About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Today cropped Clinton's quote that "some interpreted as questioning Obama's patriotism," did not note Clinton's response

March 24, 2008 4:39 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

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."

76 Comments

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."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by anotheramerican (March 24, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
         

      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? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Leftwingcenter (March 24, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
           
        Actually, AA, it reads to me like the media once again trying to foment internecine warfare between the two campaigns (as if there wasn't enough--mostly media-generated--acrimony already!).  Maybe trying to conquer the Dems in McCain's cause by dividing them?  Naaah, couldn't be...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 24, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
           
        You'd better believe it - just consider this a sparring match, in preparation for the big knockout in Norvember.  Heck, McLame will probably forget who he's running against.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 24, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
           

        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

        Report Abuse
      • Author by socal7425 (March 24, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
           

        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.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 24, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
             

          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.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (March 24, 2008 7:35 pm ET)
             

           I wish the candidates themselves would refute such crap before the media turns it into another cycle of vitriol. 

          Wonder why they don't.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (March 24, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
           
        Republicans, conservatives, and right-wingers of all stripes are so, so united behind John McCain and have totally supported him on each and every issue right from the get-go and still do, across the board. I missed that news report, apparently.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (March 24, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
           

        Will there be any uniting of the Democrats once both sides get done savaging each other? 

        There always is.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jhc003 (March 24, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
         
      I don't see how the entirety of the quote changes the fact that Clinton was questioning Obama's patriotism.  I've seen in a video clip even more of this than is quoted here.  The insult to Obama is done by implication, making it easy to deny.  But it's indisputably there.  And as a subscriber to and regular supporter of MediaMatters, I'm rather tired of seeing you run to the Clintons' defense at every turn.  Face it.  They have done much in this campaign that is indefensible.  It saddens me that MediaMatters has become, often lately, a pro-Clinton campaign website.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (March 24, 2008 5:11 pm ET)
           
        I agree, tho not necessarily saying Media Matters is "pro-Clinton", since they regularly run items concerning misinformation about Obama.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
             
          I don't understand why you think this item doesn't belong here? If nothing else why can't the media just give the whole quote? Same with "as far as i know", give the whole quote! Why is it so hard for people to see they are being fooled by the scum in the media. Regardless of what you think Bill meant by his comment - which I believe like most of his "controversial" statements are insignificant - it is a shame the media can't give the full story to it's viewers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dave_chicago (March 24, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
               
            I do agree with you in general that the media could and should provide fuller transcripts and fewer clipped remarks--and not only in this case.

            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.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 6:14 pm ET)
               
            that's exactly correct.  anyone who just uses the ''as far as i know" line is ignoring the emphatic and repeated denials that hillary made about him being a muslim.  and exactly why it was her duty to empahsize that over and over is another question.  obama's chief strategist, david axelrod, recently said that hillary had an "inexplicable unwillingness" to declare he was not a muslim.  and former senator bill bradley was on meet the press last weekend and he spun her words into "as far as i know, he might be a muslim".   neither of those statements are remotely true, but you don't see them all over the media.  and providing complete quotes are what this site does best.  and now that i see bill's complete quote, i see what he is saying, that all the other stuff is a distraction.  it's the duty of the media to report the whole story and not edited sound bites.  on this site, you can agree with the conclusions or not, but you can make your decision on the complete and unedited words.  anyone who has a problem with this site doing that needs to examine their own partiaity.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 6:17 pm ET)
                 
              excuse the spellings
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (March 24, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
                   
                Hey Mefirst, I left you a response on yesterday's thread. Sorry for bugging out so suddenly, I had to fly to W-S north carolina this morning and realized I needed some sleep. I hope it makes more sense what I was trying to convey.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by dave_chicago (March 24, 2008 6:45 pm ET)
                 
              The media ought to report, in full, a person's words so that there is full and complete context.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 7:00 pm ET)
                   
                there was no equivocation on her part in the as far as i know comment.  as has been pointed out, she had already answered it three times emphatically.  as far as i know meant i have no reason to think otherwise.  how about what bradley said?  was that a fair interpretation of what she said?  did she ever use the words, he might be a muslim?  or did she say exactly the opposite?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave_chicago (March 24, 2008 7:13 pm ET)
                     
                  Asked if Hillary murdered Vince Foster, Obama's answer should be 'NO', plain and simple. No matter how many dozens of times he was asked.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 7:24 pm ET)
                       
                    I disagree with your interpretation of these matters, which is ok. My beef is with the media and  how they attempt to misinform the public in these matters. 99% of the public will hear nothing but the cropped version of these stories.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 7:27 pm ET)
                       

                    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.   

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by glzgowlass428592 (March 24, 2008 7:52 pm ET)
                   

                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.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave_chicago (March 25, 2008 9:48 am ET)
                     
                  "my take on it is that it isn't the Clinton's job to campaign for Obama. Not yet anyway. "

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:07 pm ET)
                 

              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

              Report Abuse
              • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:11 pm ET)
                   

                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

                Report Abuse
                • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:12 pm ET)
                     
                  How about the full qoutes for Wright too, that'd that the lead out of that media pencil
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 7:40 pm ET)
                       

                    i will ask you.  was bradley correct in quoting clinton as saying "as far as i know, he might be a muslim". 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:53 pm ET)
                         

                      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 .

                       

                       

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 8:02 pm ET)
                           
                        he ad libbed to the point of making her say the opposite of what she actually said, in order to paint her in a bad light.  and she did not show any "inexplicable unwillingness" to say he was not a muslim, which is what axelrod claimed.  two distortions of her words and a double standard because the press has not asked about either.  
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:07 pm ET)
                             

                          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

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 8:09 pm ET)
                               
                            suppose she won the popular vote?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:20 pm ET)
                                 

                              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

                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (March 25, 2008 12:52 am ET)
                             

                          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".

                          Report Abuse
              • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 7:19 pm ET)
                   
                What about the Jesse Jackson comment? Can someone please explain to me how that was racist? 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. 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:31 pm ET)
                     

                  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

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 7:49 pm ET)
                       

                    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.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:00 pm ET)
                         

                      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

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 8:04 pm ET)
                           
                        will they show ads of michelle obama saying she's proud to be an american for the first time in her life? 
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:20 pm ET)
                             
                          Nope, as far as I know
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:22 pm ET)
                               

                            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

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 8:33 pm ET)
                                 

                              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?  

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:51 pm ET)
                                   
                                while cleverly evading that its also her staffers and sometimes her own words in addition to Bill and his foolishness
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 9:39 pm ET)
                                     
                                  if you want to go with "own words", obama accused the clinton  campaign of "leaking" that africa photo, weeks after he had told her face to face the issue was "settled".   and ignoring the fact that photo has been all over for at least a year, so there was nothing to leak.  and i was not the one who made some ridiculous comparison between his wife, who would be first lady, and his paperboy. 
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 10:27 pm ET)
                                       

                                    Are you still railing on about Obama ?

                                    Whatever happened to that whoever gets the nod spirit you had last week?

                                     

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 10:44 pm ET)
                                         

                                      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?

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 10:45 pm ET)
                                           
                                        what is...it...you're missing?
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 10:50 pm ET)
                                           

                                        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

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by mefirst (March 24, 2008 11:37 pm ET)
                                             
                                          actually you are not consistent, because i pointed out that the press does not pick up on things said by his campaign, but you said they help her by saying she is still a viable candidate.  i think she gets the short end of the stick from the media by far.  i think obama has benefited by that double standard. and what is the mccain campaign going to run?  a clip of bill clinton saying jesse jackson won south carolina too?  exactly how will that win mccain votes?  and if she endorsed mccain, then she hurt herself too, if she expects to win the nomination.  do you think someone will run an ad of james carville in the fall?  i really did not care for that comment, but it's who he is, and i don't see what that has to do with the fall election.  i do see what obama's wife's comments have to do with it.  or the fact that he wanted to ban handguns in his first state senate race, which will not go down well in the red states.  and there could be another controversy there, because he claimed that it was his campaign staff that filled out a questionnare incorrectly, but the group that endorsed him said they interviewed him personally.  
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by edenscape246494 (March 25, 2008 7:49 am ET)
                                               

                                            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

                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by mefirst (March 25, 2008 8:57 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              what was out of context about michelle obama's remarks?

                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by edenscape246494 (March 25, 2008 10:03 pm ET)
                                                   

                                                R U even CreUs?

                                                I just texted you that because a full response was not warranted

                                                Context, gimme a good gorram break

                                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 8:32 pm ET)
                           

                        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.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:54 pm ET)
                             

                          Ok, Hillary has done no wrong, it was all someone else

                          crickets, crickets

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 9:05 pm ET)
                               

                            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.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
                               

                            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

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
                                 

                              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

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 9:47 pm ET)
                                   

                                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.

                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 9:53 pm ET)
                                   
                                Bill called Obama campaign "fairy tale" - media made it up
                                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!
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by Appleboy (March 24, 2008 9:56 pm ET)
                                   
                                "CHILDISH SMILDISH Applesauce" boy that was childish. Just kidding.
                                Report Abuse
                • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (March 25, 2008 1:20 am ET)
                     

                  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.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Appleboy (March 25, 2008 9:02 am ET)
                       
                    I agree, Clinton compared 84 and 88 to Obama's 2008 victory in SC because both candidates are black. Obama had an advantage in SC because of the black vote, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it's reality. Clinton isn't allowed to make a factual statement because it involves the name of Jesse Jackson? He tried to explain away Hillary's defeat. That happens all the time. And if you think Bill's argument isn't valid because Jackson victories happened 20 years ago (which I don't think is all that long ago, what has changed over this time period?), or that Edwards won in 2004, well that's fine by me. But I still can't understand why people have to tag this as being a  racial comment, and cannot see the other explaination. Is this because of how people preceive Jackson? I like Jesse. Maybe that's my problem. May I ask, if instead of Jackson who won in 84 and 88 it was someone else, say like a Colin Powell, would there have been such an uproar?

                    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.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (March 25, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
                         

                      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.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Appleboy (March 25, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
                           
                        I'm sorry but I told you why the anwser was flimsy (at least regarding Jackson). If you don't like my arguments then tell me why. A years worth of campaigning and I would say you have very little to charge the Clintons with racism. Please read this article:
                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Appleboy (March 25, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
                           

                        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.

                        Report Abuse
          • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 24, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
               
            Apple makes a good point.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Eric Jaffa (March 24, 2008 5:34 pm ET)
           

        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.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave_chicago (March 25, 2008 9:43 am ET)
             
          ---"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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (March 24, 2008 5:08 pm ET)
         

      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!

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 24, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
           
        I agree. We're doing the devils work, with each side trying to destroy the other. If this continues, there's no way the Democratic Party will be able to pull together for the general election.

        It's time for both sides to start the peace process.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (March 24, 2008 5:54 pm ET)
             
          It's time for them to start attacking the real enemy: McCain.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 6:40 pm ET)
               

            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

            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (March 24, 2008 7:48 pm ET)
                 
              Both candidates should be attacking McCain.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 8:03 pm ET)
                   

                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

                Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 24, 2008 7:18 pm ET)
         

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by edenscape246494 (March 24, 2008 7:34 pm ET)
           

        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

        Report Abuse