Now we're talkin.

The Clinton clip that's circulating has no context, so I'll refrain from too much speculation over what he "meant." But the current uproar over it strikes me as an obvious rehash of all the anti-Clinton propaganda of the last 15 years, fused together with the newest "Clintons-are-racists" smear that's become wildly popular in the Media and throughout the blogosphere.

I won't deny that any criticism of Bill Clinton, particularly one that might fit with previous right-wing smears, is gleefully seized upon by conservatives with their signature schadenfreude. However, we mustn't withhold legitimate criticism of "our" leaders simply because our opponents enjoy or pretend to agree with it. It sickens me as much as you, I'm sure, when I see Peggy Noonan, Bill Bennett, and all these other conservatives "concerned" about the Clintons (as beautifully described in Digby's "Pecksniffian" exegesis). But this isn't about them.

Of course [Bill Clinton] was telling the truth, but it was a "gaffe" anyway because the convention at the time he said those things was not to tell the truth.

I've heard this theme several times in these comments, and it intrigues me. The fact that something is "true" does not excuse using it with clearly malicious intent. The appropriateness of a comment does not hinge solely on its "truth." Context is often paramount.

Think of it like this. You are attending your beloved Uncle Bob's funeral, and a family member comes up to you while you were mourning and said "Yeah, well Uncle Bob was a drunk." Uncle Bob was indeed a drunk, the statement is true. Does that make it ok to say in that context?

Yes, it is indisputably, factually true that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina all those years ago. This has very little bearing on the propriety of saying such in response to the question asked of Bill Clinton, or the intent behind saying it.

Quote what Bill Clinton actually said and tell me where you see all the stuff that blogger are saying exists in it. Damn it! You have to look at the text itself a little bit. You just can't pretend it doesn't exist and spin a story using other source material.

Did you see the links in Glenn's post? He links directly to a video of Bill making the comment in response to the question about Obama's success despite having to battle both Bill and Hillary. Here it is, for convenience: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/bills-spin-obam.html

Bill says exactly what we have been saying he said, and then he tries to perfume it with a veil of flattery about Obama's running a good campaign. Nobody's twisting his words. They are what they are, and that's all I've been talking about here.

Also, when you watch that video of Clinton making the remarks, note the head-wagging condescension. He obviously did not mean the comment as a compliment.

bridget:

Comparing him to Chris Matthews is a clever device, but completely uncalled for. I think that maybe all of that negative craziness from the super senstive Obamabots about some of your past blogs on Hillary's campaign has triggered this preposterous comparison to Chris Matthews.

I've noticed a great deal of palaver on blogs that presumes, rather insultingly, that anyone who supports Obama must be shallow, irrational, and cult-like in their devotion. I am an Obama supporter, and anyone familiar with me would be hard-pressed to say I take positions lightly or thoughtlessly. Ironically, the assumption that all Obama supporters are mindless "Obamabots" is itself the very definition of mindless.

Parallel to this assumption is that Obama supporters are hyper-sensitive. This is condescending on multiply destructive layers. For many, many years, the refuge of a scoundrel making a sexist, homophobic, racist, or otherwise unfair comment has been to accuse the offended individual of being overly sensitive or unable to take a joke. Of course, there certainly are instances of touchy Obama (and other) supporters. However, genuine attacks deserve genuine rejoinders, not mute fear of seeming too "sensitive."

Even as an Obama supporter, I get positively outraged when I see Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly in the media, which is not uncommon. I have greatly sympathized with John Edwards' trivialization in the media as well. Just know that not everyone who stands up for a candidate - even when they outright support that candidate - does so out of mindlessness or blind allegiance.

Let's instead try to debate the issues on the merits, shall we?

He became visibly angry, scoffed at the question, and THEN used the Jackson comparison. It was, on top of everything else, a total nonsequtior -- just a way to demean Obama in order to lash out at the question.

Exactly. It actually looked like he had been wanting to make that comparison all day, and seized immediately on the opportunity to do so. It came out so fast and tightly packed.