive that they (The Clintons) originally intended...to discredit Obama.

Consider this excerpt from Machiavelli's "The Prince:"

"To sum it up, it is useful to seem to be virtuous, but you must be ready to act the opposite way if the situation requires it. A prince should do good if he can, but be ready to do evil if he must. Yet a prince must be careful to always act in a way that appears virtuous, for many can see you, but few know how you really are. If a ruler conquers and maintains his state, everyone will praise him, judging his actions by their outcome."

Posted by: PM | Mar 24, 2008 8:43:47 PM

Is the comparison of Obama and Hitler fair? Probably not. Here is some information that may shed light on the comparison. Adolph Hitler was very cunning. He had a hidden agenda. He avoided questions or didn't answer questions in a straight forward way about how he was going to unite the people and change the government, change the economics of Germany or anything thing else. He Twisted the words of his opponents show how untrustworthy, dishonest and disingenuous they were. After Adolph was elected he showed his true agenda. Obama hasn't been elected yet. Hitler had to defend his friends and the white Aryan church there too. He had great inspiring rosy speeches that caused the people of Germany to fall in love with him. The German Arch Bishop of the Catholic Church Declared Adolph Hitler a Saint before the election. He spoke of hope, change, uniting all of the German people, the government, the military very eloquently and in a very inspiring way. Many Jewish people went to the gas chambers expecting Hitler to save them. They all believed his inspiring speeches. Check your history. My next door neighbors lived it. Everybody I have talked to who lived it has said the same things I'm saying in this post. I have read it in history books. In fact most of the speaking tactics used by Hitler are similar to those being used by Obama. Obama's connections to Rezco, Wright, Farrakhan, etc... Obama's ability to excite people and make people feel good in his speeches. This is why so many people compare Obama to Hitler fair or not. Unfortunately there are similarities in some ways. I would like to think that Obama does'nt have a hidden agenda. By the appearances of the simularities I suppose it's a possibility thats why my Jewish friends who lived during the this horrilbe time in Germany are not voting for Obama. The brave survivors I have talked to are voting for Hillary. Is the comparison of Obama and Hitler fair? The decision belongs to the individual voter.

Posted by: Bob4USA | Mar 24, 2008 7:22:49 PM

I absolutely believe that Bill Clinton and the rest of the nation should most definately question Obama's patriotism. Here is a Preseidential candidate that won't even cross his heart for the Pledge of Alligence, wear an American pin on his jacket and listens to bigot and racist remarks from a sick and twisted Rev. Wright. You bet your a$$ I am questioning his patriotism, morals, values, and character.

Posted by: Brenda | Mar 24, 2008 7:13:54 PM

PM: Actually, your quote exactly describes Barack Obama. Thanks, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Posted by: Grammy Barb | Mar 24, 2008 6:32:41 PM

More "smoke and mirrors" from Obama to try to get your attention away from the Wright fiasco, the Rezko trial, whatever. There were two reporters at the speech that Bill Clinton gave before a small group of veterans, and when the anchors tried to get them to say that Bill was saying that Obama wasn't patriotic, both reporters said that was not their impression. Should have been the end of it, but this media seems so hell bent on creating controversy and helping the Obama campaign add credibility to their specious claims, and here we are how many days later still talking about nothing. Bill Clinton was stumping for votes for Hillary. Obama wasn't even in the conversation. Whine, whine, whine. Grow up!

Posted by: Grammy Barb | Mar 24, 2008 6:29:20 PM

Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife, so it's only natural that he would compare McCain and Hillary. If he didn't mention Obama, how can it be inferred that he is saying that Obama is unpatriotic ? Seems like Obama camp is getting really desperate and is reaching for the straws by launching personal attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton. If this is the new kind of politics Obama is going to bring, then all I can say is : Thanks, but no Thanks

Posted by: pleaseanswer | Mar 24, 2008 5:35:03 PM

What I find humorous is how one underestimates Clinton's cunning, political savviness. C'mon folks. There is reason behind every statement that the Clinton's make, and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Some of the comments I read on this board serves to substantiate the very motive that they (The Clintons) originally intended...to discredit Obama.

Consider this excerpt from Machiavelli's "The Prince:"

"To sum it up, it is useful to seem to be virtuous, but you must be ready to act the opposite way if the situation requires it. A prince should do good if he can, but be ready to do evil if he must. Yet a prince must be careful to always act in a way that appears virtuous, for many can see you, but few know how you really are. If a ruler conquers and maintains his state, everyone will praise him, judging his actions by their outcome."

Posted by: PM | Mar 24, 2008 4:47:08 PM

In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular votes by 4%.

In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won the popular vote by 5%.

What do the numbers tell us? If we transfer all the caucuses to primaries based on TX and WA votes, then Obama has been defeated by Clinton with a large margin.

The conclusion? Obama, drop out right now before you hurt the party too much. There is no caucus in November.

Posted by: No More Caucus | Mar 24, 2008 4:38:14 PM

I heard that Obama kind of distances himself from McPeak's attack by the "tone" now, but still he maintains McPeak has a "fair" reading of Clinton's sentences.

People often said Obama is a Harvard-educated intellect, he should have known this "fair" reading won't pass an academic analysis, so why he still insists on McPeak's interpretations?

Posted by: Victor | Mar 24, 2008 4:34:00 PM

here's a news flash. Hillary made a speech on a future housing plan today in Philadelphia; what's so strange is that it is so similar to the memo Obama sent out March 2007 to Federal Reserve Chairman and Treasury Secretary. Hillary has a lot of gall and what she banks on is the American people not reading...

Posted by: tiredofthelackofknowledgeofvoters | Mar 24, 2008 3:59:09 PM

I am torn between Hillary and Obama, but the way the people on this forum are spitting hate against Obama I can not as a CHRISTIAN go along with this. Hillary supporters please stop you are losing Hillary votes. I am not the only CHRISTIAN that feel this way most of the people in my chruch think Hillary's supporters just hate Obama because he is winning and her supporters can not deal with a Black man beating a White women. PLEASE STOP!

Posted by: Emilianna | Mar 24, 2008 3:39:30 PM

Well I must say that I'm quite disappointed in the Bitchy fear-based comments that Bill has been making too. I thought he would have been more articulate. Maybe he is a hack considering that hes not dumb and probably does know better.

Posted by: Janet | Mar 24, 2008 2:57:32 PM

I'm sorry Kris but comparing Obama to Hitler is just plain dumb.

Obama is not preaching hate against anybody and Hillary and Obama are much more alike than McCain and any of the republicans he was running against. My point is that the Democrats need to stop the infighting... period and see the bigger picture. The republicans to the far right who were running against McCain (and had much less in common with him and his leftist views) were at least smart enough to rally behind him when they saw he was winning for the unity of the party!

If Hillary were winning right now I would say that Obama should rally behind her but that is not the case, so I'm saying the oposite. Everytime Hillary and Obama go on smear campaigns against eachother they are just giving McCain more ammunition to use against whichever one of them is still standing after the primarys. They're doing the job for him!

Bottom line... If democrats don't begin to support eachother from now on, the democrats lose. Thats it.

Posted by: Lyne | Mar 24, 2008 2:46:31 PM

cba-you are a little twisted in your thinking about the Clintons, but that is your right.
Obama has been negative and attacking without legitimate facts; he has shown himself to be racist; he has not released his House records from the Illinois Legislature; and he is running on an entertainment ticket. He thinks that because women and ment could cry at his every word that makes hima good leader. That equals him to the Beatles and I wouldn't vote them into office either. Obama's cult-like status is scary. You know Hitler won over the masses with his speaking ability.

Posted by: Kris | Mar 24, 2008 1:58:22 PM

BARACK OBAMA DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE 2008! THANKS GOV RICHARDSON FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO STEP UP!

Posted by: MERLE7 | Mar 24, 2008 1:39:56 PM

In my opinion Bill Clinton's so call support of Hillary is actually hurting her and the entire party if anything. The worst was when in his speech he actually said that Hillary and McCain are 'Friends' and implied solidarity between them yet did not mention fellow Democrat Obama. This shows weakness, fear, and indecision on his part to basically kiss up to McCain right now. Democrats do not want to hear that! This infighting within the Democratic party is killing them and ushering McCain right into the White house! Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe Bill Clinton might really be a HACK trying to sabotage his wife's candidacy? Maybe he's just like many other men dont really want to see their wives in a powerful position.

Posted by: Lyne | Mar 24, 2008 1:34:25 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS