Did Bill Clinton question Ralph Nader's patriotism in 2004?!

[Eric J in MN]

Bill Clinton said about Bush and Kerry in July 2004 at the Democratic Convention:

We Americans must choose for President -- we've got to choose for President between two strong men who both love their country, but who have very different world views...

Only two? Bill Clinton knew Ralph Nader was running. Maybe he was implying that Ralph Nader doesn't love his country.

Or maybe Bill Clinton is allowed to picture the general election campaign and describe it as a choice between two candidates and praise their patriotism, without insulting anyone.

My point is that Bill Clinton didn't question Nader's patriotism in 2004 and didn't question Obama's patriotism on Friday, but just used the same theme in his speeches he has for years.

When Bill Clinton wants to criticize Obama, as he did by calling the depth of Obama's opposition to the Iraq War a "fairy tale," he calls him "Senator Obama." He doesn't have a motive to try to insult Obama with words in the middle of a stump speech which don't use Obama's name. Bill Clinton couldn't have predicted his words in the middle of his stump speech on Friday which are similar to what he's said before would be highlighted.

This got started when reporter Carrie Dann of MSNBC was assigned the boring task of covering a stump speech.

She had the choice between telling her editor that nothing newsworthy happened, or weaving a bogus tale about how Bill Clinton's stump speech "could be seen." She decided to weave a bogus tale. The Clinton campaign immediately issued a clarification which MSNBC appended, but the juicier story of an insult keeps going. The Clinton campaign could have said "No comment" or could have said that they do have questions about Obama's patriotism if that was the original meaning. It wasn't.

Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd are bashing Bill Clinton based on the worst possible interpretation of his words, but they also bashed Al Gore in 2000.

Say NO to Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd.

Give Bill Clinton the benefit-of-the-doubt.

[Johnny__Motown]

1. He was Mugged..

[SunsetDreams]

2. and he fell down

[Eric J in MN]

10. Who was mugged? NT

NT

[EFerrari]

3. His candidate wasn't getting whamped by Nader in 2004.

I'm sorry, Eric, it doesn't work. If he doesn't know how much damage he's doing, that's even worse.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Primary campaigns are allowed to be optimistic that their candidate....

...will be the nominee.

[EFerrari]

8. Sure. But impugning the patriotism of their opponent

doesn't fall into the category of "optimism".

The thing about the Clintons this time out is that they are losing via smear and manipulation what should have been theirs easily by taking the high road. That's unfortunate.

[Eric J in MN]

9. I heard Bill Clinton speak two years ago and he used a similar theme.

I don't have a transcript of the stump speech two years ago, but as I showed in my original post of this thread, he said something similar in 2004 at the Democratic Convention.

Clinton refers to "two" candidates when he isn't trying to insult other candidates.

[EFerrari]

11. I believe you when you say Bill has had this trope in his quiver

for a long time.

But context matters. He's too good a politician not to know that.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Bill Clinton is a good politician, but I don't his predictive powers are quite that good..

...for him to know that words in a stump speech similar to what he's said before which don't mention Obama would be turned into a national news story that he insulted Obama.

[EFerrari]

13. That would be a good defense except there was Hillary

saying that she and McCain were qualified and that Obama only had a speech. That was what the campaign was doing.

That is the context. It requires no predictive powers at all.

It was intentional and Bill got busted for it.

[Eric J in MN]

14. Hillary Clinton criticized Obama by name, because she wanted....

...maximum exposure of her criticism.

When Bill Clinton insulted "Senator Obama" by name and said the depth of his opposition to the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," he probably knew that it would get coverage and he wanted maximum exposure.

I don't see the motive for Bill Clinton trying to insult Obama without using his name. Insulting him by name almost guarantees coverage, and so that would be the way to predictably get maximum exposure.

[EFerrari]

15. Do you seriously believe Bill Clinton was unaware that the campaign

had decided to say McCain and Hillary were qualified but Obama wasn't?

Because that's what you have to believe in order to think that Bill was misinterpreted.

Bill has had a series of speech acts that have been "misinterpreted". If I conclude that they are all accidents, then I have to believe he's senile.

[Eric J in MN]

19. I don't agree that the Clintons criticizing Obama by name in the past...

...means that Bill Clinton praising his wife and McCain should be taken as an insult of Obama.

The Clintons have proven that they aren't shy about criticizing Obama by name.

[EFerrari]

20. Innuendo has been just as effective, hasn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5267577&mesg_id=5267577

[scheming daemons]

4. Sorry... the interpretation of his words is clear....

By exclusion, he was saying only two of the three candidates "love their country".

[Eric J in MN]

6. He's allowed to picture his wife and McCain running in the general election, and to praise them.

It shouldn't be taken as an insult.

[Drachasor]

22. He was making an argument as to WHY you should vote for Hillary

Here's a longer clip than most, it has context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlu7wjPEK4k

Saying something like: "vote for Hillary so you can have a race with two people who love their country" does indeed impugn Obama.

[Eric J in MN]

24. I just watched that clip (thanks for sharing it) and I noticed that....

...Bill Clinton emphasizes the phrase "who's right on these issues."

That supports what I'm saying about Bill Clinton expressing a longtime wish for a general election campaign about the issues and not trying to insult anyone.

[Drachasor]

28. And he implies voting for Obama would not lead to such an election

His whole argument is that there is a real choice to be made, and that the Hillary choice gives the said benefits. That implies choosing Obama does not provide those benefits (such as two people who love their country, or a race based on issues).

[MonkeyFunk]

7. No, it's not clear at all

in fact, that interpretation is just downright ridiculous.

[Drachasor]

23. Look at Clinton's full statement WITH the context

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlu7wjPEK4k

He was making an argument as to why you should vote for Hillary. That inherently contains a comparison to Obama.

[Eric J in MN]

25. When Bill Clinton gives reasons to vote for his wife...

...we shouldn't take every praise of his wife as an insult against Obama.

Michelle Obama praises her husband in speeches urging people to vote for him, and we shouldn't take that praise as implying Hillary-Clinton-is-the-opposite of each thing she praises her husband for.

[Drachasor]

27. It's one thing to say "my spouse is a great person", and another to say...

..."vote for my spouse so we can have an election like this".

The latter sort of argument, which is Clinton's, implies not voting for the spouse won't get you that result.

[Eric J in MN]

29. Mchelle Obama speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Enough/CZm7

"And, so we are here today, asking you to support us, to join us, to turn those worries into action to give women hope that there is someone like Barack who is not only decent, trustworthy, compassionate, smart and hard working, but he is also someone who recognizes that society, our community, is only as strong as our women and our families."

Is she saying that Hillary Clinton is the opposite of decent, trustworthy, etc.?

Of course not.

Nor was Bill Clinton saying that Obama is unpatriotic.

[Drachasor]

30. Those are very different statements in at least one important way

First, she did not say "Obama and the Republicans are like this", so vote for Obama so the general election can be between such people (that would be highly offensive). Clinton lumped in the other major player with his statement, and left out Obama and ONLY Obama. How he talked about how Hillary was like this, and McCain was like this, but never talked about Obama (the person she is actually running against) was naturally focuses the attention on that person. I think we can both agree on the principle that you can talk about a person a great deal, having everyone know whom you are referring to, without ever directly mentioning him. That requires singling the person out in some way, which Clinton did. He further emphasized whom he was not talking about by speaking of "other issues", which is an nonsense statement in the current context if he wasn't referring to Obama.

I was going to say that being a speech given in April 2007 makes it different too, but I am not sure that it does (I can't think of a sound case to make regarding this at this time). I do think there is a difference between how things were then and now that I can't quite quantify right now. I'm not sure if it has to do with the number of candidates, the earliness of the campaigns, or something else. I shall think on it.

[Eric J in MN]

31. regarding "other stuff"

Bill Clinton could have meant that in 1992, he was attacked based on things like his trip to the Soviet Union.

He could have meant the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans who smeared John Kerry.

[Drachasor]

32. But he's making an argument as to why you should vote for Hillary

She's certainly just as vulnerable to such attacks as Obama (even though the attacks themselves would be over different things). Bill Clinton would just be lying to say that is some sort of benefit for voting for Hillary -- it's not a benefit if it is the same for Hillary and Obama. Saying something like "with Hillary against McCain we won't have all that other stuff" certainly implies in this campaign environment that with Obama you would, because that's the fundamental voting choice available (Hillary or Obama). Like I said, his inclusion of McCain in that argument makes that implicit comparison even stronger.

[Eric J in MN]

34. Maybe Clinton's argument is that because of the personal respect...

...which his wife and John McCain have for each other, they would run a more respectful issue-oriented campaign than most pairs of opposing candidates (more so than himself and George H. W. Bush, more so than John Kerry and George W. Bush, more so than John McCain and Barack Obama.)

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Only to people

who are predisposed to parse every sentence with the intent of taking offense.

[MadBadger]

16. Hey, I kind of the like the idea of questioning Nader's Patriotism

He is no patriot to me.

[EmilyAnne]

17. Meh. I see your point and I agree about giving Bill the benefit of the doubt. I don't think attacks

on a candidate's patriotism is in his repertoire and I didn't take it that way. I didn't like the Jesse Jackson comment, but I know that he isn't a racist. I also didn't see why people were so upset when Hillary said that as far as she knew, Barack is not muslim. Call me naive, I guess.

Bill and Hillary have said some things that have ruffled my feathers, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt and I don't go looking for sinister meanings to normal seeming statements. Still, I can see both sides: why some are upset and others see muckraking.

[hfojvt]

18. only Ralph? There were at least 16 candidates who got votes

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2004&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0

Not just Ralph with 463,655
but also
Michael Badnarik - 397,265
Michael Peroutka - 144,499
David Cobb - 119,859
Leonard Peltier - 27,607
and so on down to
Earl Dodge - 140.

But the context is clearly not the same. In the speech he is being criticized for, he was talking about why he thought Hillary is the better choice as the Democratic nominee, and for some reason decided to include something like "wouldn't it be nice if the election was between two people who love their country, without all of this other stuff ..."

As if that would only happen if Hillary was the nominee. He did not give examples of the other stuff. He did not mention Republican attacks at the patriotism of Democrats. Just leaving many to conclude that he said we could have an election between two people who love their country, if Democrats decide to nominate Hillary.

[Eric J in MN]

21. After a debate in which his wife made the drivers-license gaffe,

...Bill Clinton expressed concern that would be used against her by the Republicans.

He was attacked in 1992 for having visited the Soviet Union.

Since there is so much "other stuff" Bill Clinton could have meant, we should give him the benefit-of-the-doubt.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I hope so. Nader's no patriot.