Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Obama’s new word - "inartful"
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Yes, what Clark said about McCain wasn't a smear or untrue, it was simply "inartful" (previously Obama's statements about the DC gun case were "inartful").
“Inartful” was the word Obama used Tuesday to characterize remarks Gen. Wes Clark made over the weekend and subsequently about McCain’s military service.
And, of course, the fact that Clark was surrogate number 7 to question McCain's service doesn't stand up to the analogy of "swiftboating":
“I don’t think that Gen. Clark, you know, had the same intent as the Swiftboat ads that we saw four years ago; I reject that analogy,” he said, before adding that he had said many times that McCain’s deserved honor and respect for his service to the country.
I'm not going to get into a long discussion about why the use of "swiftboating" has been turned on its head by the left, but I will say that as they tend to use the word, Clark's remarks definitely fit their definition.

But I'm sure this and Rand Beers' remarks just don't rise to the level of an "attack" or a "smear" do they?

The McCain campaign responded, properly I think, with:
“Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game. One day after earning praise for rejecting Gen. Clark’s attacks, Sen. Obama clarified that his remarks had been written months before and were not even aimed at Gen. Clark. After repudiating his own repudiation, he went on to ask why an apology to Sen. McCain from Gen. Clark would even be a priority. All Barack Obama has to do is tell his campaign surrogates to stop criticizing John McCain’s record of service and this discussion would be over. Apparently his campaign has no intention of doing so. The McCain campaign will not sit idly by and let these ongoing attacks go unanswered.”
Speaking of "inartful", what a dumb, dumb, dumb line of attack for the Democrats to take.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Huh. And it seems like only one election ago when the Democratic presidential candidate told us he was "reporting for duty", and how important "real" as aopposed to W’s fake military service was.

The importance of military service now? Not so much.
Written By: Dale Franks
Charles Krauthammer used that exact word — inartful — last night on Brit Hume’s program. He used it in reference to something about Obama, but I don’t recall the precise context.

Obama’s handlers seem to be avid borrowers.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
I can only guess that the Democrats are trying to avenge John Kerry.

Why anyone would want to do that is beyond my comprehension, but it is the only possible reason I can come up with for why they would decide to pick this particular fight.
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
Inartful...distraction....I wonder when they will finally hit SNL as part of a skit? Probably in 2011.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Sort of has some of the buzz of inoperative
"This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative."
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Why doesn’t someone from the McCain campaign make the obvious point that McCain isn’t running on his military record (which is unquestionably bad ass and dwarfs any accomplishment Barry could achieve in ten lifetimes)? He is running on his record in the Senate, which is why I will have trouble voting for him in November.
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
I can start to believe the claim that this is about taking swipes at McCain in hopes he goes off the handle and their have their ’ho7-head’ photo-op.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
BTW, I can’t believe ’h.o.t.-h.e.a.d’ is banned. Perhaps it was the proximity of the two words.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Yes, perhaps even dumber than "He’s too old." I hope the Democrats keep this up.

Written By: rightwingprof
I wonder why this hasn’t been brought up as of yet -
Inartful -

The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for inartful:

1. inner tube 2. artful
3. in return 4. unnatural
5. artfully 6. Oriental
7. in-wrought 8. Orientals
9. in reality 10. unreality
11. in light of 12. ailurophobe
13. enrooted 14. ailurophile
15. arrantly 16. orientalize
17. orientally 18. Oriental rug
19. Orientalia 20. inner light
It’s not even a damn word!
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Perhaps Barack is thinking of himself as Jack Hawkins, the "Artful Dodger" in Oliver Twist. His tax plans do resemble the work of a master pickpocket.
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Inartful, presuming we assume it’s the opposite of artful, would imply there was a GOOD way of questioning McCain’s service. So is Obama claiming Clark merely chose his words badly?
Written By: looker
URL: http://
...presuming we assume it’s the opposite of artful, would imply there was a GOOD way of questioning McCain’s service. So is Obama claiming Clark merely chose his words badly?
You beat me to it. I was thinking that as I walked the dogs today. Apparently there IS an artful way to say it. At least according to the Obama there is...
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Inartful is hardly a new word. I even found a defintion for it at the
"adj. performed without art or skill, lack of art or skill; artless; unskillful or not wise in achieving an end; not inventive or creative; unimaginative; not adroit"

I first saw it used on a right-wing blog in 2006, describing the left.

And I agree, Clark chose his words badly. He didn’t put down McCains service at all. He said being shot down doesn’t qualify one to be president. If that were so, why isn’t my cousin, who was also shot down in Vietnam, qualified to be president?

You guys are making a mountain out of an anthill.
Written By: Michelle
URL: http://
He didn’t put down McCains service at all. He said being shot down doesn’t qualify one to be president.
It was an obvious attempt to minimize (20 years of service in the Navy boiled down to one "ride" in a "jet fighter" and being "shot down"), and denigrate (his command of the largest squadron in the Navy wasn’t "executive experience" because it wasn’t during wartime) his service.

If you don’t understand that, Michelle, then perhaps it does seem like an "anthill" to you.
Written By: McQ

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks