Tim Russert assembled his usual panel of Clinton haters on "Meet the
Press" today to consider, among other things, whether Bill Clinton
thinks Barack Obama doesn't love his country.  As could be expected,
Russert played only the carefully snipped clip portraying Clinton's remarks in the worse possible way.

If he were fair -- which we know he's not -- he would have played a large chunk
before and after the offending remarks to show the general context of
what Clinton was saying.  But this isn't how the media operates.  They
want to stir outrage based not on what a person actually intended to
say, but the literal transcription of his or her words.

Bill Clinton was advocating for his wife.  Obviously he wants her to
win, so he was envisioning a race between two people, and those two
people, in his scenario -- if certainly not the media's -- are Hillary
Clinton and John McCain.  

I know the media considers this audacious, since Obama is leading and
how dare Clinton talk about the general election when Hillary's
losing.  The press  took the same tack when Hillary mentioned Obama as
a running mate; she's not allowed to believe she can win, no less
consider the guy who probably will as her second banana.  If she didn't
believe in herself, she and any other candidate in her place wouldn't
be able to get out of bed in the morning. The audacity!

But let's look at what Bill Clinton actually said -- and, more
importantly, meant.  He began the part of his speech leading to "two
people who love this country" by calling McCain "an honorable man" and
talking about the friendship he and Hillary share, despite their
differences on the issues.    While he was saying Hillary and McCain
are "two people who love this county," he wasn't saying Obama isn't. 
He wasn't denigrating him by omission -- again, how dare he not mention
Obama and make his case? -- he was praising McCain.  He was saying
McCain is the only Republican you could expect to run, if not a saintly
campaign, an above-board and civil one that tries to focus on the
issues and "not all that other stuff."  A Giuliani or a Romney would
not; they'd use wedge issues and other divisive means to distract
people from the issues.  Even here, I don't think he was saying they
don't love their country, just that they'd be less bound by ethical
restraints.

Was Clinton really saying that anyone other than these "two people" --
the dozen or more candidates on both sides who ran for president this
year, or anyone else with that presidential gleam in their eye whom
Clinton failed to mention -- don't love their country?  Do we really
have to be that literal?  Do we have to hold Bill Clinton to impossible
standards and dice and splice and dissect everything he says,
attributing only bad motives, never good ones?  Is there any reservoir
of good will left for our last good, if not great, Democratic
president?  I know the media hates him, but do Democrats have to? 

Remember how they hated Al Gore, called him a liar and a phony and a
nerd, and cast everything he did in the worst light? Were they right
about that? No. Were many duped by it?  Yes.  Did he lose the election,
and pave the way for the most disastrous presidency in our lifetimes? 
Yes (assuming you believe he lost.)  Is he now a Democratic hero? Yes. 
Does that cause you to reassess the media's character-judging
abilities?  It should.

Is it possible the media is up to their old tricks, and are wrong again? Yes. Will we be fooled again?  I certainly hope not.