Marthy,

You are very smart man.

I think we have two hypotheses  that can explain Ferraro and Clinton comments.

First hypotheses

Clinton and Ferraro made their comments in a random places with a small audiences.

They really didn’t expect their comments to have any effect on campaign.

Initially their comments were not noticed by anybody, but later they were discover by Obama campaign. and used  in their campaign of race baiting intimidation.

Second hypotheses

Clinton and Ferraro made their comments in a random places with a small audiences expecting for Obama campaign to discover their comments and make a big deal out of their comments in spite  their self-interest

Which . hypotheses makes more sense to you?

With any former/current US president, there's nothing like "random places with a small audience", Jake. It's always a megaphone, especially with Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.  And he knows it, too. His nickname - slick Willie - was no accident.

I think you might be reading too much into this one.  On it's face, the statement is correct; that *would* be a great scenario.  And "all that other stuff" could refer to any number of things (Wright, obviously, but also things like his own scandals, swift boats, etc.)  Maybe he did mean something more insidious, but I don't think he was clearly questioning Obama here.  It's possible to say good things about Hillary without implying Obama as a contrast.

At any rate, McCarthy was never that subtle about his accusations, so it's not a great comparison anyway.  McCarthy would have just come out and called Obama a communist.

jacob,

I don't agree with McPeak, but how exactly is accusing somebody of McCarthyism "race baiting intimidation"?

What about Ferraro? Was this Ferrarogate planted by the Clinton machine or was it discovered by the Obama operatives and was used for race baiting?

In any case that was a random place with a small audience Obama operatives  made sure that every American knows about Clinton remarks.  Why?

Do you mean random places with a small audience as in the case  of Obama's foreign policy adviser who called Hillary a monster? That was a small Scottish town with an even smaller audience than Ferraro's.  You are being selective, jacob.

scrubbyoak,

Good point,  That was a gaffe but it was not premeditated dirty trick to let know the whole world that Clinton is a monster.

You might  argue  if you want that what Clinton said was a gaffe and Clinton really thinks that Obama is not patriotic enough, but it’s not what Marty suggested.

as I wrote on a jzengerle post, when I actually saw the Clinton clip, I was surprised. It reads a lot worse than it actually presented. I ran it a few times and every time, I did not sense that Clinton was deliberately trying to smear Obama - hell, for that, just read some tnr threads, especially the contributions of O'Channy and that odious specimen pccostello - and I was surprised. It certainly reads that way.

"I don't understand why Jason Zengerle is so hot and bothered about Air Force General Tony McPeak's "likening of Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy."  It was an apt comparison."

No it wasn't and the reason Jason was bothered by the vile comparison is that he still has an ounce of integrity left.

...If Clinton gets nominated and gets elected, we will rue the day we ever met her...and him...

So you are still allowing for this possibility?

It's hard to be conclusive about Clinton's comment; part of his brilliance is his perfectly pitched slipperiness where he has room to argue "I wasn't saying that", even though the implications seems to be festering there. Reminds me of Robert Frost's poem, "Fire And Ice." I myself would favour fire--maybe  the burining of few collected twigs-- and give the nod to the view that he knew what he was doing to keep Wright alive, but not to question Obama's love for America.

If that's so, it's scuzzy, but the comparison to McCarthy is over the top and a variation on Godwin's law. Mc Peak himself retracted the comparison.

Jacob1, its not so much that it was a "random" place with a small audience as that Clinton talks a lot and if reporters can create drama by printing quotes without any context, they will.   I'm sure everyone listening to Clinton knew that he was talking about the fact that now, with the Wright controversy, a general election with Obama in it will be sidetracked by ridiculous arguments about whether or not Obama is devoted to America.  He was not actually questioning whether or not Obama is devoted to America.  Peretz probably knows this too, but he's just not interested in what either Clinton SAYS, so much as what he's sure - in his gut - they must actually MEAN.  

newdex,

"if reporters can create drama by printing quotes without any context, they will"

However, in this case reporters didn't  create drama, Obama did.

So much for

"We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time.

This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. "

What's a fake, what 's a fraud, what's  a phony.

Marty, Have you have no decency left  in you to support such phony?