home

Look Who's Trashing Hillary Now

Barack Obama's liberal supporters are trashing Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post with the most inept comparison yet.

Tom Hayden and other lawyers from the 60's are claimng Hillary has hidden her "radical" ties. What are these ties?

[T]wo retired Bay Area lawyers who knew Clinton in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended communists and Black Panthers.

Stupid Comparison #1: Judging lawyers by the clients they represent. Even more stupid, judging a summer law school intern by the firm's clients.

Stupid Comparison #2: Equating the clients of a law school intern's firm with the supporter of a politican who held a fundraiser and sat on boards with the politician. [More...]

I have nothing against William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn and don't agree they are the devil incarnate. But for those who disagree, Barack Obama allowed Ayers to hold a fundraiser for him when running for office and sat on two boards with him, the Woods Fund and the Annenberg Challenge. They had a personal relationship, not a lawyer-cient or employer-employee relationship.

That Hayden and his friends could get this into the Washington Post as a news story is laugh out loud silly.

Here's their "dirt":

  • [While an intern] "former partners recall her likely involvement in conscientious objector cases and a legal challenge to a university loyalty oath."
  • An 89 year old former partner of the firm says, "She had to know who we were and what kinds of cases we were handling. We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."
  • According to Tom Hayden, her work as a law school intern for the firm means "The very things she's accusing Barack of could be said of her with much greater evidence."

If they want to play that game, why not compare law firm clients to law firm clients: Barack Obama's firm represented Tony Rezko.

Then there's this:

  • Clinton had been editor of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, which included articles about Black Panther leader Bobby Seale's murder trial in New Haven, Conn.
  • She attended a New Haven fundraiser for Bobby Seale's defense at her law firm bosses' house.

And one final charge: She liked the anti-Vietnam war writings of a former SDS leader, who now, recovering from a stroke says:

"I can't say that I was a close friend of hers. It was more of a passing acquaintance. I liked her. I think of her as a good guy. I think she has a good heart and a solid mind. And I support her in the current primary."

Hayden thinks this is collateral damage for Hillary. All it does is highlight that Barack Obama's ties to Ayers were not lawyer-client related like Hillary's were, proving that all associations are not equal.

As an added note, if this was so important, why are they bringing it up now when they think their candidate has already won the nomination? Maybe it's not over afterall.

Update: Comments now closed.

< Late Night: Running on Empty | Is A Funny Thing Happening On the Way To Obama's Coronation? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:47:37 AM EST
    Your last thought was my first.  I thought this primary was supposed to be over?

    It's absurd to think that Hillary has been the main force behind the Ayers thing.  It's obviously GE fodder.  Is this going to be the response when the GOP uses it against Obama - "uh, Hillary did it too?"

    This smacks of desperation, which seems really weird, frankly.

    It's Not Only Weird, It's Old (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:06:53 AM EST
    The rightwing has been trying to smear Hillary Clinton as a radical with this same crap for at least 16 years, longer if you go back to Arkansas.  That this somehow qualifies as "news" is ridiculous.  There's nothing new here.

    And I agree it undermines their whole "Mission Accomplished" meme.  It also undermines their threats about how there's "new" stuff about Clinton.  If they're rehashing this weak crap, then there isn't anything new.

    It kind of reminds me of how Obama tried to limit the Wright damage by sending out the photo of Wright with Bill Clinton.  Or the photo of the Clintons with Tony Rezko at some fundraiser.  It seems their only damage control is to throw chum in the water and scream "Over there - Clinton!"  As if that's going to work against McCain.  Heck, where Wright is concerned it didn't even work against Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly, this is old news (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:24:17 AM EST
    did they think they were holding it in their back pockets until it could do the most damage? Poor guys, this is real easy to find on the internet.

    There are other stories floating around the internet on the Clintons and Obama that haven't made MSM yet...because they are equally silly.


    [ Parent ]

    I think that this is a preemptive strike (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:02:36 AM EST
    in anticipation of explosive new information about Obama coming out soon, in the same spirit as their 'damage control' measures you mentioned re Rezko and Wright.  So far, they have littered the landscape with so much junk they are bound to get tripped by their own mess.  

    [ Parent ]
    This Is the Strongest Argument (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:35:01 AM EST
    I can think of for nominating Hillary Clinton.

    There is nothing they can throw at her that hasn't already been pitched a hundred times before.  If there were anything that disqualified her for the office of President we would have known about it years ago.

    Obama is essentially an untested candidate.  He's never run a truly contested race nor faced in-depth scrutiny of his life.  Who knows what lurks in his closet (not a gay reference, BTW) beside Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko?

    The right wing took their best shot at the Clintons ten years ago and it didn't work.  Watching Obama's people try to tar and feather her for her work on "civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems" is nothing short of amusing.

    Next thing you know they'll be buzzing about what a radical she was the summer she worked in the salmon canning factory.  Now THERE was a scandal!  She actually wanted decent living conditions for the workers and got fired for trying to promote them.  

    What a horrible woman.  <snark>

    [ Parent ]

    This is shocking! (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM EST
    I heard Hillary even supported that radical George McGovern in 1972!  Gasp!

    [ Parent ]
    O.K. This Is Great (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:39:03 AM EST
    Obama has a potential political problem with Ayers and his far left radical activity. So to correct this, his surrogates create a story line that Hillary is also involved with a far left radical group.

    Does this erase Obama's involvement with Ayers? No. Will it stop the Republicans from using this in the GE? No. What it does do is reenforce the constant Republican meme that the Democratic Party and its candidates are too far left for mainstream American. They hate America and are weak on terrorists. Great job guys. You couldn't do much more to help the Republican Party if you were on Rove's payroll.  {tears hair out}

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:51:38 AM EST
    Every time I accuse Obama or his team of handing weapons to the Right, people say "No way!".

    "Way!", folks.  Too left, unreliable, out of touch, not mainstream, elitists.  That's the traditional RW frame.  Stop walking into it!

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by MMW on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:47 AM EST
    Now, the question is not whether the Press will continue to treat him with kid gloves. The question is how in this reality does he win the GE with all this baggage and no experience or counter show of actual work done for the people to fall back on?

    It boggles the mind that the Democratic party would do this. I honestly cannot conclude any longer that I am a democrat. Neither do I understand why anyone else would.

    When have these people gone after the republicans? They have vilified the Clintons to an extent that Bush and Cheney have never and probably will never be vilified. The weirdest thing is, there are still people here, saying that he and his supporters can still do X, Y, or Z to appeal to Hillary Clinton's supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    It's called vetting the candidate (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by April on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    at least that's what the Clinton folks say, when 'newsie' items turn up about Obama.

    You celebrate the Ayers story, yet find this reprehensible right wing framing?

    Bipartisan vetting. It's good for democracy.

    It will make Hillary a stronger GE candidate.


    [ Parent ]

    Except That (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by The Maven on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    the whole Black Panther story and association with Treuhaft has been widely circulated against Clinton since at least late 1999 (see also here), and has popped up periodically since then over the years.  So the candidate has already had to deal with it in a contested electoral process.

    And as for Ayers, I'm hardly aware of anyone here "celebrating" the story, only pointing out that it presents a question Obama will have to face as right-wing 527s focus their attention on him.  Saying that it's a cause for concern due to potential perceptions by voters -- that could in turn impact his electability -- isn't exactly a celebration.

    [ Parent ]

    IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    Clinton talked about Treuhaft in her autobiography.  It's hardly hidden, or new, information.

    [ Parent ]
    April, this is not news - it;s been out there (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by Anne on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:53:28 AM EST
    forever, and is only being raised now to blunt Ayers' ties to Obama.

    It's weak, very weak, and will not deter John McCain for one second from using the Ayers connection to Obama if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    I"m b-a-a-c-k (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    again!

    [ Parent ]
    Well, maybe more bad news coming down (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:19:48 AM EST
    the pike for BO.  incidently, I read somewhere that he worked at the law firm that employed Bernadine, and was owned by Ayers father(I think).  Bernadine is the real problem.  That's going to be some fodder.

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle worked at the law firm (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    with Dohrn.  At least that is what I read in one of the Chicago newspapers.  


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (none / 0) (#253)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    Michelle worked at Sidley and Austin, I thought.  It's a colossal law firm.  Maybe they were good friends there, but it's sort of like working at IBM together.

    [ Parent ]
    From what I read, (none / 0) (#262)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    Michelle is the one who first made the connection with the couple.  I don't know if they were good friends.  It certainly does seem that Obama is good friends with Ayers, though.  Ayers appointed him director of the Annenberg Challenge, and Obama held that position for years, I believe.

    The Chicago papers have researched and reported all of this, and I've read pretty much everything I could get my hands on about Obama.  I'm sorry I can't direct you to a specific link, but the Chicago Tribune has a huge archive of articles and the Sun Times has a lot of information too.


    [ Parent ]

    Ayers' Father (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    Also an issue - he used to run Commonwealth Edison, not only one of the biggest power polluters at the time, but now known as...Exelon.

    [ Parent ]
    Dohrn and Manson (none / 0) (#255)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    If they use Dohrn's comments celebrating the Manson family - that stuff is lethal and would send voters running to McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it Obama's camp (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Virginian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    is trying to damage her for a potential VP spot...

    I think this is about making sure HRC can't be on the ticket, top or bottom...

    [ Parent ]

    I agree n/t (none / 0) (#246)
    by stefystef on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    i don't want her on the ticket. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    i love her but i would not vote for him under any circumstances.  

    why would she taint her reputation by standing side by side with him when he is sure to face a firestorm of dirt that the gop will throw?  we all know that dems don't have the stomach for the really ugly stuff, but the gop constituency laps it up and the 527's will give it to them 24/7.  obama will face a hideous firestorm of filth that will prevent him from winning in november.  

    if/when obama is the nominee, my vote will be for mccain.  

    [ Parent ]

    I feel the same way. (none / 0) (#264)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    I couldn't vote for Obama, even with Hillary on the ticket.  In fact, I'd be horrified if she accepted the second spot to a much less qualified man.  Obama can't win in November, so why would Hillary want to be associated with a losing ticket anyway?


    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#231)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    She did bring it up in the last debate.  

    I think this sort of stuff is bush league and irrelevant.  However, unlike Jeralyn, I find it ridiculous regardless of who the target of the guilt by association smear is.

    [ Parent ]

    It certainly does smack of desperation (none / 0) (#257)
    by Brookhaven on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    Mr. Different-kind-of-politican surely looks like the old kind.  Sheesh.

    That is the most ludicrous, laughable nonsense ever.  I was an intern 20 years ago when a senior at University and worked as in intern with Arthur Andersen.  You know, the firm that agreed to surrender its CPA licenses and its right to practice before the SEC on 2002?  Which  effectively put the firm out of business because of their involvement in the Enron scandal.  

    Interns do low level work, grunt work the purpose of which is to begin from the bottom wrung up in the real world how put into practice (mostly baby steps) what was mostly theoretical up until that point as a lawyer, accountant, etc.  You have no power whatsoever and you don't know diddly about all the firms clients.  And, even if you did know, what does that have to do with anything related to you as a grunt?  Nothing.  A big whopping red herring is what.  Shame on these haters like Hayden and his wife as well who reportedly screams at the TV when Clinton is on. rolls eyes until only the whites are visible

    And, as Jerelyn wisely points out the comparison with Obama and Ayers and Dohrn will be seen for the canard it is and will only put into sharp relief this curious connection.

    I guess I need to worry if someone holds a grudge against me from 20 years ago while I was preparing green ledger worksheets as a grunt intern while at Arthur Andersen.  I need a lawyer, stat!  lol

    The Obama's are worried.  She won big in WV which he tried to steal her thunder with Edwards (whose behavior, imo, no matter the pretty words he had for HRC, was not to be admired shall we say).  They know Edwards will not put a big dent in the blue collar vote because Edwards never did before when he was in the race: HRC won the blue collar vote.  And, now it looks closer in Oregon.  And, I am not giving up on Michigan and Florida yet.  They are still in play because no decision has been made yet.  

    This primary is not over by a long shot.  Several reputable polling firms has Clinton down by 4 and 5 points in Oregon with the same percentage of voters undecided.  Also, it appears that Obama may not be proclaiming himself King tomorrow as was reported by CNN on Sunday.  I wonder why.  Premature coronation?

    I am still convinced this is going to the convention and I am an advocate of taking it there.  

    So, not so fast MSM, anti-HRC bloggers, certain factions of the DNC, those SD's who prematurely declared for Obama and the Obama's.  

    Excuse this bit of OT.   And, boy oh boy, did Obama milk to death (that cow has to be dehydrated) the stupid Bush comment.  Why the sudden jump from him and his cronies that it was he Bush was referring to in his comments in Israel?  The person who came to my mind with the Bush comments was Carter not Obama.  Yet he made sure he milked three days worth of media coverage out of it and the media sucked it up like starving unfed infants while ignoring HRC except to ask her to comment about the Bush remark after he made it.  Obama's ego is huge and he is one slick pol.  Slick doesn't even begin to describe this guy.

    [ Parent ]

    My husband labeled it (none / 0) (#266)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    one of Obama's whinier moments.

    [ Parent ]
    The tree hasn't fallen, but (none / 0) (#259)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    let's make fire wood out of it already!


    [ Parent ]
    Haydn has lost it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:02 AM EST
    he does not like the Ayers thing, and uses her work as an attorney to smear her?  

    not even as a lawyer (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:55:53 AM EST
    but as a summer intern at a law firm.

    [ Parent ]
    So, what is the point of this (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:31 AM EST
    article.  For me, she was honorable and did actual work legal work,to give defendants due process.   What is wrong with these old lefties participating in the article in this way?  

     What did Obama do with Ayers?  He was a connection, another connection to building his political career.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you're the one who needs convincing (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:45:55 AM EST
    that the Obama camp is anticipating more explosive information about him or Michelle and so they are already laying the groundwork for when that happens and this is just a variation of their 'kitchen sink' strategy against Clinton. It is a preemptive strike, ala Bush.

    What this also tells me is that despite their bravado in pretending to be the inevitable nominee, is the real fear that Clinton might still pull it off.

    [ Parent ]

    my thought exactly (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ccpup on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:57 AM EST
    if they really thought Hillary had no chance whatsoever to get the nomination, why would they be (weakly) trying to knee-cap her with laughably ludicrous assertions of leftist radicalism via an internship oh so many years ago?

    I suspect the Obama Camp realizes the SDs aren't actually in their pocket as much as they boast about and that these SDs may actually pay some attention to this Electoral College Math Hillary has been speaking about.  

    Despite all their talk of inevitability and being The One, I truly believe -- with this ridiculous Post article -- that they're running scared and are completely aware that this Nomination which is THIS close to being in-hand could actually slip out of their grasp because of Barack's inability to make in-roads into those groups necessary for a Dem Win in November.  She knows it, he knows it, the Post knows it and now, I'm sure, the SDs know it.

    This open-handed love tap (which was intended to be a closed fist punch) in the Post makes me feel better about Hillary's chances with the SDs.  Otherwise, why do it?  

    [ Parent ]

    What is even more encouraging to me (none / 0) (#102)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:51:17 AM EST
    is Jeralyn's post on the 'Post Mortem re Sexism thrown at Hillary.  But this is an issue that finally broke out into the open.  Some might say it is too late, even perhaps the publishers of the articles.  I think it is just about right and fortuitous for Hillary. It has enough time to affect the rest of the primaries and the period before the convention.

    I think that enough expression of outrage within the Democratic Party's women base, as well as other women in the country, this might just affect the outcome of the convention in Colorado.  

    [ Parent ]

    nothing happens by accident (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by ccpup on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:13:45 AM EST
    in politics or political reporting.  Is it possible -- maybe? -- that there are some Dem Party Leaders who are seeing the train wreck that will be an Obama Nomination and are trying to change the direction of that particular track?

    If an article on sexism is hitting the Times -- even if it does read like a post-mortem -- then someone high-up gave it the "okay" fully aware that it could change minds (and votes) before the Convention.

    I strongly suspect we have some very, very nervous SDs who are just itching to change their Support back to Hillary, but fear the inevitable attacks of Barack's Foot Soldiers.

    [ Parent ]

    Would it have any impact (none / 0) (#170)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:06:12 AM EST
    if more concerned dems were to make their voices heard in the blogosphere?  Like posting real feelings about the way things are:

    [ Parent ]
    Barack's Foot Soldiers (none / 0) (#183)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:41:23 AM EST
    Whew!  There's a daunting prospect for any SD.  

    Given how badly the Obama campaign treats garden-variety Clinton supporters can you imagine what they would say about a delegate who switched?

    [ Parent ]

    I dont think democrats will stop hoisting BO (none / 0) (#230)
    by alforhil on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    It is disgusting to watch CNN repeatedly showing the ariel view of the huge crown in Oregon. they showed it about 5 times in the 40 minutes i watched this morning.
    MSM's are going all out to get "their" candidate elected. even if there is some dirt on BO, it will be swept under the drug. Democratic party is hell bent on destroying clinton - with total disregard to women, latinos, blue collar workers, rural democrats, jews - most of the core base of the party. they think Once anybody is blessed enough to see the mesmeric smile of Obama, we will keel over and fall in love with him..

    He is the dirtiest politician of recent times -

    [ Parent ]

    Why exactly (none / 0) (#236)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    is it disgusting for CNN to show the rally?  It was a news worthy event.  Just because you would prefer only pro-Hillary news doesn't mean that CNN is obligated to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    Gee the weather was nice (none / 0) (#238)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    Nothing happens in Portland and the weather was nice.  People in the Northwest will go out to see a slug race if the weather is nice or if they think their "city" is on national tv.  

    [ Parent ]
    Makes you wonder (none / 0) (#220)
    by Virginian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:41:49 AM EST
    if this is what they think playing hardball looks like...they really aren't ready for prime time...

    [ Parent ]
    Makes you wonder (none / 0) (#223)
    by Virginian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    if this is what they think playing hardball looks like...they really aren't ready for prime time...

    [ Parent ]
    Edit: Subject should have been, I THINK (none / 0) (#50)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:47:06 AM EST
    and none of the other junk my computer automatically placed from previous posts.

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it will cross over into the 'real' news (none / 0) (#189)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:09 AM EST
    but for folks like me, it just says even more why I like Clinton.  She was interning to work for due process?  And, as others have said, considering Ayers, this opens up a whole can of stupid for them.

    Do we know where Obama interned?  I don't think it's ever been mentioned.  Don't all lawyers have to intern somewhere during law school?

    [ Parent ]

    ps: (5.00 / 7) (#195)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:51:41 AM EST
    are we meant to believe she was fighting for the rights of all races way back then but is now a racist?  I mean, if anything, it tells us that she has been working on civil rights from the get-go.

    God, I am so sick of our society glomming onto the hot new thing.  We have national ADD.  And if one more boomer says "I think it's time to pass it on to the next generation" I am going to go apesh*t (more than usual, I mean)  YOU made the mess, YOU clean it up.

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Hayden (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by bigbay on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:06:30 AM EST
    The guy who lost a 2001 election bid to the LA city council. Yes, a really relevant voice in today's world.

    [ Parent ]
    You know it's a slow news day when ... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:18 AM EST
    someone interviews Tom Hayden ... then actually publishes the interview.

    [ Parent ]
    Hayden was married to a radical.. (none / 0) (#225)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:44:47 AM EST
    anyone remember Jane Fonda sitting on that anti-aircraft gun in North Viet Nam? I do. And I used to buy the Black Panther newsletter when I was in college in Atlanta. The money went to fund the breakfast program they had for poor kids so they could get a decent breakfast before school. That was YEARS before the US government started something similar. The mainstream of the Black Panther Party wasn't wanting to burn down stuff and kill people, they were all about empowerment, feeding children and education. Some of them got a bit carried away in front of news cameras, but don't all organizations have people like that??

    And speaking of lawyers. Obama defended his slumlord friend Rezko against his own constituents when they sued for repairs and heat in the buildings that Obama recommended he get the financing to build. I hope someone brings that up as an example of what Obama did as a lawyer. And isn't that a conflict of interest?? Ethically if not legally??

    [ Parent ]

    It's a slippery slope (none / 0) (#228)
    by April on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    Once you introduce guilt by association, there is no end to it.

     I don't fault either candidate for their past so called 'radical associations'.

     Clinton's work was noble in my opinion.

     And Obama's association with Ayers is not as camp Clinton would suggest aligned with some 'secret radical' motive.


    "Once you introduce the concept of guilt by association, everyone is in trouble because there is no end to it," he said. "The goal is to render Barack so unelectable that the party has to turn to her. Because the goal is so narrow and obsessive, she's not aware that she's also going to be collateral damage."

     

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't happen often Stellaaa (none / 0) (#233)
    by riddlerandy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    but I agree with you that Hayden has gone around the bend

    [ Parent ]
    You should try it more often... (none / 0) (#242)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    c'mon admit it, it felt good to agree with me.  

    My favorite was his article where he told us that he wanted the primary to end cause his wife, who is usually was meditative type, was yelling at the TV.  I just felt so bad that her bliss was being bothered.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by phat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:25 AM EST
    I gave up on Tom Hayden a long time ago.

    He was useless then. He's even more useless now.

    I have no respect for Tom Hayden (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by bridget on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:23 AM EST
    right now he seems to enjoy to be in the limelight again - I remember the silly article about his wife's Obama attraction.

    I met him once when he visited my college and I spoke to him as well. He gave a speech and then there was a Q and A session. This is many years ago btw. A Vietnamese girl got up and attacked his wife, Jane Fonda. Tom Hayden basicly said that Jane Fonda didn't know any better at the time because of her background and that she was just a little rich girl. Something like that. He was very condescending and thats why I never forget that exchange. I was stunned.

    I never understood what Jane Fonda saw in him because he is, well, not attractive at all. She financed his whole political career and all his campaigns with the money she made with her hugely successful exercise studios at the time. She mentions that also in her book.

    When she finally divorced Hayden and met someone who was her equal I was thrilled for her.

    I have no idea what Robert Reich's problem is but he is certainly behaving badly tow. both Clintons as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Hayden (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:18 AM EST
    has never been anything but a political plaster-caster groupie.

    [ Parent ]
    So, what about the (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:53:42 AM EST
    allegation that Obama worked for the community and she was this bit time corporate attorney that they all were spewing?  

    Great point, yeah, they've contradicted themselves (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:26 AM EST
    I don't even see how this hurts Hillary at all in the primary.  She needs more liberal votes in Oregon.  It is also something she should be proud of, even if her involvement was only as in intern.

    [ Parent ]
    Oregon (none / 0) (#186)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST
    Good point.  This should help in that primary.

    It's a shame so many Oregonians have already voted, without the benefit of knowing more about Obama.  

    Oregon may be closer than the Obama campaign thinks.

    [ Parent ]

    Suffolk released new poll numbers for Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    this morning.

    Obama 45%
    Clinton 41%
    Undecided 8%

    That CANNOT make the Obama camp happy.

    They also have new KY numbers:

    Clinton 51%
    Obama 26%
    Undecided 11%

    [ Parent ]

    MOE +/- 4% (none / 0) (#217)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    So, Hillary is not within MOE in Oregon.

    [ Parent ]
    8% Undecided (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:47:05 AM EST
    Clinton has done extremely well in capturing voters who make up their minds on the day of the election.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not a lawyer, but... (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:04:36 AM EST
    Isn't the idea that everyone deserves a competent defense?

    This is so apples to oranges compared to Ayers.

    Not even comparing to Ayers (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:27:35 AM EST
    but, Hillary v. Barack and their positions at the time of the associations. A summer intern hardly has the same access and authority as the attorney.


    [ Parent ]
    Wait a minute. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by phat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:13:41 AM EST
    How is this entering the narrative now?

    This kind of story doesn't just show up out of nowhere, especially with that paper.

    What on earth is the reasoning behind this?

    Is this some attempt to move Obama away from some radical fringe (as compared to Clinton) or is it just an attempt to pound in the last nail of the Clinton campaign?

    Either way, it doesn't make much sense to me.

    Why move this now?

    It's very odd.

    the tape rumor (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by bigbay on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:08:21 AM EST
    and the super delegates. That's why.

    [ Parent ]
    I tend to agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:21 AM EST
    which means that it might be true.  The rush to put out this kind of inane, meaningless information indicate a certain sense of urgency on the Obama camp. This is a blatant attempt to litter the narrative; perhaps a futile attempt to outrun the avanlanche.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why Now? (none / 0) (#190)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:17 AM EST
    Simple answer:  panic.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's friendship with Ayres is current. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by lorelynn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:24:37 AM EST
    And it is a friendship. Hillary's relationship to sixties radicals was 35 years ago. Bizarre. It's not like she chose them.

    Certainly that's true (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by phat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:27:25 AM EST
    But why now?

    And I think Jeralyn wonders about this too.

    I don't know how anybody who studies this sort of thing couldn't ask that question.

    It seems to be very odd timing.

    It smells funny to me.

    Hayden seems determined to destroy (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:29:53 AM EST
    every last shred of his credibility.

    Sad isn't it, that he "peaked" in 1968 and it's been downhill ever since.

    Who knows? Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:23 AM EST
    the same reasons given by Naral for their endorsement--something about finances?

    [ Parent ]
    re: finances (none / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:55:18 AM EST
    I read something interesting about Obama's donor list, that he's kept detailed info on the 200 and under donation, which aren't required to be made publicly available.  That's what the dems want access to: the under 200 group who is in their district.  Stupid, really, because a lot of them are college students who are no longer in the area, and a lot more of them are only Obama supporters.  These kids skipped meals for Obama.  They're not going to do the same for some tired old dem fighting to hold onto his house seat.

    [ Parent ]
    What's wrong with this? (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:51 AM EST
    We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."


    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:36:29 AM EST
    There's nothing wrong with it.  It's not like Obama being buddy buddy with someone who avowedly supported violence and terror as political tools.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not the kind of friends I'd keep (none / 0) (#53)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:51:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:35:23 AM EST
    the Obama campaign is the whiniest ever.  

    Not only that, they have a knee jerk reaction to all criticism so they often have poor first reponses to issues that come up.  

    Good for Hillary! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:35:57 AM EST
    Personally, this makes Hillary more sympathetic to me.

    I think Hayden is an idiot. Always has been.

    That information is more likely to help Hillary among old lefties like me. As for the right-wing, who might take offense, they already hate her.

    And BTW, except for the AIDS comment (false but understandable in light of Tuskagee), I happen to agree with virtually everything I've heard Rev. Wright say. You have to be a fool or a bigot to think he is Anti-American.

    Has Jane Fonda (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:38:45 AM EST
    endorsed Hillary?  

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about the kiss of death! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:46:50 AM EST
    I'm not a huge fan of Jane Fonda, but I think her politics and actions were far more complex than the "Hanoi Jane" cliché.  Wiki has a good summary in her entry.

    [ Parent ]
    No, she endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:40 AM EST
    a while ago

    [ Parent ]
    PS (none / 0) (#36)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:38:50 AM EST
    I'd like to add: where is THIS Hillary today?

    That's the Hillary I could have wholeheartedly supported.

    Not the Hillary who voted the way she did on Iraq and FISA.  The Dianne Feinstein Hillary.

    If she'd been more radical, we wouldn't be here today.

    [ Parent ]

    No, she wouldn't have had a chance (none / 0) (#165)
    by Coral on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:43:21 AM EST
    at the nomination.

    I hate this 'guilt by association' thing, otherwise known as red-baiting.

    I wish neither side were indulging in this line of attack. Leave that to the GOP.

    [ Parent ]

    Truer words... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:40 AM EST
    ..are hard to come by:

    I think Hayden is an idiot. Always has been.

     Ditto with Wright, although I don't think it is bigotry, it is electability concerns...concerns that go out the window when they are associated with other candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    We might be splitting hairs... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:49:45 AM EST
    ...but I didn't think Wright was an idiot, I mean, in his natural environment, but some of his very recent TV appearances now qualify him as one. That's what five minutes of fame can do. Take someone out of one's comfortable surroundings, put him/her on TV or in front of cameras, and you get instant idiocy.  It's Peter's Principle.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:52:55 AM EST
    ...he took full advantage of his fifteen minutes.  His underlying message, though (apart from the more weirdly conspiracy-oriented aspects, i.e., AIDS) was, well, true.  Every time that video is dragged out, though, I get the feeling that the intent is to appeal to the more base elements of our nature.

     

    [ Parent ]

    like rap? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:58:35 AM EST
    I find myself unable to properly assess the African-American pastor/church/religious worship experience -- I suspect we're using different values here. Maybe "values" isn't the right word? It's a bit like the arguments about rap music, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Tenor? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:09:34 AM EST
    Maybe that is a better word, although it seems inadequate.

     The AA church experience is almost impossible to compartmentalize. Wright is from the lefty wing, which sanctions same-sex relationships, is pro-choice, etc.  The more conservative wing is so different one would expect they'd support the theocrats in the opposition.  

     Rap music? I don't even know that I am listening to that anymore...even if I think I am.  The merge of hip hop, pop and rap was so subtle and sustained that there's not much of a gage.

    [ Parent ]

    Analogies (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:18 AM EST
    Maybe Wright is more of a rapper and Obama hip hop? :-)

    My only point is, I don't really feel able to judge.

    [ Parent ]

    Five minutes vs. 20 years (none / 0) (#219)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    I guess non of the characteristics you found offensive showed up in that time?   Wow.  Rather a stretch.  

    [ Parent ]
    what about (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    when he humped the podium, said Hillary had never struggled, and claimed that Natalie Holloway deserved what she got because she went off with those guys?

    [ Parent ]
    Do do you also agree with (none / 0) (#91)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:59 AM EST
    Wright's Characterization of Obama as just another Poltician.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes I do (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:09:24 AM EST
    contrary to his carefully crafted image of 'transcendance,' whatever that means.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't take too much (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:37:20 AM EST
    of what is in his books as fact. He enjoys writing things that capture an audience, so he embellishes greatly.

    Kenneth Lamb, a researcher for major newspapers, did fact checking on those books and found he was not able to speak any language other than english.

    I wasn't paying much attention when this campaign first came out of the gate, but I do recall hearing his friends dispute his claims that he used drugs, too.

    I would think just exposing the farce of his books would be enough to cause him great problems with ethics and honesty in the campaign.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:21 AM EST
    That's real chutzpah on Tom Hayden's part. What an egotistical, self-absorbed buffoon!

    But on a positive note, it's nice to see that, contrary to what I had previously thought, he's still very much alive.

    Maybe this is coming up now because (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:59:54 AM EST
    there is a backlash building. There are a lot of postings over at mydd the last 24 hours in support of Hillary, protests of how she has been treated by Obama and the media and about the crowning and pretending the race is over.

    Do you think that there is traction in the story from Chicago Tribune about how he got the four other candidates in his first race disqualified before a single vote? Or the women's protest? Or the 3 out of 4 folks in the new Pew survey who were mad about the media and Obama claiming victory and annointing and wanted the race to go on.  Said 8 times as many people were watching them talk about getting rid of Hillary than watched the stories of Jenna's wedding!

    Then the stuff about his book being half made up and the Law Review.  A lot of people posting on talkleft awre writing long passionate negative reactions the last  few days, it seems like something is building.  Maybe they know it too.  I saw that got really worried back in Pennsylvania when the Philly suburbs turned out for Hillary and less than a quarter of the newly registered young people appeared to vote and the AA vote showed lower numbers turning out than they had predicted.

     Isn't that when the big push started to sell the meme that it was over and inevitable.  I wonder if this Hayden thing will be the first of many little hits because the inevitable thing is still not producing the internal numbers they need.Every time I hear a soundbite of his stump speech sinc Pa, he seems to be spending the speech whining and defending himself about some criticism instead of talking about the people there, even 75,000 people don't seem to demand his focus.  wow.

    I understand the talking heads today were terrible. We really need to give them something to talk or not to talk about by Tuesday or it will be just like last week.  Maybe we could tell them that if anyone mentions Hillary being finished, Obama being the nominee or the veep stakes, we will turn them off and write their sponsors!   Ok,then how about suing them for election fraud, lawyers?

     Who knows. I really hope Hillary makes them vote in Denver before she stops. But these are interesting times and I really am glad you build this great place to be while they are going on.

    Where the Talking heads are concerned (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:08:12 AM EST
    It is just History repeating itself. It was this  same talking heads who after 9/11 were rushing to crown Bush's every speech as the greatest speech ever. It was this very same talking heads who allowed Bush to do whatever he did to bring us here. It was these same talking heads who called Powell's presentation on Iraq war as slam dunk. It was these same talking heads who were too scared to call out Bush on his tepid logic to attack Iraq.
    Now they are back to doing the same with another Bush lite.

    [ Parent ]
    Unclear on the concept (none / 0) (#76)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:11:42 AM EST
    ...another Bush lite.

    Do you mean Obama?

    I thought he was too radical, ie: less electable.

    Now you're saying he's too conservative?

    Can he be both?

    Is this redstate.org ?

    [ Parent ]

    I meant Bush lite not in (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:38 AM EST
    terms of party ideals but in terms of Characteristics.

    Like Bush, Obama to is short on resume but long on likeability. Debates are a sore point for both of them because both are not good at it. Both have the tendency to confuse geographies and foreign issues. Both are and were adored by a fawning MSM. Both have similar campaign tactics where character assasination trumps over everything else. And finally both are not comfortable with counting all the votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Can I play too? :-) (none / 0) (#89)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:27 AM EST
    ...If we compare personalities in such a highly selective fashion, can I then say that Hillary is just like Dick Cheney?

    This is a rather silly argument.


    [ Parent ]

    Actually Hillary would be (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:52 AM EST
    more comparable to Al Gore than Cheney. Cheney and Hillary are poles aprt in more ways than one.

    Gore like Hillary was wonkish on details and policies. He outdebated Bush by leaps and bounds. The MSM hated him and like they are doing now with Hillary they used to twist every word of his also. He was also not as adored by Liberal elites who were more in awe of Bradley. He lost because all the votes were not counted.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:56:01 AM EST
    ...and this is why (you will allow that everything I'm going to say is, of course, just as subjective as your own comparisons):

    • Hillary looks insincere, even when she is sincere, just like Cheney who could say the sky is blue and I'd run to my window to check it out

    • Hillary looks like the type of person for whom the end justifies the means, just like Cheney; she would wear a monkey suit if it could bag her the nomination, just as Cheney would have claimed Saddam was a Klingon if it could have helped the cause of the war

    • Hillary hates being wrong and will never ever admit to having been wrong, except perhaps once 15 years ago when she admitted being wrong when she'd been right all along (Cheneyan logic)

    • Hillary looks authoritarian, Evita Peron style, another Cheneyan characteristic

    • Hillary is indeed a policy wonk, but, like Cheney and his commissions and papers etc., this leads her to either triangulate or simply be wrong on the issues, probably because her wonkiness is at the service of her pre-selective desired results

    None of the above is either serious or relevant; Hillary is an excellent candidate and I stand ready to support her if she wins the nomination, no matter what.

    This is merely to show that I can excerpt a few behavior traits from a person I never met, based on information filtered by the media and my own prejudices, and arrive at the same type of conclusion you reached (Obama = Bush lite), no matter how absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! All your comparison (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:21:04 AM EST
    is based on looks? How superficial. Incidentally let me point out all this insincere looks about Cheney only came to light after he took america to one diasaster after another. Prior to that I remember reading numerous articles about how Cheney bought gravitas to Bush's ticket and how Cheney was intelliogent blah blah.

    Hillary was treated with suspicion first like you correctly point out based on her looks but later  her actions warmed her up to her people.
    When she initially ran for the senate, she started out with the same disadvantages you talk about but then the 2nd time it was so easy for her that republicans were hard up to find a worthwhile opponent for her.

    What I am trying to say is Hillary's "looks" like you say may connote negative but her actions have mostly endeared herself to people. Cheney's initial looks were highly favourable it was his actions that made him a villain.

    [ Parent ]

    You're the one... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:30:18 AM EST
    ...who said Obama was Bush lite and you complain when I too turn superficial?

    Is irony truly dead?

    [ Parent ]

    Nope I compared Obama and Bush based on their (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:52:44 AM EST
    actions definitely not their "looks".
    Just like Bush's resume Obama also has a very thin(light) resume. Bush dissed Al Gore's experience as an establishment candidate. Sounds familiar. Bush called himself the compassionate conservative and the great uniter. Again sounds familiar.
    Bush was v. weak on Geography and foreign affairs issues bordering on ignorance. Obama has made a lot of goof ups on the Geography of US as also foreign affairs. His comments on sending Arab translators to Afghanistan, his boast about having more foreign policy experience than Hillary by virue of having been in Indonesia in his childhood days.
    Bush was always outdebated by Gore and later Kerry. Obama has till date been outdebated in every debate by Hillary.
    Bush was not detail oriented, his claim was that he was more of a visionary than a doer and that he would hire right people to do the work. Obama's message is the same.
    Both were and are adored by the MSM.

    In terms of looks, I always thought Bush looked like a frat boy and Obama like a pastor.    

    [ Parent ]

    do you know how Obama has presented (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:32:00 AM EST
    himself to this independent? He's enjoys his waffles both as eats and on substance. His true identity is hidden. His own writing offer that some stories may be embellished memories? Life Magazine anyone?  

    He is a post racial politician who in fact refused to even talk to the AA community at the State of the Black Union event. He courted the youth vote with a romantic advertisement campaign based a undefined notion of change. Define his "change".

    He's used his bi-racial identity and sexism to infiltrate and divide rather than unify. He claims to be a unifier but calls his opponent divisive which is applying a false negative in the same way as the republicans do. She has a record of bipartisanship even with historical enemies.

    What does he really think? Who knows? He was in a church for 20 years and chose not to understand or ignore its theological foundations. He used his membership to increase his political constituency, not because he found Jesus. His own words offered that he got involved in the church to increase his credibility with the constituency he served.  He's a Christian who advertises his faith in order to disassociate from himself from anything Muslim. What is wrong with being a Muslim for the first post-racial purple president? All Muslims are not radical extremists. Shouldn't he show some leadership and condemn any form of discrimination?  Obama doesn't even want his own middle name mentioned as if he were ashamed. He's all surface no substance. He is an image rather than a portrait in reality. A leader owns who he is- name and all.

    He wants to represents purple America but does