This will never be reported honestly. Until the McCain rules kick in, we're living under the Olbermann Fairness Doctrine.
Posted by cygnus at March 22, 2008 05:43 PMComparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy is ridiculous. Tail-gunner Joe was bald.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 22, 2008 05:49 PMpost-parsing bill clinton...
Posted by Turkana at March 22, 2008 05:53 PMHere's longer version of President Clinton's remarks.
In case anyone wants to judge for themselves.
Posted by Anjha at March 22, 2008 06:28 PMEntire event here and better video.
Anyone have video of McPeak?
Posted by Anjha at March 22, 2008 06:44 PMBrilliant eriposte. You always come with it.
McPeak has quite a resume and serious creds. However should Sen Obama prevail, he needs to go.
He takes away gravitas by being petty - as opposed to giving it. The latter is would think I would is what he's aboard for.
He also served as both USAF Chief of Staff and briefly as interim Sec. of USAF.
McPeak's short lived tenure as Sec. of the Air Force was during the Clinton admin. - where he was replaced by Dr. Sheila Widnall. A woman. He continued his long military career briefly and retired. Then he ran Bob Dole's Oregon campaign in '96.
Dole lost to Clinton. McPeak later jumped on board as adviser for Howard Dean and then John Kerry.
Gen. McPeak designed and brought in new nifty officer uniforms during his tenure - which look kinda like a cross between DeltaAirlines, the RAF and Star Trek. The Air Force quickly brought back the old school officer's uniforms after he left. It seems to me that he didn't take that too kindly and has an axe to grind. Oh yeah, this also happened during Bill Clinton's admin.
I personally don't find that surrogates of either candidate are terribly newsworthy.
As to former President Clinton, some observations:
(1) A former Rhodes Scholar, he is very bright and rarely, if ever, says something without clear reflection and purpose. Reasonable people may differ on the subtext of his recent comments; but let's presume there was clear intent and that he was communicating a subtle message.
(2) Giving him the benefit of doubt: He is now playing the 'good cop' and statesman given that his other roles in the campaign have not been well-received.
(3) Re: #2, he realizes that his wife's chances of getting the nomination are minimal and he is starting to focus on the repair of his legacy and/or setting the stage for a Billary re-run should McCain win.
(4) As a nation, and as left-center Democrats, it is pleasing to engage in reflection on the 'good old' Clinton days where the economy was good, his leadership was generally steady, and the blood of our sons and daughters was not spilled on a daily basis. However, Clinton is a deeply flawed narcissist; a selfish egoist in a relationship with Hillary that is clearly more troubled than most.
(5) Why are we even discussing the Clintons on the 'Left Coaster'? Since when does DLC nonsense belong in a discussion of progressive politics.
(6) Do we have any evidence that Hillary's coattails will benefit down-ticket progressives?
Bill's track record is not good.
(7) Why are many important folks who have worked closely with the Clinton's in responsible positions now choosing another candidate?
Posted by tfitznc at March 22, 2008 07:16 PMWell, as Joe Scarborough described the Obama campaign to Matt Lauer: "rookies, amateur hour."
I think they've seen the new SUSA state electoral college numbers, and Obama's freefall in those state polls, and they're so desperate to control the daily media agenda that they're in total meltdown.
Good Lord, they're like high schoolers.
Posted by Mary at March 22, 2008 07:22 PMGeez Mary,
So, you are quoting Joe Scarborough (R-FL) in support of Clinton's 'exemplary' campaign?
Since eriposte has a fondness for Repub sources as well, let's, once again, go back to one of his favorites - Real Clear Politics for some "pearls of wisdom".
RCP Mobile
Democratic Battle
Politico: Clinton Has No Chance
Richardson Backs Obama
Obama Slams Clinton's Veracity
Obama Aide: Bill Like 'McCarthy'
Clinton at Big $$ Disadvantage
White Voters and Obama
AND:
REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama-Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1628 - 1496 Obama + 132
Pledged Delegates 1414 - 1246 Obama + 168
Popular Vote 49.5 - 46.9 Obama +2.6
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.5 - 47.1 Obama +1.4
Nat'l RCP Average 47.7 - 44.2 Obama +3.5
Pennsylvania 35.2 - 51.8 Clinton +16.6
North Carolina 46.7 - 41.3 Obama +5.4
Clintonistas keep saying that the primary battle isn't over. If true, maybe you and your 'high school jock' friend Joe S. should focus less on the general and polls that purport to be meaningful eight months out?
oops, sorry, second video was of a different event.
I do like President Clinton's ability to communicate and his dedication to Hillary. I do not think that the statement was that bad, though it was a jab and the Clinton spin on it makes it sound magnanamous.
President Clinton has an excellent way of dismissing Obama as a slight annoyance rather than the candidate who is actually ahead in the race. He does it brilliantly - not that I like it, but he does it well.
I think that it was OK to call him out on it, but McCarthy was a little strong of a comparison.
My guess is that McPeak is pretty sick of people attacking Obama's patriotism and perhaps his frustration and anger with that flared his perception.
And, I think he was genuinely shocked at what he perceived:
"As one who for 37 years proudly wore the uniform of our country, I'm saddened to see a president employ these tactics. He of all people should know better because he was the target of exactly the same kind of tactics."
Earlier today I saw the video of McPeak (though I cannot find it now) and he seemed to be truly upset.
I have a difficult time believing that President Clinton is not fully aware of what he is saying at all times.
Posted by Anjha at March 22, 2008 07:47 PMGood grief, tfitznc, it would be hard for you to get more things wrong if you tried. Every one of your points is either ridiculous arrogance or just plain wrong.
"Clinton is a deeply flawed narcissist; a selfish egoist in a relationship with Hillary that is clearly more troubled than most." Um, psychology 101 - lecture on projection. Only a narcissist could write something so over-the-top. And what do you care about his relationship with Hillary? From the sound of things, you probably have relationship problems yourself.
"Why are we even discussing the Clintons on the 'Left Coaster'? Since when does DLC nonsense belong in a discussion of progressive politics." Yes, because you somehow define what it is to be a progressive. Riiiight. Bashing democrats, very progressive.
"Do we have any evidence that Hillary's coattails will benefit down-ticket progressives?
Bill's track record is not good." This is the funniest one. Apparently you don't read the real news. Studies show that, thus far, Obama voters don't bother voting downticket at all. They just check the box for the Messiah and then run on out of there back to class.
Once again we see a situation where Obama surrogates set the stage for Obama having to say something nice about the Clintons, when the fact is that Bill's comment was entirely innocuous and of course assumes love of country on the part of every candidate. If there's one thing Bill Clinton has NEVER done, in aide of criticizing any opponent, it's accused them of lack of patriotism. Quite the contrary. The notion that he is obliquely attempting a slam at Obama's expense is just laughable, and a sign of a certain paranoid mindset on the part of some of his more strident supporters.
That said, the Tuzla landing story is gaining ground, and Candidate Clinton is going to have to set the record straight, at the very least.
Posted by Mr Blifil at March 22, 2008 08:02 PMStudies show that, thus far, Obama voters don't bother voting downticket at all.
Link please?
Posted by Anjha at March 22, 2008 08:05 PMPoor ole tfitz; only gets info on the Obama blogs.
Try this one, from SUSA, showing electoral votes in November based on current state polls:
John McCain 288
Barak Obama 238
Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
SUSA has been the most accurate pollster so far.
Obama's previous voters have changed their minds, and the current state polls are not looking good for a Democratic win in November. He's tanking in the white male vote, and McCain is pulling all the Independents and Reagan Democrats.
THIS is what superdelegates will be looking at for November.
Not little caucuses in S Dakota or Alabama or Idaho.
Read em and weep, bud.
Posted by mary at March 22, 2008 08:13 PMLet's be honest and call Obama and his campaign what they are, "perpetual victim Drama Queens".
The first thing Bill Richardson did when he joined Obama's campaign was to cry victim.
Of course right-wingers like Kathleen Parker are coming out in Clinton's defense. She's one of them. Why was she quite happy to let NAFTA, GATT, etc. gut the heart out of the labor movement? Maybe it was her heartfelt prayers in her secret sex-segregated prayer group with Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement. Co-sponsoring the Workplace Religious Freedom Act? Maybe she actually believes that pharmacists should be able to deny women birth control because of their religious beliefs. Or maybe she actually agrees with the Rethugs on a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 22, 2008 08:19 PMHey OxyCon....
Did you read the website that got a copy of Richardson's announcement for Obama?
The campaign wrote it up for him, and even typed in stage directions : "Turns to Obama and proudly smiles."
Can you believe these yahoos are such amateurs?
Hopefully, McCain will dramatically demand a Congressional investigation of Obama's staff member who owned the company that snooped into his passport. And it'll be a drama queen press conference with lotta flags behind him, like Obama did.
LOL
Posted by Mary at March 22, 2008 08:20 PMMary,
I honestly do not know any one (besides you) who would describe Real Clear Politics as one of the "Obama blogs".
Quite obviously, RCP is a Republican, conservative-leaning blog that just happens to have an excellent record at poll tracking and averaged predictions (see: Bush v. Kerry).
Should you get the opportunity to read their home blog content, you will see an overt anti-Obama bias as Bevans and others view him as a much stronger candidate than Hillary in the general (a la Limbaugh).
BTW, I agree that SUSA has been better than most in the current cycle. The use of volatile, hypothetical state tracking polls this far out is really for only for entertainment purposes. Volatility seems to be do to the Wright controversy,Hillary's short-term successful attempts to raise Obama's negatives, and the fact that McCain is getting neutral and low-level coverage on his world tour (other than his 'senior moments').
You may want to check out the long-standing Gallup tracking polls which appear to show a nice recovery curve (regaining lead) after his speech on race and the endorsement of Gov. Richardson.
Thanks for your no doubt sincere concern as to my intellectual frailty.
Posted by tfitznc at March 22, 2008 08:30 PMSorry, Anjha, I don't have a link. It was reported widely after the Texas primary, and had been discussed before as well. Compared to Clinton voters, Obama voters tended to vote downticket much less frequently. Single box checkers. Interesting, but I was not surprised when I read it. Clinton's supporters are more hard-core base democrats. Obama's supporter tend to be more just for him, or indies/republicans who don't care about democratic downticket voting. So much for the Obama coattails argument.
Posted by at March 22, 2008 08:31 PMI'm looking forward to you talking about Hillary's Bosnia lie. You know, the one where she claims she came under sniper fire at Tuzla airport.
Or is that somehow off limits to point out the bold faced lies of your queen? Just a hint of objectivity would be nice.
Posted by Upton at March 22, 2008 08:36 PMPolitics does, indeed, make strange bedfellows. On both sides. Weird, isn't it?
Posted by aw at March 22, 2008 08:42 PMObviously, tfitz, you can't read.
SUSA poll is the one that matters now, and it shows Obama LOSING big time in crucial swing states to John McCain in November.
Time for you to face reality and stop acting like an adolescent.
Only SUSA has done the electoral match-ups after Wright, with current state polls.
And THOSE are the numbers the supers will study diligently.
Posted by Mary at March 22, 2008 08:44 PMThat was indeed a tragic day, what with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow getting wounded and all. Hillary is just plain lucky. She survived that trip with Ron Brown after all. What a gal!
Posted by at March 22, 2008 08:45 PMGee Upton, I'm looking forward to YOU talking about Obama's campaign advisor who owns the company that snooped into John McCain's passport. You know, the same guy who testified to Congress FOR telecom immunity in the FISA legislation.
Picture John McCain, standing in front of a row of flags like Obama did, demanding a high -level Congressional investigation of the snooping, and why Obama's campaign advisor's company was doing so.
Can't wait for it, can you?
Posted by Mary at March 22, 2008 08:48 PMNo matter his intentions, McPeak proved that President Clinton was right.
Posted by jwrjr at March 22, 2008 08:54 PMEriposte,
Hillary and her surrogates need to get back on track and start talking about meaningful issues.
For the past month, it has been nothing but peripheral nonsense; he said/she said, Pastor Wright, whining about delegates, etc.
She can't look Presidential spouting that stuff.
Obama has been giving major talks on race and foreign policy. Whether we agree with his point of view or not, at least he is trying to address issues of substance. She's got to find a way to win by selling herself, not just scratching and clawing at Obama.
Anjha,
Here's the link you were asking for:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/topstories/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html
How bad has it become when you wish for the day that Obama and his supporters get decked? That you want them to lose more than you want a Democrat to win? I am so tired of these victims and their race baiting. I am so tired of this group of losers. McPeak was reviled in the air force. But how interesting is it that he goes from Dole to Dean to Obama?
The Democratic Party has been taken over by a bunch of wimpy losers who cry foul and racism and now, McCarthyism, every chance they get. Now how weak is that? They are victims to the core. And who likes a victim? The new Democratic Party and the politics of victimhood. Why does that not sound like a winning campaign? The antipathy I feel towards Obama and his campaign and his real world and blogosphere supporters is palpable...They are neither honorable nor credible....so why would I trust them about anything? I can't stand John Kerry...I never liked Bill Richardson...I despite Tom Daschle and Bill Bradley... It gets harder and harder to get over it. Just to wipe the smile off their smug faces would feel cathartic...And that's when I know how seriously off the Obama campaign is...there is something going on there that is very subversive.
Posted by lily15 at March 22, 2008 10:03 PMAnd the contractor involved in the passport scandal is a former CIA bigshot who is an Obama adviser. Not just a supporter...but an adviser. And no one is reporting that..or very few are. Obamaland is creepy.
Posted by lily15 at March 22, 2008 10:07 PMLily15: CNN had the Obama passport story that you mentioned on their front page for a good share of the day. MSNBC in contrast didn't cover it at all. In MSNBC's defense, I'm sure they were trying to cover for their own big fat idiot named Keith Olbermann. (since he's become Rush Limbaugh with better hair).
I really believe with the media, etc, Obama will win the primary. However, I'd love to be a bug on the wall when they lose the general. They'll have no idea why they lost. But I will. Nobody wants a whiner as president of this country.
Signed: "Typical White Person"
Posted by at March 22, 2008 10:52 PMThey may have no idea why they lost, but they will scream 'We would have won if (evil Hillary) Clinton hadn't divided the Democratic party like she did.' Never mind that the ones really dividing the party was Obama and his disciples.
Posted by jwrjr at March 22, 2008 11:38 PMI watched the whole video and didn't find anything offensive to Obama. Suppose Sen. Clinton=A, Sen. McCain=B, and Sen. Obama=C. All of President Clinton's comments in the supposedly offensive part of the speech are about A and B. C (Obama) isn't even mentioned (except briefly as related to poll numbers much earlier in an unrelated part of the speech. If I say "A and B are blue", it does not imply that C is not blue. It doesn't say anything at all about C. I'm sure that there's a name for the logical fallacy that Gen. McPeak has fallen for here, but I don't know what it is.
This doesn't even have anything to do with Pres. Clinton's point, which is "let's talk about the issues instead of talking about who is more patriotic."
The post-parsing of anything that the candidates or their surrogates say has reached ridiculous proportions. Pres. Clinton was the victim here. I think that the Clintons have been victims more often (e.g. "as far as I know"), but it has happened to Obama occasionally, too. In this case, there's not even an unfortunate choice of words. There is nothing remotely offensive here. Let's move on. As Pres. Clinton said, wouldn't it be great if we had a campaign about the issues instead of this inconsequential crap.
Posted by pollster at March 23, 2008 12:30 AM"A former Rhodes Scholar, he is very bright and rarely, if ever, says something without clear reflection and purpose. Reasonable people may differ on the subtext of his recent comments; but let's presume there was clear intent and that he was communicating a subtle message."
tfitznc:
By your logic, Barack Obama, who is also very bright, meant exactly what he said about his grandmother. What subtle message was Obama communicating?
Posted by myiq2xu at March 23, 2008 01:45 AMEven though President Clinton was speaking on behalf of his wife, and he (like any good surrogate) presupposes she will be our party's nominee when he speaks...
Even though we all know that John McCain is the Republican nominee...
It's always all about Obama.
All the time.
So, anything ever said by any Clinton supporter or campaigner is, by definition, all about Obama.
Period.
The next thing you know, President Clinton will be accused of "not mentioning Obama enough."
Pitiful.
Posted by Delilah at March 23, 2008 03:17 AMWhen did Obama blog rules start being applied to the Clintons?
It has long been a rule at GOS and most lefty blogs besides this one that any comment that praises Hillary is interpreted as an attack on Obama.
But I didn’t think it applied to Hillary and the Big Dawg.
Before long people will be getting attacked for not cheering loud enough for His O-liness.
Is it November yet?
myiq1/2u,
Obama's message about his grandmother was anything but subtle. He was saying the racism is endemic in our nation; part of the fabric.
Like Gov. Richardson, who is also biracial if you will, he is in a unique position to observe prejudice as a person with a foot in both cultures.
IMO, Obama is indeed the most prominent of the so-called 'post-racial' politicians. One can hope that future generations will become progressively more 'color-blind'.
Posted by tfitznc at March 23, 2008 04:41 AMSo Eri did you check Bill's comment to first Bush in 92? Nah waste of time, so anywho no outrage at I was ducking bullets in Bosnia? No talking points all your supporters can genuflect to?
Posted by jesse at March 23, 2008 05:29 AMI look forward to the fast-approaching day when hacks like Mary will be forced to eat all the insane lunacy they have pedaled for months at this pro-Hillary blog. And on that day, when Hillary gives the speech we've all been waiting for - her concession speech - I will lift a drink to toast the occasion.
In the meantime, continue on your delusional path of Hillary-shillary!
Posted by Patrick at March 23, 2008 06:57 AMOutrageous! People are quoting Joe (RIGHT WING) Scarborough on this blog. How can any rational person see Bill Clinton’s comments for other than what they were? It was an attempt to CAPITALIZE on the current happenings about Obama’s pastor and insinuate that Obama himself is less than patriotic.
I personally feel that if Obama were in Clinton's position he would have been pressured to quit! Her only purpose in this is to try and raise Obama’s negatives so that he can be defeated by McCain and Hillary can be in a position to run in 4 years. Her chances are slim to non for winning this nomination, so her only hope at this point is to position herself for the next race.
Now it is time for the parental blogger to cut and paste my words and attack me and my words syllable by syllable. I am done with this blog. I HAVE HAD IT WITH THE GROUP THINK MENTALITY HERE.
If the video Anjha posted is the evidence against Clinton, then calling him a McCarthy stand-in is just plain stupid. Obama isn't the subject, object or the verb in what he was talking about.
Posted by gtash at March 23, 2008 09:11 AM"IMO, Obama is indeed the most prominent of the so-called 'post-racial' politicians."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - OMG, this is definitely as delusional as it could possibly get. Obama postracial. ROTFLMAO! Definitely. With the hate-whitey church, with the racial smearing of the Clintons, with 90% of blacks voting for him and now a majority of whites against. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
Talking points from Markos perchance?
Posted by at March 23, 2008 10:19 AMThanks for the link Eriposte.
Posted by Anjha at March 23, 2008 02:43 PMHaving actually watched this speech live when it occurred, McPeak looks like a fool and the Obama campaign looks ridiculous for trying to make this an issue ABOUT THEM. I guess to them they've been successful at parsing words and crying to a supportive media for so long that they've forgotten that his halo isn't as shiny and is slightly cracked. With the exception of Obama fanatics like Olbermann and Eugene Robinson, the majority of people I've seen expressed what was OBVIOUS, Obama wasn't even part of the conversation at that point in Bill Clinton's speech.
The ironic thing is that his campaign is so predictable at this point that I started twisting how they were going to make Bill Clinton's speech about them and the fact that they did EXACTLY what I suspected they would do might be laughable if it wasn't rather sad. I realize that the media have made Obama's ego excessively large, but his campaign needs to realize that IT ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT HIM. What happened to that "new kind of politician?"
Posted by kacey at March 23, 2008 04:05 PMHa ha ha ha ha ha. You're actually offended because someone "didn't bother to check twice before accusing one of the most famous and liked Democratic Presidents of ugly things"? What next...someone won't bother to genuflect when Her Highness the Queen of False Tears and heir-apparent to the Throne of Corporate LapDog dodges bullets...er, steps...past?
And QUICK..what is Bill Clinton most "famous" for? Seducing an intern while in office, and lying to a Grand Jury about it! Just who we need as the defacto running mate of our candidate in November! After all, there's nothing most Americans want more than to have that sleazeball back in the West Wing!
Posted by balthus at March 24, 2008 09:16 AMThat Bill was trying to say, "Let's get the bullshit out of the way and talk about issues" by saying "there will be two people who love this country" is ludicrous. When there are three candidates involved, and he specifically says, "two" while mentioning patriotism and love of country, there is only one way he could not be calling Obama unpatriotic, and that is to specify that the "two people" running will be the Democratic and Republican candidates -- whomever they may be. His, and his wife's campaign's position is that he was talking about "getting back to the issues" doesn't speak to this at all, so, yes, he's questioning the patriotism of Hillary's opponent (and not the Republican opponent).
I call bullshit. This is ridiculous. Bill Clinton wanted to make a case for Barack Hussein Obama somehow not loving his country, and he did it. He made the case. I don't call that "McCarthyism," though. I call it "Republican." And this is my main problem with the Hillary Clinton campaign. I want to vote for a Democrat in November, not a DINO. If I wanted to support a DINO, I would have supported Joe Lieberman.
Posted by Ed Drone at March 25, 2008 09:38 AM