RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« 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)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
There is no question that Bill Clinton is questioning Senator Obama's patrionage. This attack is right out of the Republicans books on "Subtle and Dirty" political tricks. I believe this tactic will back-fire because people who want Change realize that personal attacks are used only to divert the electorate from real issues. The real issue for Hillary is that she is loosing the nomination and has little chance of winning with out convincing super delagates to vote for her instead of Mr. Obama. Super delagates will only break ranks with the public if they are convinced that t Senator Obama is not ready or worthy enought to become president. I believe the American electorate is intelligent enought to reject this kind of rhetoric and vote for Obama anyway.
Posted by: James - Atlanta | Mar 24, 2008 1:31:06 PM
Which candidate has no details how to get out of Iraq too fast? Which candidate has no details on all issues? Which candidate waits for the other candidates to come out with speeches on major issues then copies them and claims the ideas as this person's own ideas? Which candidate twists the words of opponents to make them look disingenuous, untrustworthy, divisive, ect... Which candidate has the potential to have a very dangerous hidden agenda that could potentially hurt most Americans? Which candidate has long time associations with immoral or corrupt people. Is this the candidate who we want making decisions for you ?
Posted by: Bob4USA | Mar 24, 2008 1:06:59 PM
How can anybody ever consider Hillary as Commander in Chief when she has such a distain for the military.It was the Clinton White House that banned the military staff from even wearing thier uniforms.There was a AF Col who resigned after they wanted him to serve dinner at a formal dinner, while in uniform. This is not why I served my country for 22 years in uniform, to serve under a Commander in Chief that dislikes our servicemen.
Posted by: David Holladay | Mar 24, 2008 12:51:42 PM
Obama camp is really getting desperate now. To quote Obama "They are trying to read the tea leaves".
Posted by: pleaseanswer | Mar 24, 2008 12:36:32 PM
Both of these candidates are running competitive races to become the nominee of the Democractic party. The fact that many of these comments attack the character of Senator's Obama and Clinton are at best childish. Many of these statements have nothing to do with talking about the candidates and the issues they support. If you find Senator Clinton policies match your own, then follow your candidate and say why you support those issues. If Senator Obama is your candidate then do likewise. Stop these personal attacks and get back to the issues that matter to all Americans!
Posted by: Gary | Mar 24, 2008 12:06:23 PM
Shevotedforwar....
There cannot be such a thing as reverse discrimination until the playing field is leveled.
What? Racism is Racism.... And by the way..no one stole the White House. Quit crying in your milk. The Dems are going to lose again this November because they still do not get it. The party cannot even decide on a nominee. And you currently have the worst Speaker in the history of our government. McCain is going to win. Actually he is not going to win, but Obama is going to hand it to him.
Posted by: chad | Mar 24, 2008 12:05:31 PM
BILL? How about most americans are questioning Obama's patriotism?
Posted by: Char | Mar 24, 2008 11:58:09 AM
Its amazing to me how Hillary will blamed for all things. The passport incident were pointed at Hillary at first. The Wright incident were blamed on HIllary. The whole MI and Florida democratic process was denied, yet, HIllary is to blamed. And Obama had the audacity to go on Larry King and claimed that Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him? Well, if she did throw the kitchen sink then he's throwing the bathtub. I'm surprised they haven't blamed her for the current flood and tornados that's been happenning. In fact, why not go further and blame her for the housing slump, the aids virus and the bird/flu virus also! Why the heck not, the media is willing to do the HIllary beatings on demand by Obama anyway. All this talk of race has really pull a great big curtain over the larger issue here...that is gender bias!
Posted by: chrissy | Mar 24, 2008 11:43:43 AM
If guessed Obama your right!
Posted by: Bob4USA | Mar 24, 2008 11:29:23 AM
'm curious. Which candidate or candidates running for president excites the emotions of the people during speeches telling true heart wrenching stories of the great people of the USA then twists words of their opponents around so they sound like crooked politicians who are divisive, diningenous, untrustworhty ect...and then quotes inspiring messages from great Orators of the past? What kind of effect has this had on the people listening to the speeches? Have great day people
Posted by: Bob4USA | Mar 24, 2008 11:24:21 AM
'm curious. Which candidate or candidates running for president excites the emotions of the people during speeches telling true heart wrenching stories of the great people of the USA then twists words of their opponents around so they sound like crooked politicians who are divisive, diningenous, untrustworhty ect...and then quotes inspiring messages from great Orators of the past? What kind of effect has this had on the people listening to the speeches? Have great day people
Posted by: Bob4USA | Mar 24, 2008 11:24:12 AM
Not sure which is more telling, Obama`s giggles, his Bush-smirk or his idiotic distant smug look.
Posted by: luke | Mar 24, 2008 11:24:08 AM
Hillary was on CNN giving her economic speech. While obama has is tied up with his race problem. She is the ONLY on talking about the issues that we face.
and what she is saying makes sense. I do not understand. the people on these blogs talking about all that old stuff
must be rich-and none of the issues effect them. Now after the obama people listen to and get copies of what Hillary has said he will give his economic speech. He has copied everything Hillary has done and that is a fact. We are making a big mistake in putting obama up for president. He is not ready-he has poor judgement and he has proven he is a politician just the same as all the others.
Posted by: jgaw | Mar 24, 2008 11:08:30 AM
Bill Clinton can not open his mouth these days. He said, he only campaign for Hillary, he is only speak for Hillary. Even if he intentionally left out Obama on that statement, it still does not necessary that he implies Obama is NOT patriotic.
If Mark Twins says Some Congressmen are dogs, then it may imply some are not dogs (Because we are human being by default definition).
But if Mark Twin says some Congressmen are human being, does that imply some Congressmen ARE DOGS? No, it could be CATS, BUGS, FISH, or still very well human beings.
Logically if you state some is true, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THE REST IS NOT TRUE. IT CAN BE TRUE AND CAN BE FALSE.
Give you Media a MATH or Logic lesson. Goldbach conjectured every even number is the sum of two primes. But we have listed many even numbers are the sum of two primes. BUT THAT DOES MEAN THE REST IS TRUE OR FALSE. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT KNOW.
THAT PROVES MEDIA EITHER IDIOTS OR BIAS.
It also shows Bill Clinton is THE MASTER.
Posted by: WrongLogic | Mar 24, 2008 10:43:13 AM
Clinton is a brilliant politician, even Obama agreed to that on Larry King. So why do we question him, instead of Obama?
Posted by: Liz | Mar 24, 2008 10:42:37 AM
Obama would be bad for America, I agree. I wish someone could ask him what he means when he says he 'want's to change this country'. Change can mean so many things when it comes to a country.
Obama's church is more commited to Africa than America. I can't belive that there are folks who still believe in this guy.
Posted by: Liz | Mar 24, 2008 10:39:00 AM
I find it stunning that the Obama campaign could have found something objectionable in that remark. Certainly there was NOTHING to suggest McCarthyism. Then to see Obama stand there, arms folded over his chest, with that smug look on his face while he had one of his minions do the attack back was sickening. It was disgusting. Oh, Obama is a different candidate, don't you know. He is just like any other politician, only worse, because he pretends he's above all that. He's as bare-knuckled as Clinton.
I find it very interesting that it was big news -- I heard George S on "GMA" Friday morning talking about what huge news it was that Obama's passport into had been breached. But now that it was also Clinton's and McCain's, now that the firm in charge is connected closely with Obama's campaign =- poof! Gone! Not of interest. Can you imagine what hay the Obama campaign would be making if the firm were connected to Clinton? My god, the drumbeat would be deafening.
How about it, ABC? Why aren't you on that story?
Posted by: Beth | Mar 24, 2008 10:20:41 AM
If Obama has been gladly accepting the anti-American stuff put in his head by his "old uncle" in the last 20 years, how can he be patriotic? Can you? Can your kids?
Posted by: Liz | Mar 24, 2008 10:17:04 AM
Bush LIED about Iraq.
4,000 American Soldiers Dead
30,000 American Soldiers Wounded
Hillary LIED about sniper fire in Bosnia.
How many American Soldiers will die?
How many American Soldiers will be wounded?
She will LIE, again.
Does that make Hillary a patriot?
Posted by: JB | Mar 24, 2008 10:04:21 AM
Obama emphasises in his campaigns "words....just words" when Hillary was attacking him. He explained how words could change the nation. He then quotes famous speeches.
What about "words..just words" from his pastor?
Isn't he speaking out of both sides of his mouth?
Posted by: America the Beautiful | Mar 24, 2008 9:22:29 AM
Post a comment
