Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | Finger Liking Good »

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Wilson Weighs In

posted by on February 12 at 11:10 AM

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson has a Clinton-endorsing op-ed in today’s Baltimore Sun (Go Os, hon!).

The piece is purportedly about Clinton, but he spends most of it hurling cheap shots at Obama, basing his claim that Obama can’t stand up to McCain on a series of letters about ethics reform the two exchanged in 2006.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.”

Wilson deems this encounter a “TKO” for McCain.

A junior Senator professing respect for a senior colleague while regretting their disagreement is so “meek” that it proves the man could never lead? He should have called McCain a fuckhead and pissed in his shoe, I guess.

Furthermore, according to Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt probably would have endorsed Clinton. So there.

RSS icon Comments


and we are listening to an ambassador for a Republican why? I suppose punditry has a low bar for entrance

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 11:17 AM

Obama has some class and knows that honey attracts more bees than vinegar.

Posted by Suz | February 12, 2008 11:19 AM

Odd. Is racking up all these Republican endorsements (Limbaugh, Coulter, Wilson, and now Teddy Roosevelt) supposed to help her somehow?

Posted by Gitai | February 12, 2008 11:20 AM

Teddy was the first President of the National Rifle Association. Somehow, I seriously doubt he would support either Hillary or Obama if he was alive today.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 12, 2008 11:23 AM

A Teddy Roosevelt endorsement!??! Bully for her!

Posted by Sam | February 12, 2008 11:28 AM

What's with the Coulter Hillary endorsement? Is that for real?

Posted by Levislade | February 12, 2008 11:29 AM

@4 He did love killing things (animals, Spaniards you name it)

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 11:30 AM

@3... well, it could make a difference in the actual election, if clinton gets the nom.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 11:30 AM

Wow, I just saw that they published JCWIV's e-mail address at the bottom of that story . . . seems a little weird, no?

Posted by Levislade | February 12, 2008 11:30 AM

@6 it was just a rhetorical tool to insult McCain.

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 11:31 AM

good grief, this "battle-tested" argument is just plain sad. that's the best you have to offer? so what are dems supposed to do when hillary's 8 years are up? retreat? repeal the 22nd amendment? they sound more battle-scarred than battle-tested.

Posted by brandon | February 12, 2008 11:32 AM

If battle tested is the standard Byrd should get the nom since the oldest person will almost always get it

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 11:33 AM

On the Clinton side they don't comprehend anything except scorched earth. It's of a piece with Hillary's phobia of admitting the slightest weakness.

Posted by elenchos | February 12, 2008 11:34 AM

This is pathetic, you guys are seriously hen-pecking the endorsements of HRC? Wow.

Grow some balls and get over your fear of strong women already. I am done with all of this woman bashing in the guise of HRC bashing and now you take it a step futher and bash a War Vet who has served under THREE presidents (that includes Bill) for his support of a woman.

Make excuses, call it what you will, but this is just obvious misogynistic BS.


Posted by Johnny | February 12, 2008 11:45 AM

It's as though these decrepit Baby Boomers simply can't conceive of how anyone wouldn't be thrilled to support that warmongering bitch.

Posted by AMB | February 12, 2008 11:46 AM


Save the psychoanalysis for someone it applies to. HRC is a corporate shill, a warmonger, and anti free-speech (as evidenced by her support for a flag burning amendment).

How the fuck can any self-respecting progressive vote for someone like that?

Labeling people who have a very real problem with her very real tyrannical leanings "sexist" is hugely insulting. Her vagina isn't the problem, her policies are.


Posted by AMB | February 12, 2008 11:49 AM

@ 16 A flag burning amendment? That is what you got? wow.

I feel like you just helped make my point.

Posted by Johnny | February 12, 2008 11:51 AM

@14 - Uhh.. wow. That was something.

I like Hillary, and I'd be happy to support her if she gets the nomination (fairly). I didn't write a single word about her in this post. My point is that Wilson's endorsement is terrible.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of sexism (or racism, or whatever) really doesn't help your cause.

Posted by Anthony Hecht | February 12, 2008 11:53 AM

@14 Please quit pimping the line that opposing HRC is proof of sexism. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prefer Obama to HRC, like his career as a professor of Constitutional law, or his opposition to the war from day one.

It's just kind of sad that HRC supporters have to resort to this kind of bullshit.

Posted by Gitai | February 12, 2008 11:53 AM


Here's the story about Clinton's flag-burning law:

All I've got? Are you fucking kidding me? You really want to hand presidential power to someone who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment?

Posted by AMB | February 12, 2008 11:56 AM

@17 If your point was that HRC is completely lacking in principles, than yes, the flag burning amendment does help make your point. Otherwise, her willingness to mutilate the Constitution and muzzle dissent in order to increase her own power really is a strong argument against her.

Posted by Gitai | February 12, 2008 11:57 AM

ECB!!! HELP! I am being attacked for my respect of the womyns!

Posted by Johnny | February 12, 2008 11:57 AM

@22 You're being attacked for your lack of respect for the intelligence of Obama supporters.

Posted by Gitai | February 12, 2008 12:12 PM

Obama supporters are intelligent? Then how in the world are they duped into supporting him when he consistantly refuses to actually address the issues?

Intelligent people I think would ask one simple question oh him: How? How are you going to create the future that you speak of?

No they are content to listen to him say "Hope" and "We" and "Future" and "Change" without asking any hard questions.

This man, if elected, will have the most ridiculous mandate ever....a mandate to hope.

I had "hoped" we were done running this country on hopes and dreams and prayers.

Posted by Johnny | February 12, 2008 12:24 PM

Call me a sexist pig, but I don't see the advantage of electing a president on grounds she has experience surviving hateful attacks from the GOP. How about a Dem president who won't guarantee four years of pure and reinvigorated GOP hatred, our country and its citizens be damned (by the GOP).

Posted by Smarm | February 12, 2008 12:29 PM

johnny, what does your argument say about clinton? she's losing to a man who "refuses to address the issues", and by landslide margins.

this is the same bullshit coming out of bill's mouth today - obama's candidacy is just "smoke and mirrors." this is helps her how, exactly? it doesn't speak very well of hillary if, despite all her political clout and experience, she's still getting creamed by an empty suit.

Posted by brandon | February 12, 2008 12:48 PM

I'm getting the impression here, from all these "Republican" comments, that some of y'all don't remember who Joseph Wilson is. Husband of Valerie Plame? The guy who stood up to Bush on the faked intelligence? You may not agree with his endorsement -- I don't -- but he's not a Republican, or a lightweight.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Okay Fnarf, I wasn't familiar with his pre-bush history, but it looks like his diplomatic career was relatively non-partisan and that his Ambassador postings were diplomatic rather than party line posts.

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 1:08 PM

@15: A bitch is a female canine, and Hillary is a female human. If you continue to call her a bitch, I will continue to call you a bastard. Though I have no genetic proof of either. Aretha, a black woman, asked for R-E-S-P-E-C-T, and I except Obama would, too.

Misogyny = Racism

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | February 12, 2008 1:11 PM

@24: This bullshit about Obama not addressing issues is really tired. Stump speeches do not have to address the specifics of policy. Obama gets people excited to participate in the process, and he gives people hope (yes, I said it!) that things can get better.

As for the issues? Try looking here before you spout inane talking points:

Posted by Anthony Hecht | February 12, 2008 1:23 PM

@24 - Yes I began to quesiton the intelligence of BO supporters when the caucus PCC pointed out to a BO supporter that she was incorrect that HRC doesn't support global warming and renewable energy issues...apparently the BO supporters don't bother to notice that one of the most environmentally minded congressman - Jay Inslee D-WA 1st is not only supporting HRC but is her state chair. Didn't she write a forward to his book Apollo's Fire?

8 years ago we were duped by a "uniter, not a divider" so excuse me for wanting someone who has an actual game plan going in.

Posted by Gabby B | February 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Additionally, people believe that the country will suffer if there are partisan politics in play...President Clinton went through impeachment proceedings and was still able to take care of some business. I can't remember exactly but wasn't there some type of budget surplus???

There have also been 43 president before whomever will be sworn in next January - if the system was so easy to change why didn't they do it already? And really, THANK GOD it isn't that easy - can you imagine what our country would be like if King Bush had the freedom to change whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted?

Partisan politics aren't bad - it just requires those elected to work together and forge compromise as statesmen and women knowing that no one will get everything they want.

Posted by Gabby B | February 12, 2008 1:36 PM

@1 @28
are you completely insane?

You were not familiar with his pre Bush history? WTF? That means you "only" knoew his post Bush history ??

Including how Joe Wilson's the guy who challenged Bush on one of the main lies for the war -- and in return Cheney outed his wife the CIA agent and they both lost their careers ?

If you're ignorant of stuff like that you should just refrain from commenting.

And btw Wilson started his foreign service career in 1976...hmmm.....who was president then, a D or an R....?? what that's ancient history to you?

And you you have the gall to complain that most of his career he was "neutral" politically and he never got a "political" ambassadorship, so that somehow taints him?

WTF flying F?

Jesus H. Christ that's the way foreign service officers career ambassodors are SUPPOSED to be.

It makes him MORE credible, not less.

And as to Teddy Roosevelt: he said he had many shared goals with socialists and he would put them into practice.

Posted by unPC | February 12, 2008 1:47 PM

joe wilson can say whatever he wants.

when obama & mccain debate most americans will note that one is attractive & one is almost a corpse.

it is about fucking time for someone in MY generation (slackers) to take control of the ship. early boomers have FUCKED IT UP.

Posted by max solomon | February 12, 2008 1:54 PM

If Hillary is vetted and better suited to fight republicans, why did she sign off on the war resolution. Was she tricked by their misinformation or to afraid to be smeared by republicans as a peacenic hippie?

I wonder if all these Hillary supporters who are angry at Obama supporters were also tricked by the Iraq lies early in the day and can relate to Hillary in that sense. We need someone who can stand up.

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 1:55 PM

@10, I hope you are right, I thought it was "damning with faint praise" because she thought that Obama would be easier to beat, and even a pathetic fake "republican" was better than a Democrat. (see @13, 15, 16 & 21)

Hey AMB, @20, first it was a "flag burning amendment", then you post a link to: "written in a cutesy way that does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings -- just those intended to "intimidate any person or group of persons." ? Damn liberals, next they'll make a stink about burning crosses and hanging nooses from trees. BTW, from Sen. Obama's site: "Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section."

@22, Oh grow a pair yourself, you are are being attacked for supporting a Democrat, surely supporters of the "hope and change" candidate wouldn't be using the old, tired Republican tactic of attacking anyone who disagrees with them. Oh, while I was writing this a few more comments have been added, now I'm not so sure you don't belong in my first paragraph.

Posted by Bureau of Intellectual Titans Crushing Hypocrisy | February 12, 2008 2:04 PM

"Junior Senator" just is in reference to illinois. There are two senators in each state, the one who has been there longer is the "senior senator" and the one who has been there less is the "junior"

Posted by Andrew | February 12, 2008 2:05 PM


According to Oxford, a bitch is also:

2 informal derogatory - a woman whom one dislikes or considers to be malicious or unpleasant.

Kinda like how I might refer to Dick Cheney as a malicious prick. Though I doubt very much you'd label me a misandrist for using such a term. We all know the only gender that can experience sexism is the female one.

Posted by AMB | February 12, 2008 2:09 PM

Why is this news? Joe Wilson has been advising Clinton on foreign policy for months, maybe even her entire campaign. It's not like he's newly endorsing her. This is just a Clinton campaign adviser making a media appearance.

Posted by Cascadian | February 12, 2008 2:14 PM

Senator John Glenn just endorsed Sen Clinton, FWIW.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Where do I sign up to piss in McCain's shoe?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 12, 2008 2:37 PM


On three major issues he is far inferior to Clinton:

Universal Health Care
Gay Rights
The Environment

But yeah he sure does have the market on hope. I guess the 40 million people with out healhtcare can just hope their cancer away!!!

And we can all hope that "clean coal" will stop global warming.

Or...I don't know, we could vote for a person who has a solid plan of action and a history of getting things done.


Posted by Johnny | February 12, 2008 2:41 PM

Johnny must come from the Rove school of campaining, smearing Obama supporters as naive, stupid and sexist. Hey Johnny, I guess that makes you a RACIST for not supporting Obama! Duh.

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 2:49 PM

Yes, my poor spelling probably doesn't help my argument much.

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 2:51 PM

Hillary supported the IRAQ WAR, so STFU!

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 2:58 PM

she also never speaks of gay issues unless she's asking for money from them, and continues to defend her husband's passage of the DoMA. neither of those are true of obama. to say she's superior on gay issues is completely fucking retarded.

Posted by brandon | February 12, 2008 3:07 PM

You're crazy if you think Clinton is "far superior", or even superior at all, to Obama on gay issues. Hillary's never done squat for gays. Obama's not running on hope; he's running on detailed, articulated positions. And he's not afraid to talk about them around people who might not agree with them, unlike Clinton, who has always stage-managed her position-taking to an extraordinary degree.

Obama also has actual legislative experience passing actual bills -- unpopular, progressive bills -- in a hostile climate, unlike Clinton, who's never really passed much of anything at all. She's been part of the great do-nothing Congress for the past seven years, the one that seems to say "we can't defeat Bush, so why bother even trying; we might as well go along with him on everything he asks for".

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 3:07 PM

PS - regarding Roosevelt's progressive bona fides -- he was a founder of, and presidential candidate of, the Progressive Party. He supported -- when these things did not yet exist, mind you -- women's suffrage, income tax, health insurance, social welfare, and conservation. Sounds good to me.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 3:12 PM

@38 - Whether I'd call you a "misandrist" or not depends upon whether you hate men. [dramatic pause]

And thanks for the secondary definition of "bitch" - I guess that makes it OK for people to use the word demonstrating what? oh yes, their "bitchiness".

As Cheney probably refers to Hillary as a bitch, then my suggestion for civility in the political market place is clearly obviated.

Sail on, O bitch of state.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | February 12, 2008 5:39 PM

Joe Wilson is a tool. And a media whore.

Posted by Slipshod | February 12, 2008 8:08 PM

Obama occasionally injects his platform into his stump speeches. But you have to remember-- he's taught the Constitution and occasionally been described as "professorial" in his knowledge of the issues.

He doesn't duck policy, he just doesn't say things that aren't true. Some of you may want to hear your politicians spout figures about how many days it will take to enact a plan or that $155 billion dollars will be raised in a year, but that is "disingenuous". Everything that is proposed needs to make its way through Congress and be tailored to fit the upcoming needs of the American people. Obama has plans, carefully outlined and thoughtful plans, and he'll tell you about them. Just look and listen.

To Johnny: We have asked "how" Obama is going to do these things, which are made so much easier with common sense, a working majority, and the support of the American people. I'm glad you are curious. :)

Posted by V | February 12, 2008 8:20 PM

I'm sure James Knox Polk would endorse Obama. And possibly Zachary Taylor...

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 12, 2008 10:41 PM

Um, Mr. Carry A Big Stick probably would have supported McWarmonger.

Posted by K | February 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).