McAuliffe, Maher Butt Heads: 'Bill, You've Gone Soft,' 'Your Answer Is Bullshit'

Sen. Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe had some choice words for Bill Maher in a recent interview, when asked if Hillary had crossed the line in insinuating that Sen. McCain was a preferable Commander-In-Chief to Sen. Obama. Bill Maher, never one to back down, shoots write back at Terry:

Comments

[tom928]

Even when I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton I thought Terry McAuliffe seemed a shady, sleazy type of character, in a used-car salesman sort of way. There have been quite a few figures like this around the Clintons historical­ly.. Morris, Begala.. I wouldn't throw Carville in there who seems more authentic. It seems to say that the Clintons themselves believe - philosophically - that they must operate in a Machiavellian way under the surface of public appearances.

[ballewb]

Like all politicians

[shag11]

Lefties need to get some backbone. Until we get public financing of campaigns, sleazy campaigning is the way it'll be.

[mnparty]

What is it with the staff (advisers) of these running mates? David Axelrod, Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe seem so slimy to me. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Terry McAuliffe Bill's campaign manager?

[realpolitic]

I like Axelrod. He is simply not as vicious as Wolfson.

[melann830]

He is the worst of the bunch accusing Ferraro,who he knows well and who has helped him fundraise for other candidates like Freddie Ferrer, of being racist and using a quote taken out of its complete context to spark the use of the race card against Hillary Clinton. He is a backstabber and he will in the future burn his britches with democrats who will not want to raise money for his candidates for fear of being wrongfully accused of racism. Also, Ferraro is from my borough, the most culturally diverse area in the USA probably, and it won't bode well with us voters come Nov. if Obama should be the nominee. Ferraro should sue the newspaper and David Axelrod for trying to ruin her reputation. Obama's fin. supporters actually called Ferraro's old law firm to get her fired, which she disclosed in an interview. Since Obama supporters like to play dirty, have they entertained the idea that many Hillary supporters may have already contacted the FCC regarding programming on MSNBC,NBC due to the extremely sexist nature of their programming and jeopardize the only platform Axelrod has for his venomous lies and attacks against Clinton.

[uberlefty]

I have never liked Terry and watching this interview confirms that judgment. When pressed on Clintons sleazy campaign tactics he reverted to form and fell back on a personal relationship with Maher suggesting they talk about it over cocktails in Puerto Rico. They have no public argument that justifies her scorched earth tactics. Its sleaze like Terry that put the Democrats in the losing category for too long. He is the Clinton wing of the party. They will do anything to win even if it means the Democrats lose. It seems to me that the worm is turning and once again Hillary has lost her voice. She will leave it to Terry to back slap, Geraldine gets racist rants along with Rendell, and Bill as ombudsmen of sleaze. If she continues to run like this Obama can stay home and win. Hillarys supporters need to send a message that this sort of garbage is not befiting a Democrat. She wont listen but at least they can look themselves in the mirror. It just confirms what I have always said, Obama is fighting for the soul of this party and this country. Can we take this country back? Yes we can!

By the way I have no doubt that it was a legitimate technical problem that caused the interview to be cut short. Maher has always had problems with the satellite portion of his show. I assume its because HBO lacks the infrastructure to support satellite remotes. It doesnt mean that it didnt let Terry off the hook Bill was about to hold his feet to the fire.

[realpolitic]

Yea, a guy like Terry attacks and attacks and when he is called on it, then he acts friendly to the host. If he makes charges, he should address them, instead of trying to conveniently go on to the next topic.

[ErinG]

Way to go, Bill! But beware: Faux feminists have special receptors for subliminal misogyny. A pack of them will soon be clawing at the doors to your studio, barking “Misogyny! Misogyny!”

[flusurge]

That's okay Erin, faux racially sensitive people like you will just label them racists.

[flusurge]

ATTENTION WINGNUTS WHO THINK THE FEED WAS CUT INTENTIONALLY:

Sorry to interrupt your feeding frenzy--ah, the taste of blood and the thrills of watching a public crucifixion--but Terry McAuliffe did not cut the video feed. First, he has no telekinetic powers and you aren't clairvoyant. Second, there are many ways to end a hostile interview without cutting the feed. Third, the interview wasn't really all that tough for him regardless of what you think. Fourth, you're nuts.

There are pros and cons to both Democratic candidates that are delightful to explore, but you only embarrass yourselves trying to imagine conspiracies where there are none. So get over it.

[bigdaddyvike]

and... you're an IDIOT!! kudos...

[brwnizofmine]

I use to like Terry, now I can't stand his guts! Such a partisan hack...Whi­le I'm at it, SNL makes me sick too!

[Shocktheworld]

I would think the guy who gets all huffy and ends the interview early because it isn't going his way would be the "soft" one. No?

[AjicNYC]

The scary part for me is to see how both arianna and bill maher have abused there influence in the Media They have clearly picked a side in this national election and now have a bunch of Obama sheep as there Audience/blogers Who encourage them all the way. Neither of their audience(which i assume are the same people at this point) represents America. So dont be Duped.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Popular Vote Total Obama13,025,003 49.4%
Hillary 12,421,316 47.1
They are only seperated by 603,687 voters +2.3%

Funny dosen't feel like that on Huffpo or Real Time

[fedupnburnin]

Why do they hype their experience? Look what a mess this country is in. Their "experience" appears to create more problems than it solves. Besides, how do they gain experience when all their time is spent with lobbyists? In addition, I remember that during the Clinton years McAuliffe made an investment of thousands and got back a return of millions of dollars. The disproportionate ratio raised some questions. He was questioned briefly about this. It soon vanished from the news. I must be the only person in the world who remembers this. What a burden. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

[sciabattoni]

Mcauliffe = HACK

[aceholiday]

FSM bless Bill Maher

[Chandidevi]

McAuliffe is all hopped up and frantic. The Clinton campaign is a mess, grabbing for power.

[aace]

McAuliffe is an idiot and was all along..

[jasket]

Does anybody think the Clintons pushed the magic button to take Mc off the air when it became apparent Bill M. was going to trounce him? Never make fun of a show host on their show. They'll eat you alive.

[DGamer]

Mr. McAuliffe continues to show great skill and deftness in the realm of politics. When asked a pointed question by Bill Maher about whether Senator Clinton had crossed a line by implying that John McCain was a preferable presidential candidate over Barack Obama, Mr. McAuliffe responded by accusing Maher of becoming soft in his old age. His response in this light hearted exchange provides great insight into the Clinton campaigns recent successes and new found momentum.

By jokingly accusing Bill Maher of becoming “soft” and not being “tough enough”, McAuliffe employs an ad hominem argument, implying that the real issue at hand is Maher’s strength as an individual. He successfully shifted attention away from the question being asked and re-focused it directly onto the person asking the question. Mr. Maher responded to the accusation, and in an instant, the question went unanswered as they moved on to a new topic.

Barack Obama has found himself engaging in the same game with the Clinton campaign. When recently pressed to release Mrs. Clinton’s previous tax returns as a show of greater transparency, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson responded by accusing Obama of imitating Whitwater investigator Kenneth Starr. As with Mr. Maher, the response deflected attention away from the issue and refocused it back onto the Obama campaign. This politically charged accusation raised serious, although unfounded, questions about Mr. Obama’s character and political political motivations.

Whether or not you agree with the strategies utilized in recent weeks by the Clinton Campaign, the undeniable success of these strategies has been the ability of the campaign to control the public discourse. From the “red phone ads” to the Ken Starr comments, Mr. Obama has found himself in a series of defensive responses to issues introduced by the Clinton Campaign. His own missteps have not helped his struggle, and have only made him appear weakened and off course.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to win a campaign on the defensive. If Mr. Obama truly wishes to be commander in chief, it is fundamental that he reverse the dynamic, and regain control of the political dialogue. This can be achieved without running a negative campaign, but will be impossible to achieve if he does not go on the offensive.

[DofG]

This is not about Barack Obama's ability to control the poitical discourse. This is about the body politic's ability to have original thinking. Obviously, too many of us have bought into coporate media's sophistic notion, that our metric for the quality of a candidate, should be based partly on their "pissing skills". However, the problem is that the "truth of a thing" does not depend on, and rises above, the manifestation of opposites. This presidential campaign is not about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. This campaign is about the body politic having the wisdom, and knowledge, to transmute a disfunctional political paradigm by having faith in itself, and less faith in our affinity for "political messiahs" or "alpha-males"!

[LisainNYC]

Great analysis, Dgamer.

But I would argue that McAuliffe was not all that successful, since almost all that was needed in this exchange was for Maher to point out that Clinton had vitually endorsed the Republican in the race. The topic then turned to Bill's licentiousness. Again, no points for the Clinton campaign.

[southsideirish]

"Deftness?!!!" Really? While I respect your ability to be verbose, it still doesn't muddy the clarity of both instances you've cited. The Clintons swing their rhetoric like a club, and, in turn, have dropped any pretense of political acumen for some kind --any kind-- of hit. (I guess that's what happens when you hurtle a "kitchen sink." You strike out blindly, like your playing a game of "Drinking Battleship­.") Instead of nuancing their statements in a way that sounds considered, they bandy about wildly over the top statements. The result ? They and their surrogates look like infants attempting to swat flies with a grenade launcher. It's clumsy, reckless, and most of all, counter-productive for themselves, and anyone else in the Democratic Party.

[MrWhiskers]

Rubbish--there was nothing deft at all about it. He came off looking like a fool and a bully and a hack. The core of the Clinton argument--for this week--seems to be "the republicans will swift-boat Obama, so we'll do it first". It's absolutely silly and amoral. There seems to be no depths to which the Clintons won't sink. I've never felt about a democratic politician the way I feel about Hillary now. I honestly don't know if I could vote for her in the general.

I mean really, what's the difference between her and McCain? There voted the same way on the war, after all. The main difference at this point seems to be that when one of Mac's surrogates says something racist, he disavows it, and Hillary either lets it go [a la Gerry Ferraro] or just does it herself, "as far as I know".

[rubyr]

There are a lot of differences b/tween Hillary and McCain but the biggest and most important difference is the Supreme Court Justices that they would nominate. Huge difference, enormous..­.potential­ly changing the course of history and moving it away from progressive toward the conservative like we've never seen. The Supremes matter for much longer that any one, two, three or four presidential terms. Please Dems, remember this.

[baudelairien]

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best." -- L. Ron Hubbard

[englishprof]

The reason McAuliffe is full of shit is that Hillary would be a weak, not a strong, opponent of McCain. She helped enable the Iraq invasion just as surely as McCain, and she is therefore open to the Flip-flop charge, just as Kerry was. Obama opposed the invasion from the outset and can therefore mount a much more full-bore attack on McCain. And since when does attacking a defenseless country that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda enhance our national security?