Posted by Damozel |Here's what Clinton said to some North Carolina veterans:
I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country...And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." (Breitbart)
Whereupon this McPeak, "a former chief of staff of the Air Force and currently a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, said:
If he can compare Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, something is seriously wrong with his memory.
According to the piece, the Clinton campaign quickly clarified the comments, which is more than McPeak or this ridiculous, absurd comparison deserve. ""In a posting on Hillary Rodham Clinton's Web site Friday, the campaign said the former president was simply talking about the need to keep the race focused on issues, "rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism."".(Breitbart)
Note that a large segment of the population currently is falsely questioning Obama's patriotism---I say "falsely" because I think to do so is abject nonsense that all Democrats should scorn to indulge in---so it's quite possible that this is exactly what Bill Clinton meant to imply. Or maybe this was just another somewhat maladroit statement that came out all wrong.
I don't care. The most strategic and productive way for the Obama campaign to have responded would have been to with their trademark faked-up outrage. Instead, they immediately made his comment sort of beside the point by saying something much, much worse.
Anyway, despite the Clinton campaign's attempted clarification, McPeak remained 'skeptical.'
"It's a use of language as a disguised insult. We've seen this before, this little clever spin that's put on stuff,"(Breitbart)
Whereas comparing Clinton to Joe McCarthy is an unabashed, straightforward insult. I see. It's what we've seen before: the Obama campaign squeezing an alleged latent insult from the maladroit remarks of someone connected to Hillary, attributing the remark to her, and then upping the ante.
Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer rejected the comparison.
"To liken these comments to McCarthyism is absurd," Singer said. He said McPeak was "clearly misinterpreting" the remarks and suggested that might be an intentional effort to divert attention from a recent controversy involving controversial statements by Obama's former pastor. (Breitbart)
And by 'clearly misinterpreting' he means 'willfully distorting.'
I've been a Clinton supporter for years and I don't really know or understand Obama, so I must say, Obama's campaign is doing everything they can to ensure that he won't be getting this Democrat's vote. And that goes double for his more deranged supporters.
In the last few weeks, his campaign, formerly touted as 'brilliant' (and used as proof by his supporters of something or other...that he's an expert at marketing his views, I guess) stands revealed as after all not really all that perceptive. After weeks of hearing ludicrous innuendos that the Clintons are 'racist' and hearing Hillary bashed for everything under the sun, her supporters have become as militant as Obama's.
Memo to Bill: I like you a lot, Bill Clinton, but it would probably be better if you just go back to keeping quiet. You've already done quite enough to help Obama. Thank you!
UPDATE: Color me surprised; Andrew Sullivan didn't see anything wrong with what Clinton said. Of course, he does go a little bit awry here, according to me:
I don't think he's implying that Obama doesn't love his country or is not devoted to the interest of this country (although you could, with some strain, parse it that way). He's actually hoping for a substantive, non-swift-boating, non-Coulter, non-Hannity campaign....Now why Clinton didn't include Obama, who is the current front-runner, and who has shown an ability to speak and talk constructively and civilly for the entire campaign, is an interesting question, isn't it? He's certainly less divisive than he or his wife. And he has just shown an ability to respond to swift-boating not by the usual Clinton defensive crouch but by tackling it head-on and winning the argument.
I think the reason that Clinton didn't include Obama is that he isn't actually campaigning for Obama. And of course, I would beg to differ with A.S. about which candidate has been constructive and civil and has shown the ability to respond to swift-boating. But that's politics for you. (See there? Constructive and civil; that's me.)
I address Sullivan's further comments about the Clinton's presumptuousness and alleged 'sense of entitlement' in having 'the gall' to ask Obama to run as VP here.