Today cropped Clinton's quote that "some interpreted as questioning Obama's patriotism," did not note Clinton's response
SUMMARY: NBC's John Yang claimed that "Bill Clinton made comments that some interpreted as questioning [Sen. Barack] Obama's patriotism" but played only a portion of Clinton's statement. Yang also failed to provide the Clinton campaign's explanation of the quote, in which it denied "questioning any candidate's patriotism."
On the March 24 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News correspondent John Yang claimed that "[o]n Friday, [former President] Bill Clinton made comments that some interpreted as questioning [Sen. Barack] Obama's patriotism." Yang then played a portion of Clinton's March 21 statement at a VFW hall in North Carolina in which Clinton asserted, "And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of this country." But Yang left out the rest of the sentence (in bold): "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country, and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Yang also failed to provide the Clinton campaign's explanation of the quote, in which it denied "questioning any candidate's patriotism."
In a March 21 post on the Fact Hub page of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign website, Bill Clinton's spokesman, Matt McKenna, said of the comments: "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."
A March 23 article by Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times similarly cropped the quote, asserting that Clinton "said '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.' " The article said that Sen. Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, "said the remarks by Mr. Clinton had nothing to do with Mr. Obama and were merely meant to underscore the need to keep the presidential race focused on issues."
Previously, Media Matters for America noted that, after airing Bill Clinton's full quote on the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted: "There's only one way to read that. He's saying that if you pick these two people you get two people who love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people who love their country." Media Matters noted that in fact several others have offered a different "way to read that," including syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, who wrote in a post on National Review Online's blog The Corner that she "was present" when Clinton made the remarks and said: "In no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife's electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination."
In his March 21 comments, Clinton said:
John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy. They have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn't shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this.
That's the kind of leadership this country needs. And I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
From the March 24 edition of NBC's Today:
YANG: On Friday, Bill Clinton made comments that some interpreted as questioning Obama's patriotism.
CLINTON [video clip]: And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of the country.
YANG: That didn't sit well with Obama adviser General Merrill McPeak, who likened Bill Clinton to a 1950s anti-communist demagogue.
McPEAK [video clip]: It sounds more like [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy. You know, I grew up -- I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of that.
YANG: As this intra-party civil war rages on, a new poll suggests the bitterness is spreading to the voters.
From the March 23 article in The New York Times:
As Senator Barack Obama folded his arms and looked on, a retired Air Force general who is one of his leading military advisers forcefully defended Mr. Obama's patriotism Saturday and accused former President Bill Clinton of trying to use "divisive attacks" to promote his wife's candidacy.
Mr. Clinton, in a speech to voters on Friday in North Carolina, said "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."















Wow! Democrats attacking Democrats! Bill Clinton inferring that Obama doesn't love his country. And an Obama supporter saying Bill Clinton is engaged in McCarthy-like tactics.
Will there be any uniting of the Democrats once both sides get done savaging each other?
The crappy corporate media is just trying to start a fight...
They've got to do something to get the brain-dead American electorate to flip on their TVs for a while
I really thought this might be the year that we Democrats would come together and show the country how an election should be waged and won. We had two great candidates, 3 if you include Edwards. Money was pouring in, new and younger voters were registering in record numbers..we were on our way..or so I thought. How naive was that. Looks like once again we are prepared to snap defeat from the jaws of victory. Clinton's statement was nothing but conciliatory. He was simply trying to say how refreshing it would be to have an election that centered around issues rather than trumped up charges and counter charges...and that statement in itself is turned around by low lifes such as Chris Matthews as being somehow a slur on Obama. That is complete nonsense. I wish the candidates themselves would refute such crap before the media turns it into another cycle of vitriol. In the meantime this election is starting to turn me off..and I'm certain a lot of others are feeling the same way.
You make some good points SOCAL...
But I must take issue with one point: We never snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The last two presidential elections have been stolen from us. There is absolutely no doubt of this.
Even with all the right-wing bias in the corporate crap media, we still won. If the votes are counted fairly, we'll win again in '08. It is the Repukes who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat--and disgraced America in the process--but conservatives hate America. They hate American values.
I wish the candidates themselves would refute such crap before the media turns it into another cycle of vitriol.
Wonder why they don't.
Will there be any uniting of the Democrats once both sides get done savaging each other?
There always is.
But I believe this item, and the recent defense of Hillary's 60 Minutes/"as far as I know" remarks are not up to what I'd come to expect from this site.
However, the full quote doesn't change what I perceive was a purposeful, if subtle intent by Bill Clinton to include Hillary and McCain, and exclude Obama.
In fact, when I consider even more context--Hillary's recent remarks about Obama not passing the commander-in-chief "test"--it seems even more obvious to me that this was a deliberate exclusion of Obama.
But the implication in this item is that the full context brings new meaning to Bill Clinton's actual intent. I personally don't think it changes what I see as a deliberate exclusion of Obama. And I think it's fitting into and in keeping with a pattern Bill and Hillary are setting.
This is in my point of view. I respect that others may have a different take on it all.
As for the 60 Minutes comments, I have watched the entire segment and still come away with feeling there was equivocation on her part. Very subtle, but I still feel it. I'm speaking as a fence-sitter --until six or eight weeks ago.
An equivocating answer would be 'No. Not as far as I know.' Thereby implying there could be evidence that one may have overlooked.
Look: I've said all along it's my perception. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm simply weighing-in with my opinion after reading, watching and listening to the full context. I think Bill and Hillary's comments are deliberately subtle and they fit an emerging patter, imho. It's my take on the matter, nothing more.
two different things. he knows she did not murder vince foster, no as far as i know, and he would not be asked that question. she can only know based on what he said. she said she took his word. this game of "she should have answered exactly this certain way, and if she didn't, it means she was not sincere" is nonsense.
my take on it is that it isn't the Clinton's job to campaign for Obama. Not yet anyway.
I am grateful to media matters in exposing media bias from all angles and not being anti-Hillary doesn't make them pro-Hillary. It just makes them fair.
Is it their job to campaign for McCain? McCain (and not Obama, evidently) has "passed the test" and truly "loves his country", according to the Clintons.
How about the Judas bit?
Or the Jesse Jackson one?
what about the 3am ad and the McCain endorsement ?
All slips of the tongue...right
How about Ferraro ?
Or that idiot Clinton fired for questioning if Obama sold drugs ?
Yep, nothing to see here folks, just politics as usual, if you want change you have to oppose dirty politics on both sides of the aisle
i will ask you. was bradley correct in quoting clinton as saying "as far as i know, he might be a muslim".
We've argued on this issue before but no, I believe you are correct in that Bradley ad libbed on this and is wrong to do so
I'm pretty sure it was As far as I know .
I agree
I also feel the media is helping Clinton out by acting as if this was still a viable race which further helps McCain
Is that still even feasible?
After Richardson, I think this should start wrapping up soon and the sooner the better.
Granted it won't hit the marker but hasn't it always been delegates and not the popular vote, although I'd grant you its a far better argument than the big states one
and she did not show any "inexplicable unwillingness" to say he was not a muslim,
What did she mean when she said "as far as I know". Don't explain that she answered "no" in the first 3 questions, I got that. I'm really curious what you think she meant when she said "as far as I know".
Do you think they huddled over the Ferraro bit and the Carville Judas bit or is she just totally out of control as far as staff goes?
Pick one, neither is good
Thanks for explaining why the Jesse Jackson comment was racist.
Ferraro? Yeah, Hillary told her to say that. By the way it was an off the cuff comment like so many of these things are. People say stupid things all the time, especially when they are emotional (which she admitted she was during the interview).
The Judas comment? What about it? Carville felt he Richardson betrayed the Clintons. So what? Do people have to measure every damn word they utter before they speak? And again, did Hillary tell him to say it?
All these examples are so trivial, it is humorous to see people get their underwear all bunched up over the stupidest things.
Apple
4000 Americans are dead
This election is more important than one politicians fat ego
Obama is ahead in states and delgates by over 100, it is time for Hillary to make like Romney and wait in the wings.
If this needless battle the Clintons are waging costs Obama the election more people will die, the economy will get worse and our rights are gonna go bye bye
So you tell me, when Ferraro and Bill say Obama is only where he is because he is black will it still be cool when McCain shows campaign ads of it? Ads that have Hillary endorsing McCain and questioning Obama's experience ? Because those ads are coming and it won't be the Supreme Court done us dirty this year, it won't be Ralph Nader either, it'll be the Hillary die hards that held on too long and blurred so many lines.
In other words, as a Liberal, I think we are better than this
Also that was the missus
I doubt they'll be shelling the paperboy or his barber either but who knows, that Rev nonsense grew wings didn't it
seriously, you think the groups aligned with the campaign won't be showing that? and yeah, she's the missus and bill is the husband and the difference is... i'm just going with your logic?
Are you still railing on about Obama ?
Whatever happened to that whoever gets the nod spirit you had last week?
i have said i will vote for whoever gets the nomination, you are correct. that does not mean i can't express an opinion on whether one candidate is more electable than the other, and i have said for quite awhile that there are things that the republicans will bring up about him that are not being discussed now. why you seem to think there is some inconsistency here, i have no idea. you are stating your case for your candidate, and me for mine. what is you're missing?
I'm missing consistency
I've voiced concern every time a staffer goes off the reservation on the Obama camp and I've conceded those points to you
Yet when Hillary goes Rove you always have a way to rationalize that away
So when it comes down to Obama, and thats what the math says so far, will you then acknowledge the venomous BS McCAin will recycle into his campaign as trite nonsense or will you have to go along with because Hillary said it first and you defended it then
She can fight with the issues since she can't seem to win on her name, but when she goes GOP negative I have to call her to task
Recheck the threads...whenever Obama has gotten a realistic free pass I have called the press on it, I just don't think his wife's out of context remarks make her Che and I certainly don't think Wright's comments, also out of context, were fair game for the media to HAMMER Obama with.
Hillary has dealt with nothing similar to the Wright incident, her staff is out of control and saying things GOP operatives say that yes, some of which will appear in ads this fall and the media is also abetting Operation Chaos by pretending this is a close race, its not
what was out of context about michelle obama's remarks?
R U even CreUs?
I just texted you that because a full response was not warranted
Context, gimme a good gorram break
Bill never said Obama is where he is only because he is black, and you know that! He compared Obama's win in SC to Jackson's in 84 and 88 and implied that Obama was helped because of the large black population in SC. He tried to minimized Hillary's defeat, something that all campaigns do all the time.
And yes, Obama is head of Hillary, thanks in part by the help of the media on issues such at "fairy tale", MLK/LBJ, and Jesse Jackson, etc. Obama is also where he is because he is a great candidate, and I will vote for him in a heart beat. Whether Hillary should drop out or not is another matter. It's the media though that is rotten here, not the Clintons. What they did and are doing to the Clintons (and what they did to Gore in 2000) can just as easily happen to Obama. Our biggest fear shouldn't be that Obama and Hillary are battling each, it should be how the media is going to behave once we select our candidate.
Ok, Hillary has done no wrong, it was all someone else
crickets, crickets
I never said she did no wrong. And yes, for the most part I think she is a fairly honest person. I only pointed out how ridiculous some people are regarding the Clintons. They think they are responsible for everything. Every word they utter (or anybody assoiciated with them) is viewed in the most negative way. Your mind has been poisoined by the media and it seems to me you're quite happy with it, as long as your guy isn't the one being hammered on.
By the way, I try to take on each issue one at a time. Your last comment was childish.
Here's an interesting article on the Clintons, the Obama campaign, the race card, and the media. I don't agree with every word of it but for the most part it's a good read:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
CHILDISH SMILDISH Applesauce
Its called wit, take it down a notch, its called internet debate, posting, sorry if I hurt your cyber feelings or insulted your cyber intellect
Clinton and honest? She's a politician, there's no such animal as an honest politician.
From Wolfson with the Ken Starr comment, To Bill with the Jesse Jackson dig, To Ferraro with the only cuz he's black card, to whoever that hole Hill had to fire for asking if Obama sold drugs, to Carville and this Judas comment
and the 3am ad and the endorsement of McCain and the questioning oh his experience when she herself is a Jr Senator
I'm saying the media isn't making all this up, I can see quite clearly
Gee, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings as well. I shouldn't have made the "childish" remark.
But you seem to swallow all the crap the media feeds you, like the Jackson comment. The ferraro comment, who cares? She's a low level staffer. Judas? So what. They all are "so what". It's been a fairly mild campaign.
Hillary disparaged MLK - media made it up
Mark Penn brought up "cocaine" in Chris Matthews interview - media made it up
Jesse Jackson comment is somehow racist - media made it up
Ferraro comment - who gives a crap
Judas comment by Carville - who gives a crap
3am ad - hello, this a campaign
This is what you have? Good lord, I think Hillary is the devil herself!
What about the Jesse Jackson comment? Can someone please explain to me how that was racist?
Who won the 2004 Democratic Presidential primary in South Carolina? Was it Jessie Jackson? NO, it was John Edwards WHEN did Jessie Jackson win the South Carolina Presidential primary? 1988 & 1984. What do Jessie Jackson winning the Democratic Presidential Primary in 1988 & 1984 and Obama winning the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary have in common besides 20 year difference? African Americans…..correct answer
And if it was racist why would Bill throw more fodder to the nuts in the media. Do you think after the "fairly tale" and the MLK/LBJ episodes that the Clinton campaign got together and said "hey this race card ploy is really working swell for us, let's do some more of it". If you believe that then you should work for the MSM.
It depends on how you look at it. Let me first state that Hillary’s MLK blunder was a mistake and she apologized. She wanted to stop the comparisons that were being made between Obama’s speeches and MLK’s or JFK’s for that matter. She misspoke and apologized.
My take on the Clinton's racial game play. It’s true black folks overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Republicans base is the Southern white male and they often use negative stereotypes of black folks to keep their base (they also use it against gays). Where will Black folks go if Democrats offend them? Vote Republican? Of course not, having no place to go, they will end up voting for the Democrat. So Bill and Hillary think Obama is getting a large number of white voters (93% white Iowa) and since black folks are going to vote for him in large numbers anyway we need to cut down on the number of white voters who vote for Obama. How to do that? The Clintons know that some white folks will become uncomfortable if they see a lot of black voters voting for Obama. So they decide to play on their fears and paint Obama as a “Black President”. Nothing scares white voters more than the thought of a Black President righting the wrongs for past slavery and Jim Crow. That would cut down on the number of white folks voting for Obama and don’t worry about offending those Black folks, where will they go? To the Republican party? No way, they’ll come right back home to the Democratic party.
I accuse the Clintons of treating black folks like Republicans, thinking that they have no choice but they are wrong. A protest vote can come by simply staying at home. Will Black folks do that if Hillary gets the nomination? I will but I don't think I'll be alone.
I think your beliefs are wrong about the Clinton's playing the race card to paint Obama as the "Black President", for one everyone knows he's black, and because I believe the examples of this are so flimsy, like the Jesse Jackson comment. How about the "fairy tale" garbage? Aren't you just a bit suspicous of the press and how they have covered the Clinton's the last 16 years? Also, they're getting hammered by the media and in the polls because of race, and yet they continue to do this? Makes no sense.
The Clinton's are no enemy of the African American community, and I'm sorry to hear you won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
You asked a question and then found the answer flimsy. I've reached the point of not trying to explain to liberals why the Clinton campaigns tactics are unacceptable to some African Americans.
Let me just say if a Republican candidate had run the campaign that Hillary Clinton has run this far, liberals would be up in arms. If Rush Limbaugh had made the remarks that Geraldine Ferraro made, liberals would be screaming from to roof tops. Mitt Romney comparing Obama win in South Carolina to Jessie Jackson's 88& 84 win, imagine how well that would go over. The Clinton camp continues to use race-based fear tactics, racial code-word and innuendo at a steady pace but becuase it's the Clintons it can't be true. Bill & Hill love black folks why would they? You have to ask yourself which is more important winning or loving black folks. We already know the answer. If it is morally repugnant for Republicans to do these things—which it is—then it is morally repugnant for Democrats to do them too.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
And why would the Clinton's continue to use the race card when it has pretty much destroyed their campaign. Please tell me.
Pearl: " The Clinton camp continues to use race-based fear tactics, racial code-word and innuendo at a steady pace but becuase it's the Clintons it can't be true."
Can you give some examples of these code words and innuendo? Again, the race card game is not working. Why, oh, why would they continue with it? I thought they were suppose to be some sort of political machine that doesn't get stuff like this wrong.
With the whole quote, one can tell that Bill Clinton meant that it would be "great" if we had a campaign about the issues.
He wasn't saying it would be "great" if we had two patriotic candidates for the first time. Bill Clinton said at the 2004 Democratic convention that Kerry and Bush both love their country.
Not comparable. There were only the two candidates at that time. Now there's three, but Bill excluded one of them.
The sad thing is...
...that I see this same male-cow-scat being propagated on soooo many other progressive blogs.
I don't have a problem with kos, Arianna and others supporting one candidate over the other, but for crying out loud, don't stoop to using these Rovian tactics - leave 'em to the MSM's bobble-headed, teleprompter-reading, ball-chasing puppies.
Please!
It's time for both sides to start the peace process.
I agree, the peace process must begin
Let us nominate the candidate with the most states and delegates won
I'm sure Hillary can put country before pride
How can we be the party to win if we can't even decide who should lead?
Double teaming McCain would look foolish at this point, and if we lose to that lame duck it'll be three times Bush beat us against all odds, only this time it'll be our own dam fault
I voted in a primary. What further power to decide do I have?
Right now I vote democratic. I'm not concerned about which one. They both have attractions and things I'm not too happy about. Though the position is important to me basically because of coming retirements on the Supreme Court. Congress looks to be going farther towards a possible veto proof body. Which could be helpful if somehow JonCo. snukkers the people with the help of the media, possible continuing voting irregularities combine to give us prez John. He will likely face a hostile Congress. Which would be able to override him.
The qualifier is the nearly infinite quantity of stupidity.
He will likely face a hostile Congress
I'd pray that you are correct but I'm not much of a faith based guy
The Democratic majority will have to thicken postahaste for that to work as they ain't blocking nada right now