Gay Patriot Header Image

Former Clinton Official Smears McCain in Washington Post

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:07 pm - May 17, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals

In an Op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post, former Clinton Administration official James P. Rubin accused presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain of hypocrisy. Gosh how Democrats like to trot out that term. Not just that. He also borrows from the Obama playbook in claiming that McCain has adopted “Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics.”

Amazing that a Clinton Administration official would accuse any one of dirty campaign tactics. It’s that ol’ pot calling the kettle black again.

Now, Rubin contends McCain had “no business smearing Barack Obama” for pointing out that a Hamas official endorsed Senator Obama’s White House bid. Which is a fact. Attempting to show the presumptive GOP nominee’s hypocrisy, Rubin cites his interview with McCain where the Arizona Senator said, “sooner or later we are going to have to deal with” Hamas. What Rubin left out from his initial Op-ed was McCain’s comment that “part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

In other words, the Arizona Senator was conditioning any relations with Hamas on the organization changing. As the campaign stated, “As the entire video — just posted on SkyNews — clearly shows, John McCain absolutely did not advocate unconditional engagement with Hamas.”

Even CNN picked up on this, with Lou Dobbs saying the complete transcript seemed to “substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying.

Later in the day, quoting a more complete transcript, in a defensive piece on the Huffington Post, Rubin puffed on contending “there is no conditionality in any of his answers.” Um, Jamie, did you read what you quoted where McCain said the relationship depended on how Hamas acted?

Rubin concludes, “So I say to the McCain campaign, just admit the truth, either he made a mistake or he changed his mind, then let us return to debating the issues as Americans.” Well, Jamie, I say to you, just admit the truth that you pulled his comments out of context, then return to advocating for Democratic candidates without borrowing the tired allegations of Republican hypocrisy and dirty tricks.

Focus on their actual statements in context and don’t read your partisan bias into them.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has more where he points out that at the exact “same place, either a little before or a little after John McCain does his interview with . . . Rubin,” the Arizona Senator said:

“Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process. It’s very, very important though that they renounce this commitment.”

Did you think it would be too much too ask for Rubin to admit he pulled the remarks out of context and apologize to Senator McCain?

Don’t bet on it. Clintonites only apologize for what the United States does, never for what they do when attacking Republicans. As Bill himself might have said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.”

UP-UPDATE: Jim has even more here.

Hillary Best when Behind?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:03 pm - May 17, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Post 9-11 America

This morning, while reading the blogs, Glenn linked a post which caught me eye. In his piece, “Clinton’s Biggest Mistake,” Tom Bevan writes that “the campaign was guilty of laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance.

But, as the campaign wore on, and the nomination which Mrs. Clinton thought to be hers by right slipped out of her grasp, she showed a tenaciousness which impressed many, including yours truly, never a fan of the former First Lady. In a comment to one of my posts, Bruce wrote that both he and his partner “have (in this specific moment in time) found ourselves admiring Clinton’s guts and determination.

Last fall, she complained about how harshly moderator Tim Russert treated her in a Philadelphia debate, as if tough questions exploring her positions were out of bounds. Last month, she went toe-to-toe with Bill O”Reilly, one of the toughest talk-show host interviewers in the business, and came away form it impressing many.

It seems that when she realized the nomination wasn’t her due and that she would have to fight for it, she was finally able to show her best qualities.

While the campaign has certainly given me a slightly more favorable opinion of Hillary than I once had, I still could never trust her to be commander-in-chief. She seems to think the solutions to all social problems involve increased federal regulation and spending. She has a problem with speaking candidly to the American people. She is secretive about any number of issues, refusing to release numerous records relevant to the “experience” she so frequently cites. And she exaggerates that experience, leading people to question her veracity.

In short, in the course of this campaign, Hillary Clinton has impressed us with her tenacity, but made her “credibility gap” more readily manifest.