Gen McPeak calls out Pres Clinton

In addition to her dishonesty and resume-padding, which the media has given Hillary a free ride on, it's also time for them to get off their asses and call Hillary to account for her husband's un-American comments.

Enough is enough.  If Obama is required to answer for his pastor's comments over the past 30 years, then Hillary must answer for her husband's  inappropriate comments and behavior.  The Clintons are damaging the likely nominee of this party.  It's long past time for Hillary to get out of the race now.  Failing that, it's time to publicly shove the Clintons aside if needed, for the good of the party.

In brief remarks at the beginning of an Obama town hall meeting in Medford, Oregon, a little while ago, Gen Tony McPeak in no uncertain terms publicly called out the 42nd president of the US, Bill Clinton, for his remarks yesterday.

'These tactics have no place in American politics.'  It's time once and for all to stand up to the Clinton bullies.  The beginning of the town hall was carried live by Fox News, but not by CNN or MSNBC, although I'm sure they will broadcast the clip later today.

Gen McPeak read from a statement and said he was very disappointed in the former president for what he said.

I will post his full statement but for now here are a couple excerpts:

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.

. . .

This has no place in American politics.  It had no place then  and it should have no place now.

I agree 110%.  I think - once again - Bill Clinton has crossed the line.  He and his wife are nothing more than an embarrassment to the Democratic Party now.  They are a two-headed walking punchline.

After McPeak's remarks, Obama observed that McPeak 'looks and sounds like Clint Eastwood' and that's what a general should look like, and if you misbehave you have to deal with him.

President Clinton today got a public rebuke from a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Really - How much more embarrassing can it get for the Clintons ?  

AP story here

P.S.  What about the inappropriateness of James Carville's comment today comparing Gov Richardson's endorsement of Obama to Judas' betrayal of Jesus ?  Will the Clintons be called on the carpet for such an inappopriate religious comment during Triduum, the 3 holiest days in the Christian world ?  Isn't Gov Richardson a Catholic, and how insulting this must be to him and his faith !  Imagine if Rev Wright had referred to the Clintons in such an insulting, inappropriate manner ! !

•  does clinton mean the stuff that keeps intruding

  on our politics like Monica and Genifer Flowers and Paula JOnes????

  by marley619 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:12:36 AM PDT

  •  I was outraged by the insinuation

    that only 2 of the 3 'love their country' and have its interests at heart.

    Coming from the 42nd president of the US, Bill's comments were disgusting, really.  He and his behavior and represensible comments hang around Hillary's neck like an albatross.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM PDT

    •  You know what

      I agree with Clinton's comments.  2 of the 3 "love their country"

      The two who do are Barack Obama and John McCain.

      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM PDT

  •  maybe he means the stuff that they keep

    trying to sling at obama that is distracting from the issues?  hey hillary.... how bout those taxes.  any time would do.  

    by ejpoeta on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM PDT

  •  It's His Typical Republican Passive Voice

    He's referring to all the stuff which "keeps intruding" [Republican passive voice] on discussion of important issues.

    Which in this case includes effective speeches, unfair enlarging the voting pool, and suggesting to the people that they can have power and expectations.

    by Gooserock on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:57:41 AM PDT

    •  I know what he meant - I should have put a snark

      there - but sorry - they are 90% of the intrusion!

      by marley619 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:01:56 PM PDT

•  Tips for Gen McPeak !

  And calling out unAmerican McCarthyism - no matter how the Clintons try to parse it.

  by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:12:36 AM PDT

  •  Tips for what? For hurling slander?

    For chrissakes, watch Clinton make those comments and tell me WHERE in those comments you find him mentioning or even alluding to Senator Obama.  This is not only a fake charge that you're helping the Obama campaign peddle here, but one in which McPeak is actually trying to classify President Clinton with Joseph McCarthy.  To paraphase the most relevant comment from that era, "at long last, have you no sense of decency?"

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM PDT

    •  Bullshit

      I call bullshit on your and President Clinton's comments both.

      The Clintons have said only Hillary and McCain are ready to be C-in-C.

      Bill Clinton thinks Obama is a 'distraction' and that his wife and McCain love their country and have its interests at heart.

      He knew damn well what he was saying, and so do you.

      I am a one-time Clinton supporter from the 1990s who is SICK AND TIRED of the Clintons' relativism, dishonesty, and trashy behavior.

      You get it ?  SICK AND TIRED of it.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM PDT

      •  It's slander and you're a participant in it.

        You can jump and scream and yell in your diaries and posts all you want, but it won't change the fact that McPeak slandered our former President, with Senator Obama standing by, arms folded, and smiling.  But you don't "get it", because you're just waaaayyy too wrapped up in one candidate to see the damage he's done here to his own party.

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:54:00 PM PDT

        •  'Slander' ?

          That's a serious charge and that's why I call bullshit on both you AND on the Clintons.

          The shameless, dishonest Clintons have been trash-talking on Obama for long enough now.  Saying only she and McCain are qualified to be C-in-C and now saying that 'wouldn't it be nice to have 2 people who love their country' instead of these 'distractions' - it's clear what is going on.

          You don't get it, do you ?  I voted for Bill Clinton twice.  I supported him and actually campaigned for him.  

          He is an embarrassment to his office.  Race-baiting, finger-wagging, and now questioning someone's love of country - ENOUGH ALREADY !

          I'm sick and tired of the dishonest, narcissistic Clintons.

          by RobertInWisconsin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM PDT

•  Bill McCarthy should get a room

  with John McLame (I don't think he's questioned O's patriotism, so I'm trying to be nice).

  by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM PDT

  •  I think he did question it

    He used that typical crappy Clintonian method, though, which I am wholeheartedly sick and tired of.  

    by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM PDT

    •  Oh, sorry I meant McCain didn't do it.

      I was worried that comment might be misunderstood.

      Yeah, the best I can say of Clinton right now is that he's a McCarthyite pig.

      by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM PDT

    •  You know Robert, I just needed to say

      that I kind of regret calling Clinton a "McCarthite Pig". I think I went to far with that.  I'm trying to be fair and I feel like I kind of crossed a line.  I re-read his comments and I think it's going way too far.  I do think it's important, no matter how low the Clintons will go, to not go as low as them and I think I may have with that.  I don't want to be in the business of smearing people.

      by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM PDT

  •  Shame on you too chumchum. I would have...

    ...expected better from you than to join in this absurd clamor against President Clinton.

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM PDT

    •  Oh, come on, I'm intentionally overstating

      things.  But, ok, Larry do you really think it was an innocent comment?

      There's a pattern here Larry.  I actually don't think he's like McCarthy.  But I do think he's playing dirty and we have a right to point it out.  Sometimes hyperbole is required to fight these games he plays.

      by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:54:22 PM PDT

      •  chumchum, I'm saying this with all the calm...

        ...I can summon up at the moment: there was NOTHING in the President's remarks which can in any way be construed as an attack on Senator Obama's patriotism.  If you can find such an attack in those comments, then by God, you can find an attack on Senator Obama in

        any

        comment by a Clinton any where any time.  But, for you -- who've proven saner in many moments here -- to come on here and support a willfully slanderous charge of "McCarthyism" against President Clinton is not mere overstatement, but something one good Democrat should NEVER do to another.

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:01:59 PM PDT

        •  OK, fair enough. I'll stop the comparison.

          I actually think he was trying to remind people of Wright's supposedly anti-American statements.  Of course, he wouldn't say it outright, so I think there's a certain falsehood in your argument.  But I won't make direct comparisons to McCarthy anymore.  I was being over-the-top and perhaps careless.  I do think his comparison was pretty outrageous, though.  So I think the extremity of your response ignores what is plainly clear: Bill Clinton never says anything by accident.

          by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM PDT

          •  Oh come chumchum...it's the one thing...

            ...President Clinton is most known for -- sometimes he just can't shut up.  He has to talk, talk, talk -- that's who he is, and I'm sure if you're looking for it, you can find something in anything he says and parse it enough, and voila, an "attack".  But, did he mean the attack being slandered around here?  Not that I could tell, and I've watched him closely for 16 years.

            As to your NEW charge -- that he was trying to remind people of Wright -- give me a break!  That's really stretching believability.  And, chumchum, better enjoy all this hyper-sensitivity to the Clintons' every word, 'cause come GE time, it's going to be characterized by the GOP as no one in our party is doing yet -- as just so much cry-baby whining.

            by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

            •  You know what, Larry, because I just

              don't actually care that much, I'll just give it to you and drop it.

              You think I'm being hyper-sensitive, but I'm actually just making comments off the cuff.  That's why I agreed to not mention McCarthy because it's out of proportion.  I'm not worked up about this.  I'm so used to it.

              You underestimate me, IMHO.

              I will say this, though, I think you're being naive about ol' Bill.  Molly Ivins knew what those two are like.  It's great if you want them to win, but it sucks if you are on the receiving end.  That guy NEVER says anything by accident.  He is ALWAYS calculating.  I have known that for a very long time now.

              by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

              •  Then I'll drop w/you too, for I do appreciate...

                ...the POV you often bring to an argument or discussion.  

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:43:31 PM PDT

                •  Thanks for this.

                  I just responded to your other comment, I hope you will ignore that one, since you are being very fair here.

                  by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM PDT

                  •  Shit! Too late! Oh well. At least it was...

                    ...not some silly sparring, but real discussion -- and among political comrades, not "hated enemies", as some like to pretend here.

                    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM PDT

        •  Also, just because I do agree that we shouldn't

          do that to another Dem, I'll push back on people saying it, just because I respect you, Larry.  But I won't back down from my belief that Bill Clinton will play some pretty low tricks.

          by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM PDT

          •  Lower than the "McCarthyism" slander...

            ...coming from McPeak yesterday AND today, with Senator Obama standing beside McPeak, smiling approvingly?  How does it get any lower than that?  Shame on Senator Obama.  I KNOW he's better than this type of low-blow attack; yet something is driving him to it.

            by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM PDT

            •  It was right on the money

              Bill Clinton directly implied that two candidates "love their country", and one was McCain.  I wonder whom the other was in Clinton's opinion.    

              I agree with this, there are only two major candidates who do love their country, Barack Obama and John McCain.

              by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM PDT

              •  Go away McCainista! (n/t)

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:44:30 PM PDT

                •  Sounds like I'm making your blood boil

                  more than General McPeak.  

                  by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

            •  OK, Larry now you're going too far.

              Why has Obama been taking the hits on Wright?  PATRIOTISM.  You think it was just some random comment?  It stretches believability to the breaking point.  If I can afford Mr. Clinton some leeway, you're going to have to afford people some leeway for not believing that what he said was some unwitting and random comment.

              by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM PDT

              •  Now, chumchum, that's just plain hyper-sensitive,

                ...as I watched and listened to the comment and it was not about Obama or Wright; it was about a hypothetical GE race -- in Clinton's view, between his wife and McCain -- that would NOT be marked by some of the questions about patriotism that had infected past campaigns.  If anything, his references there are to his own campaigns in '92 and '96, and Kerry's campaign in '04.  To state otherwise is hyper-sensitive worry and speculative stretching of reality -- and certainly NOT "McCarthyism".  God, that McPeak comment makes my blood boil and if he weren't such a hero to me for coming over to the Democratic side, I'd...(well, let's leave it there).

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:50:27 PM PDT

                •  I wrote this before your other response.

                  Look, I understand your point of view.  I do.

                  by mrchumchum on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM PDT

                  •  Thank you mcc, my friend.

                    ...Jeez, now I'm sounding like McCain, with his "my friends" bullshit line that he always uses -- and only because the old fart always forgets just who he's talking to!

                    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM PDT

    •  Are you wagging your finger as you say

      'Shame on you' ?

      That is so Clintonian, it really is.

      I say shame on Bill Clinton for his race-baiting, relativism, and insinuating that 2 of the 3 candidates 'love their country.'

      I say shame on Hillary Clinton for her dishonesty, resume-padding, and 'as far as I know' parsing and bullshit.

      Enough of the Clintons already !

      by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM PDT

•  Obama is no Judas

  and Bill Clinton is certainly no Jesus.

  by DWKING on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:39 AM PDT

  •  But He Does Seem to Think He's the Candidate

    at times.

    Even Richardson was recently quoted as being annoyed by some of "his advisors" referring to the Clinton team.

    by Gooserock on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:59:14 AM PDT

•  Time to suspend Bill's license

  Quite sickening - and then he plays indignant victim (I was mugged!) and other shit.

  He needs to grow up.   Not many find his idiotic remarks cute anymore.   His ratings are tanking and will be below Bushes at this rate - but do I care?

  by griz4u on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM PDT

•  I want a video clip!!

  Now THIS is what I have got to see!!!

  As a former President, Bill Clinton should be the LAST person to question a fellow Democrat about his or her "love for his/her country".

  Shame on you Bill Clinton!

  by Drdemocrat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM PDT

•  Why? Why? Why?

  I cannot for the life of me understand why they are doing this.

  President and Senator Mrs. Clinton, please cut it out! Your legacy is teetering on the brink of being utter rubbish. That would greatly disappoint me as a person who--in general--enjoyed your 8 years in office.

  Why are they self-destructing? :(

  by mselite on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM PDT

•  CNN / Crowley Covered This Story Around an Hour

  ago, gave a decent explanation of what the issue was, and showed the remarks of McPeak that you've blockquoted.

  What comes of it on an Easter Saturday is anyone's guess, but at least they were on it.

  by Gooserock on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM PDT

•  My Respect for President Clinton

  has pretty much evaporate, hopefully, one day, it'll come back.

  by dlh77489 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM PDT

  •  Mine has evaporated

    and will not come back. Period.

    Same for Hillary in my book.

    A year ago if you had told me this, I would never have believed it.

    It's long past time to turn the page on the Clintons.  They are the past.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM PDT

  •  It will never come back

    for me.  I have zero respect for the Clintons and never will again.

    My views about the Clintons' character are about the same as wingnut or a Rethug.

    by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM PDT

  •  like the guy you dumped

    saw this somewhere and it struck home -- seeing Bill Clinton is like getting together with an old boyfriend, for the first hour you're enchanted and seduced, and then the more he talks, you remember vividly all the reasons why you broke up with him.

    by rugbymom on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:24:32 PM PDT

•  I think the Clintons should have to defend

  Bill's pardons to crooks like Marc Rich, his bogus business dealings with corrupt foreign businessmen and foreign gov'ts like Kazhakistan, and his behavior with the Monica Lewinsky.  

  by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM PDT

  •  HR'd for using multiple RW talking points...

    ...against a great Democratic President -- the only one, incidentally, we've been fortunate to have for 2 terms since 1946.  Is there no end to the slander coming from the Obama camp here?

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM PDT

    •  I think they are reasonable questions

      and certainly not any more RW talking points than questioning Obama's patriotism Joe McCarthy style, or race-baiting.

      And on the matter of Bill Clinton's character, I think the Rethugs were the ones who were most correct, and I apologized recently to a Rethug friend for defending the Clintons for the last decade.

      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM PDT

      •  You apologized for defending President Clinton???

        Then just how much of a Democrat are you?  You've fucking been here at DK forever, you've fought the GOP oppression of the country with the rest of us, and yet you're here today criticizing President Clinton on the one personal matter the GOP used to try to bring him down?  You not about "IhateBush"; you're all about "IhateClinton".  Some Democrat you've become!

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM PDT

        •  As far as I'm concerned

          Bill and Hillary Clinton are not Democrats, but members for the Clinton Party, and trying to hijack the Democratic Party.

          If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the Democratic Party will effectively have no nominee in the general election.

          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM PDT

          •  Then, you're nothing more than anti-Clinton. (nt)

            by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM PDT

            •  I hold it as a badge of honor

              to be called anti-Clinton.  Because I am much much more anti-Clinton than I am pro-Obama.

              by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM PDT

              •  Or, as tblanca observed, merely pro-McCain?

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM PDT

                •  While I hold a tremendous amount

                  of respect for the character and decency of the honorable John S. McCain, I fundamentally disagree with him on the issues, and I would enthusiastically vote and donate to Obama or Gore against McCain.

                  by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM PDT

                  •  There you go again

                    McCain = Bush redux = eternal war.  What do you not get after been told this dozens of times?  I call troll for your refusal to see the obvious. Your username is fraudulent given your love for Bomb-Bomb.

                    by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM PDT

                    •  Because the claims you make

                      are not true.

                      McCain = Bush redux

                      is simply inaccurate.  It just isn't true.  There are many many areas where McCain is at least a little better than W, whom I consider worse than Stalin.

                      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:33:45 PM PDT

                      •  Again, you are wrong and seem to be dissembling

                        McCain vows to continue Bush's failed and despicable policies, including the war, the tax cuts welfare for the rich, and slavish sucking up to the Christian right, except they don't get any of their sick dreams actually realized.

                        by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:42:16 PM PDT

                        •  McCain is much better than W

                          on these issues:

                          campaign finance reform
                          environment, opposes ANWR
                          has took on corporate interests, i.e. led opposition to media consolidation, drug and oil interests
                          even on tax cuts, he twice opposed them at the beginning.

                          As far as sucking up to the Christian right, as a Rethug he will do that.  But, as you said, McCain isn't putting them as a high priority if they aren't getting their dreams realized.  But he is completely wrong on those issues.  

                          He is wrong on the war, economy, and social issues.  I  agree fully there.  But that doesn't by itself make him as evil as W, and that certainly doesn't make him not a decent person, which by itself makes him better than W.

                          Nothing I said implies that I love the guy's policies.  But he is better than W, no matter how low of a threshold that really is.  As I said, Joseph Stalin meets that threshold.  

                          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM PDT

                          •  The war is evil, period

                            The destruction of the Constitution is a manifestation of that evil.  The class war is evil.  McCain subscribes to all of those and that disqualifies him from the presidency.

                            by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:06:50 PM PDT

                            •  Under these conditions

                              Clinton also subscribes to this war and should be disqualified from the Presidency.  
                              So I'm going to assume that you will not be voting for her in November under any conditions.

                              by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM PDT

                              •  I am going to vote for the Democrat

                                I hope to God it's Barack and not Hillary, but I'd rather die than vote for McCain or any Republican, ever.  Life's too short to vote against the best interests of the country and the world.

                                by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:22:41 PM PDT

                                •  That is your right

                                  and I will exercise my right to vote for whom I believe to be the lesser of the evils.  

                                  by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM PDT

                    •  Example of McCain's character

                      http://youtube.com/...

                      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM PDT

                  •  Dude.

                    One hundred years of war is not deserving of honor. It's worthy only of being excoriated.

                    You now have two Obama people, myself and TB, yelling at you that you're wrong. Maybe food for thought, perhaps?

                    by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM PDT

                    •  Again

                      What is wrong with admiring the positives of John McCain?  I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats had a high opinion of McCain, say in 2001.

                      I've made it clear that I disagree with him on the issues, but I admire his character.

                      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM PDT

                      •  What character? He lost that when he sold

                        his soul for a shot at the presidency.

                        by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

                        •  Lay it on him!

                          by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM PDT

                          •  Sounds like I'm making your blood boil

                            more than General McPeak.  

                            by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

                            •  You're having fun, aren't you?

                              And, no, McPeak tops even you today.

                              by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

                        •  Here's an example of character

                          http://youtube.com/...

                          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM PDT

                      •  The same character

                        that led him to embrace Jerry Falwell and then George Bush, whose campaign had called his wife a drug addict and spread the message that he had an illegitimate black baby?

                        by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:00 PM PDT

                        •  More, please!

                          by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM PDT

                        •  Under this logic

                          Obama should never support Clinton, after her campaign used racist smears against him, refused to state that he was a Christian when Muslim smears (which were worse than any of the smears against McCain in SC) were being used against him, tried to further the Wright story, and basically said that he doesn't love his country?

                          Would you then agree that Obama's character would be zero if he ever supported Clinton ever again?

                          Under your logic, if Obama supports Clinton ever again, he would have no character.

                          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:56:23 PM PDT

                        •  Here's an example of character

                          McCain defending Obama by stating clearly to creature Sean Hannity that Obama does not agree with Wright's controversial comments.

                          http://youtube.com/...

                          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

                          •  Uh hum.

                            So you're such a KoolAid drinker that your measure of character is that McCain defends your candidate, and that's enough.

                            Pathetic. You're a freeper troll at this point.

                            by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM PDT

                            •  This is an example of his character

                              I've seen McCain's character before, his response in 2000 to what he thought of Vietnam War protesters (that  he went to Vietnam to protect freedom, which includes the right to protest the war.), speaking out against the swiftboaters against Kerry, etc.  

                              It appears that you just find a need to attack McCain for anything and everything because he is the Rethug nominee.  Because he is the Rethug nominee, there must be nothing good about him is your argument.  That is simply not true.  

                              You can oppose McCain's policies, while still acknowledging that there are positive things about this man.

                              by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM PDT

                              •  Get yourself to another blog.

                                You sound like one of those people who bought the claptrap about Bush being a uniter. No, McCain is not the epitome of evil. Yes, his character is as bad as one would expect from someone who says whatever he needs to say to get ahead.

                                For a repuke tool, your username sure is ironic.

                                by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:38:22 PM PDT

                                •  No I never did

                                  believe that W would be a "uniter", I have always seen him as nothing but evil, worse than Stalin.  
                                  However, I have bought the "claptrap" that Obama would be a uniter, if he could get elected.  

                                  I have been on this blog for four years, but I also believe that John McCain is a decent person with character.  Your accusing me of treason won't convince me otherwise.

                                  by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM PDT

                                  •  Fuck off, freeper troll. nt.

                                    by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:51:54 PM PDT

                                    •  Oh, awesome.

                                      Now the guy who's drooling over John McCain starts handing out trollratings.

                                      Meh. Troll.

                                      by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM PDT

                              •  Do not TR to defend McCain

                                quit beating a dead horse.  Please remove your TRs and I'll remove mine.

                                by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM PDT

        •  Furthermore

          I have come to the conclusion that the country and the party would have been much better off had Bill Clinton resigned during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the country and the party would be better off if the Clintons left public life ASAP.

          Had Clinton resigned in 1998, Gore would have become President, and we would never have had to deal with W.

          by IhateBush on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM PDT

          •  Alternatively

            Gore would have been impeached over some other triviality, and we would have had President Gingrich. Get a grip.

            by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:45 PM PDT

            •  Thank you. (eom)

              by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM PDT

    •  IhateBush has a Clinton obsession

      and loves him some elderly McCain't.  He shouldn't be a TU since he openly states he'd vote for McCain over Clinton.  Yeah, the Clintons are wrong and Hillary should suspend her campaign soon, but openly adocating for McCain should be cause for a big red box warning, and if that fails, banning.

      by trashablanca on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM PDT

      •  Calm me down, trashablanca. I'm truly steamed...

        ...about this fake "McCarthyism" charge from McPeak, after having watched Clinton make the comment and finding it completely innocuous and then watching McPeak hurl his charge WITH Obama standing beside him smiling, and I get on here and run into IhateBush doing the work of Ken Starr and crowd, and it's become too much.

        This "McCarthyism" thing tips me over into thinking that we're seeing an MO developing out of the Obama camp -- to try to turn every Clinton comment into a personal attack on Obama.  This is "Hope"? This is "Change"?  This is a "New Politics"?  NO!  This is crying wolf over and over, in the hope that a critical mass of cries will carry Obama to victory over Senator Clinton.

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:44:41 PM PDT

        •  I'm steamed

          that Clinton implied a lack of patriotism in Obama. With the Wright story, do you really think that was a slip of the tongue, coming from the "best politician of his generation"?

          Sorry, I doubt it. Not when both Clintons have been systematically denigrating Obama for weeks.

          by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

          •  Give me the quote MBNYC...

            ...give me your evidence of "slip of the tongue".  I've got the real comment ready to cut & paste.  Let's compare.

            by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM PDT

            •  Sure.

              Hotline:

              NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann reported earlier today that Bill Clinton, campaigning in Charlotte, NC, said: "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. So that is my argument for her."

              That other stuff? Wouldn't it be great if we had two candidates who love their country, like my wife does?

              I'm sorry, but that's pretty clear. Bill is not an idiot. He knew what he was saying.

              by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM PDT

              •  "So that's my argument for her" is the...

                ...offending passage?  Come on.  How is that implying that Senator Obama "is not patriotic", as others are saying Clinton said in those remarks?  Sometimes a rose is just a rose and you've got to despise it and suspect it of the worst to call it a venus flytrap.

                On the other hand, for McPeak to accuse President Clinton of "McCarthyism" is true slander, in my opinion, and slander delivered with a smiling Senator Obama at his side.  Senator Obama has developed an appealing image (while leaving it to campaign staff to play the victim card over and over), but on this day, smiling as McPeak delivered his slander, Senator Obama has covered himself -- personally -- in shame, in the opinion of this one Democrat (and I suspect many more).

                (On a related matter: thank you again for your response to IHBush.  I wish I saw more Obama partisans here doing the same -- especially to some of the others here lately spewing the worst of venom -- I'm thinking of some of the high UIDs who often appear to be true trolls.)

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:38:55 PM PDT

                •  That's exactly what he said.

                  He spoke about having two people who love their country blah blah, one of whom is obviously McCain. Then he finished it off with saying he was talking about her as the other one.

                  You can parse that until the cows come home. He said what he said, at the very same time that the Wright 'God damn America' thing is all over cable.

                  It was a calculated smear, no doubt about it.

                  by MBNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM PDT

              •  One more thing: wasn't "so that's my..." his...

                ...closing line in that speech?  I'm not 100% sure of this, but it may have been and as such would have been a very typical closing remark.

                by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM PDT

•  I had the misfortune of serving under McPeak

  That SOB was the worst general I've ever seen.  While he was heading the air force he made so many bad decisions that it truly caused moral to plummet and there was widespread joy and relief when he was finally replaced.   His integrated wing idea was probably his worst move, but by far his most unpopular and stupidest decision was coming up with a new dress uniform.   What a terrible spokesperson for the Obama camp, and if they think he lends credibility then just ask any air force veteran who served under him what a peice of shit this guy was.

  by getrealdude on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM PDT

  •  I've read that before

    could you explain it in more detail?  (I'm honestly curious.)

    I think one reason he's on board with Obama is because he's one of the few generals out there who was willing to jump on board with a Democrat, and who was anti-war.

    by barath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM PDT

  •  What does your opinion of McPeak

    have to do with the statement he made regarding Clinton's comments?

    Are you suggesting that because he was, in your opinion, a bad general, that his opinions regarding this or any issue shouldn't be taken seriously?

    That wouldn't be, as they say, good reasoning, would it?

    by BobzCat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:55:49 AM PDT

•  Of all the contrived "offenses" vs. Obama...

  ...in this campaign, this stands out as THE most contrived of them all.  How you go from this comment from President Clinton...

  "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."

  ...to McPeak's ludicrous charge of "McCarthyism" is beyond me -- unless you're trying to create a controversy to offset some other controversy or are trying to create an aura of being under attack so that you can feed your partisans the thing that most keeps them shouting slogans and contributing.

  I just watched the back and forth (Clinton and McPeak) on CNN and, aside from McPeak's ridiculous charge, the only thing MORE shocking was that Barack Obama just stood BESIDE McPeak smiling as McPeak was hurling this slime.  Shame first on you Barack Obama, then shame on McPeak for doing Obama's sleazy bidding, and also shame plenty on the diarist here and commenters who are pushing this garbage.

  by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM PDT

  •  The connection is quite apparent, actually

    McCarthy and his minions routinely commenced their attacks against fellow Americans by accusing them of lacking patriotism.  Here BC is accusing his fellow American of lacking patriotism.

    So it's pretty much exactly the same thing except for the matter of degree (BC was subtle in his accusations, McCarthy not so much).

    by Flinch on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM PDT

    •  WHERE is Pres. Clinton doing that???

      Give us the words you're working with here, please!

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

•  McPeak's comments were pretty below the belt

  Actually, the McCarthy comparison was pretty below the belt.  I would expect the extreme left to liken what Bill had to say to his recent praising of McCain's foreign policy experience, since it's obvious that he's trying to indirectly promote his own wife's candidacy by promoting McCain's at Obama's expense.  But, hey, whose minister is that on YouTube yelling all those anti-American rants, and whom Obama refuses to disown?  It's fair.  It's politics.  It's nothing compared to what the RW has in store for him.

  by TheShoveler on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM PDT