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? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    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.


    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.  

    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>


    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!

    O.K. This Is Great (5.00 / 7) (#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}


    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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...


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


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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!

    Haydn has lost it (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    So, what is the point of this (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    I think you're the one who needs convincing (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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?  


    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.  


    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.


    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:

    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?


    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.

    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.  

    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...

    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...

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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??


    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."



    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

    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.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 5) (#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.


    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.

    So, what about the (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    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.


    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%


    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.

    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.

    I'm not a lawyer, but... (5.00 / 7) (#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 / 3) (#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.

    Wait a minute. (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.  

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

    At least we're consistent. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:20:47 AM EST
    Remember when a Bush administration official threatened law firms that were defending Guantanamo Bay defendants (I forget the exact details)?

    I remember we liberals thought that was a great idea. The legal system is only for people who are good, law-abiding, decent citizens. Not for people who get accused of crimes.

    That was our position, right? I forget if this was among the "whole host of issues" on which Republicans are better than Democrats.

    No rewriting history... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:26:19 AM EST
    ...whatever your partisan feelings.

    I remember we liberals thought that was a great idea. The legal system is only for people who are good, law-abiding, decent citizens. Not for people who get accused of crimes.

     Do "we liberals" include those of us who were ACLU members before the Bush administration disaster? No? Then please suspend your arrogance. Stimson resigned over his comments.  


    I Think Your Snark Meter Is Malfunctioning n/t (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:43:08 AM EST
    I really need to work on that... (none / 0) (#64)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:02:01 AM EST
    My snark needs to be more obvious, I guess. It's not the first time. But that's sort of like explaining your own joke--it makes it less funny.

    It's like putting exclamation points at the end of your jokes, because otherwise nobody will know it's funny!!!


    I Got It Right Away (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:10:28 AM EST
    but then again I'm familiar with what you post and your POV.

    I've had people come after me a few times on snark comments that I thought were so obvious that no one would miss the snark. Guess they weren't that obvious.


    Yeah, it does... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:45 AM EST
    ..because the point you were attempting to belittle is not very clear.

    Right (none / 0) (#43)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:41:10 AM EST
    This primary has brought the liberals and the ultra conservative views under one umbrella, BO.  A unifying force.

    The electoral map is getting more and more favorable for McCain.  It's a good thing to vote for the winner.


    Color me skeptical (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:54:48 AM EST
    I find it hard to be impressed by an analytical process that ends up with California as "Weak Democrat".

    Reagan, Bush 1 ring a bell? (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:04:24 AM EST
    I'd say it's a weaker Dem than most people give it credit for. Especially this year with Obama.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#128)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:39:42 AM EST
    Look at the Primary results:

    Clinton: 2.6 million; Obama: 2.2 million; Edwards: 0.2 million; total Dems rounded: 5 million.

    Republicans: McCain: 1.2 million; Romney: 1 million; Huckabee: 0.3 million; total Reps rounded: 2.9 million.

    OK, the proof is not in the pudding yet, but any system who tracks this currently as "Weaker Dem" is not a sound, reliable system.



    There will be ballot (none / 0) (#237)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:56:06 AM EST
    issues involving same sex marriage that will bring out the Republicans in full force.

    Obama's friendship with Ayres is current. (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 4) (#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?

    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.

    What's wrong with this? (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 1) (#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.  

    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
    I think (5.00 / 5) (#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?  

    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.

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

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.



    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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?

    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.

    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.

    Don't take too much (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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 ?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.    


    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 not let the Dems or anyone else know what issues he will throw under the bus along with his grandmother. What will he do for NARAL when push comes to shove with the Republicans? We all ready know that universal health care is a no go in an Obama administration. Is he really left or will he swiftly turn right when needed for politically cover? How decisive is voting present or hiding from a vote? Barack Obama is a great stage name and he plays to his audience with style. Sorry he hasn't sold his message to me.  His manic movement based on hope and change is wrought from a culture tuned into the tv instead of their brains.  

    The Fourth Estate has failed before and they are failing us now. Obama's politics and Nielsen ratings going hand in hand ought to make us all worry about where we our nation is headed. Obama's not Bush lite. At least we know where Bush stands but with Obama it's anyone's guess.


    Obama IS "Bush Lite" (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:10:42 AM EST
    We didn't really know where Bush stood, either.  Remember "compassionate conservatism" and "no child left behind?"  Some actually thought those phrases were proof that he would help people.  I mean, real people, not just Halliburton stockholders.

    To the extent that Obama has a sparse record, flexible principles and an engaging personality he is exactly like Bush.  

    And we don't need another amateur in the White House.


    And I rush to add... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:32:57 AM EST
    ...that Hillary is undoubtedly a much better person than Cheney -- just as Obama is a much better person than Bush.

    No...your summary is objective (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by MichaelGale on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:47:18 AM EST
    I am sorry to say this but the descriptions you provide of Hillary you are really objectification.  You see little redeeming in her including her strengths; policy and decisiveness.

    That summary sounds like someone responding to perceived authority and about woman exhibiting such. Your perceptions are more about you than about Hillary.

    I admit that who I am relates to my thoughts about Obama. I am very reality based. Could be because I am older and more experienced. I believe Obama perceives himself as a victim of life. I don't believe in that anymore, speaking for me only. I believe that being a victim is a choice for an adult. I also believe that many of his followers feel victimized by the Bush administration and they just need the "hope" so desperately that they "cling" to the idea of him.

    WE all have been victims of this administration.
    I have hope too but I want it grounded in some reality.

    In addition, I am so angry at statements about  "look" and "tone" that has been so prevalent in describing Hillary that I am willing to desert the Democratic Party.  And I believe this election, if Obama wins, will have enormous consequences for all of us.


    Excuse Me? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    You and I need to get together.  You must teach me what someone for whom the end justifies the means looks like.  I need to know how to identify people who look authoritarian.  And it would be really good to be able to meet a person and realize instantly by looking at them that they're insincere.

    Your post contains absolutely no substance and isn't even qualified as your own opinion.  No sale.


    wow (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    three "Hillary looks" and one "Hillary hates."  You must be really close to her to know all these things.

    Your assessment is all subjective. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by befuddled on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:45:00 AM EST
    Let's have a few concrete observations. For instance, "She looks insincere." (We'll leave the attempt to subliminally link Cheney out of this. :))
    How does a person look insincere? Because they won't look the listener in the eye? Because of the conventional wisdom that people who look down and/or to the left a lot while speaking are dissembling? (ditto for people scratching or otherwise playing with their face while speaking) Because there aren't any traceable facts to back up what is said, or the traceable facts don't correlate with observable voting record? Let's see---who fits the "insincere" impression with these criteria---hmm, scratches face, no concrete ideas, detached speaking manner...
    Surely you can do better with your argument by making it more specific. People on this site have actually absorbed a few principles of critical analysis.

    Almost 17 million Americans disagree (none / 0) (#119)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:27:35 AM EST
    with your assessment of Hillary.  I am glad you preceded your comment by saying it is SUBJECTIVE.

    I'll gladly restate... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:31:12 AM EST
    ...that what I wrote above is rubbish if the initial poster admits that Obama = Bush lite is just as rubbishy.

    No need to restate (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:45:58 AM EST
    your post speaks for itself.  But I have to say that it is quite difficult to say that one is a "better person than . . . " when we have no ability to see into the souls of people.  We can only really base our perceptions of what we know.  I can only base my opinion of Bush with the resume he presented as a candidate and his subsequent policy/decisions/actions.  Same goes for Cheney.  Now we know for sure that Bush's shallow resume impacted his administration.  I see the same kind of shallow resume in Obama, compared to Hillary Clinton.  As far as Cheney is concerned, he served the purpose of Bush's reason for choosing him. Cheney has been blamed, more often than Bush for the int'l debacles.  It works fine with Bush to have someone like Cheney for people to dislike and blame for his mistakes.  

    Don't think in terms of left or right (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by tree on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:26:14 AM EST
    Obama is centrist. He's not radical, or even "progressive".

     Think in terms of empty suit propped up by the media. Then you'll understand the comparison to Bush.


    Point taken (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:34:09 AM EST
    I wish indeed Obama was more radical/liberal/progressive.

    My candidate was Edwards; the platform I liked best was Kucinich's.

    I voted Edwards in the CA primaries.

    Sadly Hillary is even less r/l/p than Obama, so while I'm 100% ready to support her if she wins, she's not my first choice either.


    I find Hillary much more progressive and (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:15:22 AM EST
    proletarian than Obama and I'm more a socialist than anything else.
    Obama may be perceived as more progressive on FP, but that seems to me to be based on impressions of others rather than any firm policy stance (does he have any?).

    I trust Clinton to serve the American workers as best she can. I don't trust Obama. It's my old lefty gut telling me this, and its past presidential predictions have been dead on since Reagan.


    Here! Here! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:36:22 AM EST
    I will vote for Clinton.  If she is not the nominee, I will vote maybe for me.

    I am so angry with the Democratic Party for not objecting to the sexist attacks on her.  That to me is aiding and abetting. Whether I and my family remain democrats will depend on what the party does between now and the convention.  


    Please (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:43:39 AM EST
    Great, let's risk losing the right to abortion (among others) because you're personally p.o'd at the DNC's nominating process.

    With feminists like you, we don't need enemies.

    I agree the entire US electoral system needs a revamp, top to bottom. And the entire MSM should be locked into a broom closet. But that's not what's at stake now.


    No one is going to hold me hostage (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:40 AM EST
    to that threat.  The same sentiment that made abortion legal back in the days even before Roe V. Wade institutionalized it, is strong enough to withstand one presidential election.  Sexism and the refusal of the party to deal with it is a much more immediate concern for me.

    Really? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:03:34 AM EST
    I'm sure Hillary Clinton herself would be glad to learn that one of her supporters is ready to trade off the right to abortion in favor of dealing with sexism.

    Can I quote you on this?


    Quote me to anyone! (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:00 AM EST
    It's a free country and I stand by my POV. You can even tell her that if she's not the nominee, I may vote for McCain. She may not like it, but my vote is mine, and no one else's.

    Fair enough n/t (none / 0) (#147)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:12:19 AM EST
    sexism and the fight against abortion (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    are one and the same.

    If you are so concerned about keeping a woman's right to choose, then you should be supporting the candidate with a 35 year history of standing up for--and taking heat for--that right.

    It's not the federal government that is a threat to abortion; it's the state legislatures.


    Whoa... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:08:29 AM EST
    ...do you really believe this:

    The same sentiment that made abortion legal back in the days even before Roe V. Wade institutionalized it, is strong enough to withstand one presidential election.

     It was legal in what, Hawaii and New York? If you want an indication of how abortion will be treated following a reversal of Roe, just look to the states that recognize gay relationships, all ten of them (or whatever the number is today).  Even if pro-life groups managed to counter attempts to impose abortion laws (they wouldn't), the federal government, with a fairly pro-life composition, would be quite capable of restricting abortion.  

     Environmentalists learned this the hard way in 2000.  I guess another liberal voting bloc will as well.  


    Forget it Alec82 (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:13:49 AM EST
    There is nothing you can say to me that would make me vote for Obama.

    All right... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:17:06 AM EST
    ...although I get the impression that if I had the audacity to say this in light of a Clinton victory I would be labeled a Judas...but then, I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee.

    You can say that now about Clinton (none / 0) (#152)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:30:13 AM EST
    I don't mind.  It is a free country.  There is no law that says if you are a registered democrat that you must vote for the democratic nominee.

    What is at stake now (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:01:31 AM EST
    is whether we tolerate the mindset that subjects women to attacks, character assassinations with such impunity and the party heirarchy just stands by and watch without saying a word?  Not me! I may have just one vote, but I am willing to withhold that vote and not give in to  threats.  There are other avenues to fight for women's right to privacy regarding reproductive rights.  

    I'm appalled (none / 0) (#144)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:08:47 AM EST
    First, character assassination is part and parcel of politics. The Clintons have been subjected to this (as has Edwards, Gore, Obama, Ted Kennedy, Max Cleland and countless others in our party) for years and it is only an issue because you, personally, are making it into a personal issue. FDR was subjected to the vilest of attacks.

    As for the right to abortion, or rather the composition of the Supreme Court if McCain is elected, this has been uniformly described as one of the weightiest issues in this election (as it was in 2004 already -- and we've seen the results) and if you're willing to "bet" Roe v Gore because of your own personal chip on your shoulder against either the DNC or the Media (I'm not sure who you hold responsible), then I feel really sorry for you. And you're no friend to the feminist cause.


    The abortion issue will not sway me (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:24:01 AM EST
    in this election.  I don't considier it a more urgent issue than helping people hold on to their homes; getting the troops out of Iraq; reducing the national debt; creating jobs, and Universal health care.  When viewed in terms of the needs of the majority of the Americans, here's how I see it:  

    Today, all men are not going to need any abortion; add all women above 50 who are not going to need abortion under any circumstance; add also the girls under twelve who are not going to need it.  So you are left with those females aged maybe 12-45.  There are already laws in place in many states and they are not about to all disappear in four years. As I said, it's not an urgent issue as far as I am concerned.  You're free to disagree.  


    I think... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:37:07 AM EST
    ...this is an extremely short sighted way of looking at it.  President Clinton is extremely lucky that liberals didn't abandon him in 1996 over this kind of thinking.  They knew better then.  I hope so-called progressives no better in 2008.

    Not so lucky this year (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:49:35 AM EST
    since Obama disses him; The liberals never like him that is why they readily jumped on the opportunity to try and kick him now.

    The country was in pretty good shape then too (none / 0) (#247)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:15:19 AM EST
    As for Abortion rights, it was a long fight that was fought by people before me. It was a fight that many take for granted including all the young voters that think 'Obama, I like Roberts'will actually put the right judges in place. I think he will compromise with the Republicans anyway, but I know Hillary won't. If we have a good Democratic Senate and Congress, then the next justice will have to meet criterias that were not in place the last two times.

    At any rate, this time I will not be threatened with Roe vs Wade or the voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why it sometimes ends up that way, but it does. With Hillary, I would be voting for a well qualified President and someone I could be proud of as a Democrat, a woman, and a leader.


    Oh Yeah! Character assasination is part of the (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:31:22 AM EST
    "New" way of doing politics also? because we were constantly told that there is this supposedly new way of doing politics which is all about being above board etc. just like the invisible unity pony.

    Regarding Roe vs. Wade. Obama is a candidate we don't believe in. Voting for him to save one cause is not a convincing argument because only this cause does not define us. Feminity or feminist issues also mean recognizing and treating women as individuals not as subordinates which unfortunately we have been witness to in this campaign.

    Finally sometimes you have to be willing to loose the battle to win the war. And we have to send a message to the Dem elites that this kind of treatment is not acceptable and that we don't become valuable only when votes are required.


    There you go! Serene1 (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:17 AM EST
    Totally agree with you.  What happens in Colorado will decide whether people like us gives the democratic party a "TIME OUT!" It's time the party realizes that they can no longer say, "Oh, they are good democrats, they'll vote for the nominee."  Excuse me!

    You'd think (none / 0) (#208)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:39 AM EST
    women were just walkin' talkin' uteri, by the opinions of some posters.

    Regardless. Obama has been. uh, not so reassuring himself on women's reproductive rights. Some might call him squishy on the topic.


    Of course it is personal with me. (none / 0) (#151)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:27:09 AM EST
    Just because people get murdered all the time doesn't mean I have to just say, "well, iit's part of life in a society,"

    I never claimed to be altruistic.  It is always personal with me and I am proud to admit that.


    Since I can't have Edwards... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:28:25 AM EST
    ...or Kucinich, I'm game.

    I have the exact opposite feeling.

    Partly, because Bill's Presidency wasn't exactly pro-labor, wouldn't you agree?

    Honestly, I'm not sure what kind of President Obama might be in the troubled times ahead, but the Clintons' 90s record vis à vis labor etc. don't particularly make their case.

    Here is a good article from THE NATION on the Clintons' "labor gambit".


    It's to demoralize her support; discourage GOP-Fs (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:10:07 AM EST
    Desperate measure to nail shut je rim because he still can't close.

    Obama's and supporters' push has always been more emphatic for Sen Clinton to quit when she's about to score big: PA, WV and now Tuesday. His campaign also works overtime to minimize her huge victories. THey're essentially tied right now because he's still using this fraudulent "finish" line.

    HE CAN'T SEAL THE DEAL so he's declaring victory now to depress her Dem vote and to keep Repug women from getting behind her now and in the GE.

    (Don't know which of the remaining contests they participate in: they might very well be the cavalry here!)

    They can quite naturally gravitate over in enough numbers to give her a strong final-lap kick.

    Unless she QUITS of course. And begging the question, if he was so Teh Awesome as to have this thing in the bag, he wouldn't be making such a shameless play for her supporters at this point.

    That, in combination with this "sudden" bad news is desperate.

    Demconwatch (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:20:37 AM EST
    I'm inclined to agree; I find http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ very objective and they provide all the possible scenarios regarding Florida and Michigan and it's clear Obama hasn't won yet. That said, the odds are clearly in his favor.

    (Myself, I'm for the Democratic nominee; I don't care enormously who he or she is, tho I favor Obama because of the Iraq and FISA votes.)


    How the hell is Obama better? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Davidson on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:58:26 AM EST
    On Iraq: he wasn't there; Clinton did not vote for an invasion, but specifically spoke out against pre-emptive strikes and took the same position as Hans Blix.  Considering Obama's past rhetoric about that vote and his obvious pattern of cowering to the establishment on "controversial" votes, it's all but certain he would've voted in favor of AUMF.

    Since I don't have any debunking links readily available on FISA tell me how Obama is any better than Clinton.  Honestly.

    Obama is less liberal than Clinton.  The man is an opportunist who'll do the bidding of the Powers That Be, which means he'll govern from the right.  Unlike Clinton, he has never fought the right for any Democratic principle.


    Obama advisor and FISA (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Davidson on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:00:51 AM EST
    Obama has a high-powered advisor on his campaign who should be a major red flag for anyone concerned about FISA or civil liberties considering this advisor was strongly in favor of granting the telecommunication companies immunity.

    I would appreciate if anyone could provide a link on this advisor whose name escapes me.


    Clarification (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Davidson on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:17:44 AM EST
    Obama is less liberal than Clinton on two counts: when push comes to shove in the senate and the policies they're proposing as presidential candidates.

    the lesser of two evils? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:22:27 AM EST
    Respectfully, I consider the AUMF vote a deciding vote of our times, and I recall very well the arguments on the net between Kevin Drum, Bob Somerby, Left Coaster, who more or less supported Hillary's admittedly nuanced position, and Atrios, Kos, Steve Gilliard and others like myself (an old Billmon's Whiskey Bar contributor), who felt this was a horrible horrible mistake.

    (I don't recall what Jeralyn's position was at the time.)

    Let us remember that there were 21 courageous Democratic Senators who voted against the resolution: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA) (yay!), Byrd (WV), Conrad (ND), Corzine (NJ), Dayton (MN), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Graham (FL), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Reed (RI), Sarbanes (MD), Stabenow (MI), Wellstone (MN), Wyden (OR), plus Sen. Chafee (RI) and Jeffords (VT). Not Feinstein, not Clinton.

    Sorry, Clinton lost me there.

    As for Obama, I hate to quote Politoco, but that parag sums up my feelings rather well:

    Obama's opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 is unquestioned. But what was a sharp anti-war line on the campaign trail in 2004 - when he said he favored voting against funding the war - turned into a more pragmatic Senate performance, where Obama has taken a less aggressively anti-war tack than fellow Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and others.

    Not an altogether satisfactory performance indeed, and the article above goes in to gleefully quote how Obama was criticized on Kos for his tepid stance.

    On FISA, this article from Raw speaks for itself.

    Now, keep in mind that I was an Edwards/Kucinich supporter, NOT an Obama supporter. I voted for Edwards in the California primaries. I have NOT donated any money to Obama. So you pointing out Obama's flaws is perfectly fine. I'm well aware of them.

    But if at this stage, you ask me why Clinton is "weaker" in her appeal to me than Obama, the above is my answer.

    That said, I'm ready to support the Democratic nominee whoever he/she is; in the end, I'll be OK with either of them.


    Compare them (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by Davidson on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:48:46 AM EST
    Sorry, Clinton lost me there.

    How?  Because she's didn't vote like those senators you listed?  Neither did Obama!  That's the point.  This is about Clinton vs. Obama.

    Obama is no better than Clinton on Iraq.  In fact, Obama and Clinton have voted the same since he's been in the senate, he has demonstrated no proof of competence in being able to handle the Iraq occupation nor any desire to learn (e.g., his refusal to hold any meetings as chair of a subcommittee over NATO which oversees the Afghan occupation), and offers no concrete solution to ending Iraq soon as his former advisor Samantha Power has said.  Clinton, meanwhile, is backed by a slew of former generals who trust her to resolve Iraq quickly and responsibly (Note: I'm not saying she will, but in comparing Clinton and Obama, she fares better than him on who seems best capable and willing to deal with Iraq).

    On FISA: Again, both Clinton and Obama failed on this issue.  Obama, himself, did not vote on the final bill.  That's what matters: results.

    And your statements about who you previously supported and insistence that you didn't donate to Obama strikes me as quite odd.  Why do I need to know that?  It comes off as a bit defensive, especially since I never raised any of those issues.

    I personally don't care about whom you vote for at this point, but when you state that there are two reasons (Iraq, FISA) for supporting one candidate over the other and you offer no actual legitimate comparison of the two, instead choosing to focus your scrutiny on one, it strikes me as faulty.


    Obama And Clinton's Votes The Same On (none / 0) (#239)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:56:43 AM EST
    both issues. They did vote differently on two issues. Obama voted for Cheney's (give away to big oil) Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Obama voted against a cap on interest rates and Clinton voted for the cap.

    Maybe information about new (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:24:41 AM EST
    radical ties of Obama is about to surface, the mysterious tape of Michelle, etc, and they are trying to condition people to  "Hillary had radical ties too" as a way of minimizing it.

    Don't you think (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:46 AM EST
    their eyes are way off the ball here?

    You can't dredge up Hillary's activities from 40 years ago and at the same time be like "well, the primary is long over, on to the GE."


    My thoughts exactly, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#110)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:02:13 AM EST
    certainly it is too delayed for it to be a way of dealing with the Ayers issue.  And it does not make sense for them to bring up that subject when it has pretty much died down. And as you pointed out, being an intern in a law office (where theoretically a lawyer should provide legal services for anyone who needs it) is not in the same league as CHOOSING to be friends and colleagues with someone.  To me, it is like saying that because raindrops and a lake are both composed of water, they are the same.

    The 90s CDS would have exposed this stuff ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:02:17 AM EST
    ... and fanned it into something back then. Its lack of substance only means that the leak NOW, post-Sunday bobbleheads, is for a quick and dirty 1-day run before Tuesday.

    What will it be knocking off the news? IMO, it will be overshadowing and minimizing:

    • 2210
    • popular vote tied
    • HRC's announcements this weekend of going all the way
    • MSM "eulogizing" her on the bobblehead shows and suddenly softening their shrieking CDS syndrome.

    This "news" of radical sixties ties strikes me as being directed at potential support from moderate GOP voters. I think the pink elephant (pardon the phrase but for once, it's apt) in the room is Repug women.

    Sexist jerks know they're being sexist jerks and the anti-HRC pile-on has been most extreme and outrageous particularly when it's men-only or with (a) very out-numbered female voice(s) present.

    Even Repub women seeing this would long ago have said, Enough! and this "news" designed to replenish any CDS that's down a quart or two.

    It also bolsters the idea that she's a sellout and, oh yes, Ollllld. OLD!


    DNC leadership (none / 0) (#256)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    Do you think they were aware of all this baggage and pushed him through anyway or do you think it is a surprise for them?

    Now they're saying Hillary interned for (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by candymarl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:44 AM EST
    a firm that fought for civil rights and against racism.  But I thought she was a racist.  They're all over the map here.

    You mean... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:30 AM EST
    ...like the candidate?



    end in sight (none / 0) (#98)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:36:17 AM EST
    I think we've reached the last mile of the race where people of all sides are ready to spout the silliest of rubbish.

    Plenty if this here and on DKos, sadly (IMHO).


    If this is the last mile, heaven help us! (none / 0) (#100)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:27 AM EST
    Old left/new left (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by NomdePlume on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:55:39 AM EST
    Hillary's prior professional '60's contacts (a couple of the attorneys, that is, where she interned) look more along the lines of what has been termed the American "old left".  Actually a rather mild, intellectual, traditional (!) group from the past.  Non-violent, McCarthy era, energies very channeled into constructive ventures like civil rights, the anti-war movement, Constitutional issues.  Some in the "new left" had a lot of contempt for them during that period.  But Ayers, of the "new left", he was a real nut.  Into violence, and so that even many of the Weather people ran like hell in the other direction from him and Bernadine Dohrn.  He also never really renounced his prior activities.  Though clearly he integrated himself into society, behavior-wise.  And was forgiven, as another casualty, in ways himself, of those tumultuous times.

    That being said, I think there's a need in America to get away from 'guilt by association', or the notion that knowing someone who has such-and-such views means you have those views, too.  Whether you know them very well or hardly at all.  I think there are a lot of closets in America, at present, in this respect.  There's a much more open atmosphere about such things in Europe, for example.  More intellectual tolerance, in ways.  But we're still very straight-laced on the surface.  And it makes it more difficult for us to assess candidates on their ability, instead.  We get into all kinds of games.

    I agree, however, that Obama doesn't have such a great record on anti-semitism or Israel, as he claims.  (Whether or not that has anything to do with his association with Ayers.  Or Farakkhan.  Or his wild minister thrown under the train.  Or whether his record is necessarily "bad" per se.)  Hillary's quite a sport, though, to defend his allegiance to American policy for the last 60 years.  After everything his campaign has hit her with.  Often surreptitiously.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:09:05 AM EST
    I agree, however, that Obama doesn't have such a great record on anti-semitism or Israel, as he claims.

     I concur.  He is way too pro-Israel for my taste.  

     And from earlier:

    That being said, I think there's a need in America to get away from 'guilt by association', or the notion that knowing someone who has such-and-such views means you have those views, too.

     Agreed. Which is what made the Wright "scandal" much like Senator Clinton's earlier Alinsky "scandal" so absurd.  I doubt most people even pick up on this now.


    Obama the money machine (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:40:09 AM EST
    the bottom line of Obama's democratic party support:
    Obama is a money machine; all politicians gravitate to money and support whoever has it.

    and yet (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:14:04 AM EST
    all that money and he still can't close the deal.  What does that tell folks?

    I thought Obama made a big point (none / 0) (#258)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    of decrying the influence of money in politics?

    I find it interesting that McCain (none / 0) (#260)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    is getting rid of all the lobbyists in his campaign right now.  Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists and yet his campaign is filled with them.  Fodder for the GE

    Gee, with those sorts of ties you'd think (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:39:47 AM EST
    Hillary would be Hayden's candidate.

    This is actually a pretty laughable attempt to smear her. I mean, what's Hayden saying? "Don't vote for her! Back in day, she was associated with a firm that represented radical leftists like me! Instead, vote for us old SDS guys' current choice: Barack Obama!"

    Is Tom Hayden post-ironic?

    When Obama's pastor became an issue (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:22:49 AM EST
    huffpo devoted an entire week trying to make Hillary's pastor also an issue.
    Obama camp of course released the photo of Bill with Wright.

    This kind of baiting has been going on for some time but is always in response to a current Obama related issue. But Obama is not being currently accused of being alligned with radical left or anything. So why this. As per Obama team the campaign is over then why bother further tarnishing Hillary over dubious claims.

    One could be like J and others have suggested something bigger may be leaked and this is to deflect or dilute the impact of the same.

    Another could also be that this is a last minute effort to depress the voter turnout in KY. So much for no negative campaigning.

    Smearing Hillary so she won't be VP (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by stefystef on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:26 AM EST
    Obama doesn't want Hillary has his VP and he doesn't want to be pressured to do it because he doesn't care about the "will of the people", only his own ambitions and arrogance.

    They are trying to making Hillary even more "toxic" to the Party and complete the vilification that the MSM started.

    I think a lo of Clinton supporters and supporters of real representation will be staying home in November.

    Note to Obama supporters and others (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:23 AM EST
    Now.  Why would something like this not be an issue for Clinton but would be an issue for Obama?

    Simply because everyone, like her or love her, knows who Clinton is, and they still have very little idea who Obama is.

    This is just another example where record and experience come into play.

    Let's pretend, hypothetically speaking, both of them were revealed to be card carrying members of the communist party.  Aghast!!!!  Now.  

    Now this hypothetical fact would be added to a relatively clean slate in Obama, we have no idea how he will govern, he may actually govern per the ideology of communism.  All we have to go on that he wouldn't is half a Senate term, some state Senate work, and some community activism.

    Now this same hypothetical fact would be added to a known entity in Senator Clinton.  More people would be inclined to see this as a youthful digression tempered by wisdom and old age, simply because she is older and we have more to go on when we're thinking about how she will govern.

    I just wanted to point out why Ayers sticks to Obama and a lame piece of information like this doesn't stick to Clinton.

    The Black Panther argument (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by hlr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    is something the GOP tried to use against Hillary in her 2000 NY senate race.

    Amazing to see so-called 'liberals' trying to make hay of her working w/ the ACLU to organize law student observers to ensure a fair trial in the New Haven/Black Panthers case.

    Once again the trolls can only (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:45:30 AM EST
    1. Try to scare us with the SCOTUS as if we could be sure what Obama really thinks about anything less of all reproductive rights.

    2. Tell us how bad the nineties really were as if we had not lived through the 90's and saw the economy rise from the pits.

    3. Try to say that because of NAFTA Clinton was anti-labor as if Kerry, Kennedy and other Democrats in Congress didn't vote for it.  Or are they trying to say that all those right wing nuts and their Republican Friends in Congress who were and are against NAFTA are pro-labor, like Helms was pro-labor??

    Good one folk sounds to me like we have all the Republicans talking points down pat.

    X, Y or Z will win back Clinton supporters?? (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM EST

    Agree, he wants to besmeerch her..deal a death blow. The latest in EGOMANIA was a planned attempt to claim the election in Iowa this  Tuesday night; NYT had to print a CORRECTION because the rules aren't in sync.  

    The longer this goes on, I keep looking for some glimmer, something to convince me that what I've thought about his candidacy all along, was bias speaking, my preference for Hill.  

    Nothing has. I am more convinced than ever that he has way too big an ego to speak directly to the 17 million who didn't vote for him in a personal, face-to-face way, not in an audience of thousands, mass appeal way... it will never happen.

    Clinton is too FEMALE and too STRONG for him to ever accept her as VEEP, because I think he feels completely emasculated around her. The only vindication at this point, for enduring through this, would be for Hillary to FORCE herself into the VEEP spot or of course, win outright!  

    He will never get my vote...

    What should be (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    The most disturbing part of all this is how people on the left are working so hard to smear and discredit a Democrat. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but I really don't recall this happening to such an extent in any other election. Basically what we are seeing is the Democratic Party eating each other up for sport. What a great way to defeat Republicans. And the fact that they are doing it to elect such a lightweight is just unbelievable.

    People change (none / 0) (#10)
    by andyt on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:12:15 AM EST
    I read her book and I take her at face value. I don't have the same views I had 35 years ago, and I wouldn't think she does either.

    I don't think there is anything to disavow anyway (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:26:41 AM EST
    The Panthers are not the Weather Underground.  There  are much more good things that the Panthers did than the Weather Underground ever did.  

    Also, the article itself says (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:07 AM EST
    The article itself says that Robert Oglesby was from the more moderate faction of the SDS compared to Ayers and Dohrn.  It's hilarious that the Obama-ites thinks there is any hypocrisy involved at all here.

    Sorry, that should be Carl Oglesby (none / 0) (#40)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:39 AM EST
    Sorry, I was typing too fast and got the name wrong.  Point still stands though!

    Maybe she did not include it (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:34:26 AM EST
    cause her work career has more stuff to include than Obama's need to tell us that he worked as a summer camp counselor with low income kids.  Immediately, the haters, left or right, imagine malice in her intent.  

    It does expose... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:18:11 AM EST
    ...the hypocrisy of some Clinton supporters painting Obama with a "radical" image.  When the right tried this in the 90s every sane Democrat dismissed it.  Now it appears to be fair game.  That is pretty sad, at least in a primary.      

     Really, this has all become somewhat infantile.  I'm a "liberal" Obama supporter and I think Hayden and his acolytes are misguided, delusional leftists. Most liberals probably feel the same way.  If the Clinton campaign is hurt by this it is their own fault for trying to paint Senator Obama as a radical.  I think it would be stupid of voters to even consider this, but there you have it.    

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by phat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:21:12 AM EST
    When, exactly, did Clinton attempt to portray Obama as a "radical"?

    If anyone can find some attack from HRC (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:47 AM EST
    that BO is a radical, I'd certainly would like to know.  I've never read that HRC or anyone from her camp attacked BO..  I think that there have been charges, mainly from Fox News, that he had a personal friendly relationship with Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon.

    The exploitation... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:31:42 AM EST
    ...of the Wright loops wasn't enough?

     Would anything else be?

     It is one thing to complain of bias or sexism in the media and quite another to condone typical GOP "liberal" bashing, and to attempt to use it to your advantage.  If you try to reorient yourself as a New Democrat and you have "radical" (I despise the term) past associations, you've gotten what you deserve.  After denigrating a significant base of the Democratic Party, why should they support you?


    The Wright tapes were out there (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:45:26 AM EST
    yet the MSM ignored it. It was only after ABC news bought it to light that MSM were forced to cover it. Also note the MSM kept lecturing us after Obama's race speech that Wright was off the table. Wright again became an issue only because Wright himself chose to be. Also Wright's incendiary sermons would have been an issue come what may. To imply that Obama had nothing to do with or answer about Wright's racist sermons is beyond disingeneous. Obama himself has cited Wright as a very influential person in his life with his first book titled from one of Wright's sermons. This is not mere guilt by association.

    Also note Hillary actually never made an issue about Wright. The only time she replied about Wright was in the debate and when she was aked a Question about it. And also don't pretend that Wright never said those dirt things about Clinton from his pulpit.


    Why Should Anyone Support Obama (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:00:21 AM EST
    He has tried to present himself as the new face of the New Democratic Party and has current radical associations. So whatever comes his way regarding his associations is just what he deserves. After denigrating over half of the Democratic base, why should they support him.

    Obama & Wright (none / 0) (#169)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:25 AM EST
    The Wright videos were circulating for almost a year, but Hillary never pushed it.
    Obama chose his church based on the minister, and chose to sit in a pew for 20 years listening to Wright's racist rants! Wright's ideology of hatemongering toward whites and his promoting Blacks as "victims" are frequently found on Obama blogs.

    Wright may never be the Chaplain in the White House - but his ideology will be there.


    I think you missed... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:22:01 AM EST
    ... where Jeralyn noted the difference between attorney-client relationships and other kinds.

    why are Obama's ties Clinton's fault. (none / 0) (#224)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    Obama failed publicly to acknowledge his more than incidental ties to Ayers. He brought the suspicions on this himself. It's his FAULT he chose to tell half a tale. He propagated his own "radical" identity by his failure to be forthright.

    Clinton's "radical" internship was in the process of learning. Everyone is entitled to "DUE PROCESS". She has every right to work on behalf of any individual within that process.

    Obama chose to befriend and work with Ayers as well as Rev. Wright. It goes to judgment. Are you offering that Obama was merely educating himself by working with Ayers and listening to Wright's toxicity for 20 years?


    Is it just me (none / 0) (#34)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:38:42 AM EST
    Or does all this baby boomer culture war stuff just seem irrelevant and mostly confusing? I mean really, Black Panthers? Communism? Weathermen? Farrakhan? I wasn't even alive when any of this was going on, and I fail to see how any of it is relevant to the problems of today.

    Depends on who it's about (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:43:48 AM EST
    If it's about the Clinton's everything is relevant and fair game for character assassination.

    If it's about Obama nothing is.

    Some of what you list is old news, and "in passing" relationships. Others are current. The current ones should be looked at because of their controversial beliefs.


    I'm only 28 and I do think it's relevant (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:50:32 AM EST
    History is relevant.  Learning from the past is relevant.  The problems of the 60s that these groups tried to come up with solutions for, are not so different from the problems of today -- problems like poverty, racism, an endless war, and encroachment on free speech and other civil liberties.

    It certainly is relevant... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:57:51 AM EST
    ...although the approach does seem to differ, for better or worse.  

    Yes We Actually Stopped Nixon (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:17 AM EST
    back in the "bad old days"  instead of letting him be above the law.

    100% (none / 0) (#92)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:33:44 AM EST
    ...behind that.  Alas, the 70s peaked and along came....the 80s.

    In The 80s We Got The Great Transformational (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:56:01 AM EST
    President Reagan who gave us clarity, optimism, and a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. We also got his great foreign policy that Obama wants to emulate.

    A crash course in the events you missed (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:54:31 AM EST
    Here's a crash course from the video:

    Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
    Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, "Bridge on the River Kwai"

    Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball
    Starkweather, homicide, children of thalidomide

    Buddy Holly, "Ben-Hur", space monkey, Mafia,
    hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no go

    U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy
    Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo

    Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
    Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs Invasion

    "Lawrence of Arabia", British Beatlemania
    Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson

    Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British politician sex
    JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say

    Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon, back again, Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate

    Were you born yet? If not,

    punk rock ,Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline

    Ayatollolah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan
    "Wheel of Fortune" , Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
    Foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz, Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law, Rock and Roller Cola Wars,

    The chorus in between:

    We didn't start the fire
    It was always burning
    Since the world's been turning
    We didn't start the fire
    No we didn't light it
    But we tried to fight it

    Some of us just can't forget (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:55:01 AM EST
    that while we were working hard through nonviolent means to end the war and save thousands of lives of our fathers, brothers, cousins, classmates, friends -- that the extremist radicals like Dohrn and Ayers were undermining the antiwar efforts of all of us, and they thus did their part to prolong the war.

    They have blood on their hands to this day, and not just from their bombs that killed dozens.  They and their penchant for self-aggrandizement and media glory, as still is evident in Hayden's nonsense here, contributed to the prolonging of the war that took many thousands more lives.

    Perhaps you will understand one day when you are told to just erase from your memory this current war.  Can you do so?  If so, well, how convenient that will be for you.  But for me, the memory of those who died from the bombs of the extremists in the war at home never will leave me, nor will the memory of all the men I knew, among 10 percent of my generation, who died in Viet Nam -- or still live with its scars . . . while the Ayerses and Dohrns are unrepentant, while they and the Haydens    continue to try to seek media glory.  

    And that they now do so in the aura of Obama tells me they have matured not at all, and that he is friends with them tells me even more about him.


    I thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:00:54 AM EST
    I disagree with their violent tactics, but I thought the Weather Underground only bombed empty buildings.  So I do think it's somewhat unfair to describe Ayers and Dohrn this way.

    here's the NY Times on them: (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:11:20 AM EST
    He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.

    In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

    ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

    Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.

    Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.



    Bernadette Dorhn does good stuff today (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:14:35 AM EST
    From Northwestern:

    Bernardine Dohrn, Clinical Associate Professor of Law and Director and founder of the Children and Family Justice Center, is a child advocate who teaches, lectures and writes about children's law, juvenile justice, the needs and rights of youth, and international human rights. The Center is a holistic children's law center and a national policy center for the comprehensive needs of adolescents and their families, providing critical analysis and knowledge about youth law and practice, matters associated with the administration of justice, and the preparation of professionals who advocate for children. The CFJC is a clinical center of the Bluhm Legal Clinic, preparing law and social work students by representing adolescents in three strategic areas of children's law: juvenile and criminal justice; school discipline and education law; and immigration and asylum law involving children and women.


        * BA with honors, University of Chicago
        * MA, University of Chicago
        * JD, University of Chicago

    And here is the transcipt of (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:34:18 AM EST
    correct link here (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:50 AM EST
    Let me tell you... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:03:17 AM EST
    ...that virtually all of the Cheney gang was trained by Nixon and his gang.

    The Cheney Administration is a direct product and backlash against the 60s and Watergate.

    If my generation (sorry sorry sorry) had done a more thorough job of rooting out these evils once and for all we might not be in the mess we are today.

    I knew way back when we'd made a huge mistake when we didn't prosecute Kissinger for war crimes.  Little did I know.

    Learn the past and pass it on otherwise your grandkids will have to deal with Bushbot 3000 in 2030.


    yet another reason I oppose Obama (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:08:28 AM EST
    Obama is the only Democrat to state Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses! According to Obama, we've got our panties in a wad for nothing, because BushCo hasn't been that bad and has done nothing worthy of impeachment.

    If there were any doubt that Obama was an insider and would "go along to get along" - they were erased when he made that declaration last summer.


    that's funny (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:43:28 AM EST
    and understood. Here's a Billy Joel video to get you up to speed on what you missed from the 50's on.

    I feel sorry for you (none / 0) (#117)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:21:39 AM EST
    that you have to ask that question.  I think you should find the answer that will convince you of its relevance.  To me, it is like asking if the Constitution, the product of the Spirit of '1776 is relevant to our times; or whether the lives and ideas of those men and women before us have any meaning to our lives today. I hope that further studies of history will provide you with a positive answer to your question.

    But I thought Hillary (none / 0) (#87)
    by candymarl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:28:04 AM EST
    was too conservative? Not a true progressive or Democrat. Now she's too liberal? Think this is aimed more at KY than OR.  They're hoping the more conservative Democrats there won't vote for her.  There's only one problem with that strategy. The more conservative Dems won't vote for Obama either.  They'll vote McCain.

    My analysis (none / 0) (#99)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:22 AM EST
    It seems to me that if Hillary loses the nomination, it will be because Obama came in early to her left, swooped the lefty votes (Edwards/Kucinich), and then is now moving to the center to get the needed balance of votes.

    If Hillary had claimed the left first, which she failed to do, probably due to Mark Penn's advice and perhaps her own memories of the Clinton coalition, which served them well in the 90s but is not descriptive of the political landscape today, then things would likely be different.

    As a former Edwards/Kucinich man myself, I look at Hillary and see another Dianne Feinstein in the making -- undoubtedly a million times better than a Republican, but not in tune with my ideas.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:06:27 AM EST
    It's because even though she offered a more leftist set of proposals, especially on health care, Obama found a natural alliance with people who felt it was "their turn" regardless of the agenda advocated.

    What will be funny is watching that alliance disintegrate when Clinton is no longer in the mix.

    Yes. Obama is PERCEIVED to be on the right side of the "war for the soul of the democratic party" snake oil.


    The Clintons... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:54:54 AM EST
    ...have always been kind of uncomfortable with appealing to lefties.  The social and political landscape has changed so much with Bush I don't think they (or their supporters) were certain how to navigate.

    I totally agree (none / 0) (#108)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:00:25 AM EST
    The Bill Clinton elections were won primarily at the center, sacrificing old lefty ideals.

    But this was the 90s when we were all at the trough. :-)

    I suspect this election will be won on the left, or at least on the dissatisfaction of the electorate, sort of like FDR's campaign against Hoover.

    Hillary campaigned as if it were the 90s, and I suspect it will cost her the presidency.


    In my mind she made two massive mistakes... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:41 AM EST
    ...and the first was assuming we would nominate someone perceived as a centrist.  Which explains the Iraq meltdown.   Opposing the Iraq war is so self-evident at this stage that if you supported it in 2002 you need to apologize and move on.  Russert was awful and sexist about it, but the fact is that it could have saved her candidacy very early on.  Of course it is no guarantee, since Senator Edwards attempts didn't take off.  

     Second, her campaign was totally unprepared for what the Democratic base had been doing since 2004, after having Bush part deux shoved in their faces.  I attended a half-dozen activist meetings after the November '04 elections in MI, organized in large part by DU and MoveOn, before moving out to California in mid-05.  They were planning on invigorating the party by, in essence, taking it over.  And they were pissed about the Iraq vote, far more than even I would have anticipated.  I remember trying to explain why I thought judges were more important in the short-term and being shot down.  At that point we were so demoralized we were discussing potential forums to counteract evangelical churches (I lamely suggested Starbucks and other coffee houses).  Those voters, many of them Deaniacs, were undoubtedly preparing for an insurgency that would guarantee a candidate at the very least perceived as one of them.  That candidate would almost certainly not be a top-down strategist, and they were effective in using new media to get that message across.  

     That alone would not have been enough, but her campaign decided to insult and dismiss their efforts by downplaying the massive string of victories following Super Tuesday.  That was the death rattle, because at this point the landscape had changed so much that successful Democrats in those "irrelevant" states were unwilling to coronate a northeasterner on brand Clinton.

     There were other mistakes as well: she wasn't prepared for handling an African-American candidate, did not anticipate a hostile media, etc.  But Iraq and the thirst for change killed any chance of erecting a new political dynasty.  


    Obama never had a 50-state strategy (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:49:06 AM EST
    it was more like a 50-City strategy with a scheme focusing on undemocratic caucuses and Red states with higher number of delegates. Red states that will still be Red in Nov.

    Obama first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20 before TX, OH, PA, IN, WV, KY and the media played along with headlines screaming Hillary has no chance.

    Hillary goes where Obama cannot go and in the general Obama will expect Hillary to pull him through those states that really matter!


    It's a fair cop (none / 0) (#132)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:00 AM EST
    As both a former Deaniac and a former California (Valley!) resident, I recognize a lot of truth in what you wrote.

    Suggesting Starbucks wasn't lame! :-) We had many good meetings at Starbucks.


    Thanks... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:57:34 AM EST
    ...in retrospect I wish I had been a Deaniac.  I attended a couple of meetings before deciding to back Clark.  

     And starbucks was kinda lame.  Desperation and all...although I am proud of how my (dare I say it?) comrades conducted themselves in the 2006 and 2008 elections.  


    Running scare: now they attack in pairs (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:43:42 AM EST
    Alec82 and Lupin feed each other on the same talking points to get Clintions' voters to accept Obama as the inevitable nominee and Prez.

    Kind of funny to watch though.  eh,eh, eh ....


    You are clearly wrong (none / 0) (#261)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    Ultimately, I don't give a damn who the Democratic nominee is, as long as he is a democrat.

    If you read what I wrote instead of engaging in silly personal attacks, you'd have seen that my number one choice was Edwards (personality-wise) or Kucinich (platform-wise).

    Obama and Clinton were far far behind #3 and #4.  

    Also do a Diary search on DKos and you'll find that last February, a long time before the current mess started, I called Obama a Werner Ehrard-type. Hardly an endorsement.

    What this site need is to embrace reality or you'll become another redstate.org


    You noticed! (none / 0) (#267)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    Clark (none / 0) (#138)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:00:58 AM EST
    I think Clark would make an excellent VP.

    and they sure don't care what Tom Hayden says (none / 0) (#160)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:55:40 AM EST
    Also, there's a HUGE difference between associating Hillary with radicalism in her DISTANT past and associating Obama with radicalism in his past-that-ended-right-before-he-declared-his-candidacy.

    Another HUGE difference beyond the time frame is this: Americans know Hillary Clinton. She was First Lady for 8 years. Whatever her past associations, they know she's no radical leftist today. And when you've got Tom Hayden campaigning against you, the people of Kentucky who care to listen at all to what Tom Hayden says are going to be looking harder instead at the guy Tom Hayden is supporting.

    In Obama's case, those radical-association smears harm him more, not only because they're more immediate but because the American public has, for  the most part, only gotten to know him in the past few months. There's no counterbalancing experience with him to temper any fears that he, too, may be a "wild-eyed radical."

    This is a dumb move on Hayden's part. I bet Obama's campaign isn't happy about it because it actually has the potential to backfire big-time on Obama. It opens the book on Ayers again as comparisons are drawn.  



    I read that some conservative group (none / 0) (#121)
    by Bees on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:28:58 AM EST
    is holding a news conference this week to talk about Obama's "shocking" ties to radicals that they have apparently uncovered. I didn't think much of it because they are right-wingers, but then I saw this story and wondered whether the two things are related.


    I think a big segment of the American people (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:46:12 AM EST
    are beginning to feel and think that the Obama hype of the MSM media has become "too good to be true" and there is great incentive to dig deeper into his background.  

    "It ain't over until the lady in the pantsuit says it is."


    Would Tom Hayden attack a future (none / 0) (#134)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:52:59 AM EST
    President Hillary Clinton? Or a Hillary Clinton on the cusp of the dem nomination? Not likely. For one thing, he would not want to damage her prospects in November. For another thing, he would be afraid of her future political power.  What is perceived as these grand Machiavellian machinations by the Obama camp may simply be nothing more than independent actors kicking Hillary when she's down and defenseless. They do not believe she can retaliate in any meaningful way, certainly not from the white house.

    I know it's human nature to see a silver lining in every cloud but there is an awful lot of reaching here. Man, you guys should be commended for grasping at every last straw but there is a point at which it becomes a little weird. I think we all know that Hillary is not going to win this nomination. She's put up a valiant struggle, but it's over. Just look at the SD trendline. Obama has literally chased her down and surpassed her from over 100 down. That is absolutely stunning. Even more so than his 11 victories in a row. She needs something like 90% of all remaining delegates (super and pledged) to even catch up. So the question becomes, what is the best way forward?

    It's ok if Hillary does not get the nomination. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:35 AM EST
    I won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

    Rather than gloating (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:11 AM EST
    maybe you people on the Obama side might spend a little time thinking about the fact that, say, Obama is no longer winning 11 states in the row, but instead has become so beleaguered of late that he's struggling to find places he can win (I wonder how well he'll really do in MT and SD, though I'll grant him OR, which is pretty much a VT West), and is, at best, only going to be able to limp over the finish line. Or the fact that every last vulnerability of his that is now being exposed will dog him for the remainder of his natural life as a politician. Or the fact that there's a significant percentage of the Democratic Party -- far more than in any other Presidential election in recent memory -- who seem to be entirely unwilling to support him. Or the fact that no one even in the fawning media can seem to bring up his supposed message of "hope" and "unity" any more with any seriousness because they know how absurd those messages sound in the face of what has taken place over the last couple of months.

    Yeah, he may win the nomination all right. But he will be some seriously and permanently damaged goods when he does.


    Exactly. He peaked in WI. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:51:00 AM EST
    That was a mighty long time ago.  Not good for a presumptive nominee.

    And the further point (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    is that if the American public knew about Obama back then what they know about him now, there's simply no question that he would not be the nominee.

    Assuming he succeeds, it will only be because he and his fawning media have managed to keep the Rev Wright and Bill Ayers stories from getting any exposure until he had a substantial lead.


    A little too early to tell (none / 0) (#137)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:59:50 AM EST
    While it's human to make predictions and look at polls and manipulate the data, I think there's way too much of this here.

    There is a good site, Demconwatch, which gives you the facts, just the facts, and possible case scenarios.

    I wish more posters would look at it before indulging in their own interpretations.

    Right now, while the probabilities certainly favor Obama, the process is not over yet. We don't know for a fact what will happen.


    Agree with you on that (none / 0) (#142)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:07:50 AM EST
    I'm not sure of the timing of this...it really doesn't help Obama as he already has the nomination sewn up.  Maybe that is why Hayden waited, because these "revelations" are moot at this point.
    I, too, wonder how we as a party are going to move forward.  When Obama has the nomination, will websites like these continue to tear him down, or will they set their sights on McCain?  I hope it is the latter, not the former, as we need to get our party into the White House.  

    Occam's razor (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:10:37 AM EST
    I think the likeliest explanation in that Hayden is an idiot with a loud mouth. SATSQ.

    Not unless (none / 0) (#175)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:18:24 AM EST
    that party is principled, democratic, and adhering to Democratic Party goals.

    What we learn from this (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:14:09 AM EST
    Is Obama supporters can't help themselves but kick Clinton while she's down.

    Can you help yourself?


    I think (none / 0) (#211)
    by mm on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    this is just Tom Hayden's way of saying thank you to Hillary for all that work she did.  

    I mean, presumably he approved, yes?


    actually (none / 0) (#240)
    by cdalygo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    Of course he would attack her. Tom Hayden has no loyalty to the Party or frankly anyone else who doesn't fit his fantasy world.

    (These people actually think they are Che Guerva no matter their opulent lifestyles.)

    Thankfully his lack of political judgment continues.


    To Finish UP (none / 0) (#243)
    by cdalygo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:43 AM EST
    I mention to add one more thing.

    Lack of political judgment is his failure to understand that other people are listening and find him ridiculous.

    If Hillary were truly evil she would run ads about how Tom Hayden denounced her. That would be worth a some votes. (But she won't do it.)

    Trust me, however, when I tell you that McCain will NOT hesitate to make Ayers/Dohrn an issue. Those of on the left side of spectrum won't like it. But there is a difference between civil disobedience and  planting bombs (especially when you personally served no time for it. The former is hard enough (but not impossible) to defend against a tortured US soldier. The latter is indefensible in the political arena (though my money would be on Jeralyn armed with the rules of evidence. :>)


    Wait... (none / 0) (#162)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:18:42 AM EST
    I thought Hillary was a racist.  This is clearly a lie.

    ", racist problems."

    Right, this stuff is irrelevent (none / 0) (#172)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:11:27 AM EST
    so now can we stop talking about Michelle Obama's college thesis?

    ABC tones down/meet Noblama (none / 0) (#174)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:15:00 AM EST
    Google linked me to ABC this am, a report on an Obama interview.  I noticed two things:

    1.ABC said  ...'the Oregon and Kentucky primaries, after which he believes he'll have the outright majority of pledged delegates to perhaps clinch the party's nomination.'

    Notice the 'perhaps.'  I do not think I have seen that in there before....

    2."For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class and I think they -- most of the American people would think that as well," he said. "I would never think of going after somebody's spouse in a campaign."

    Bill's a vegetable or something, not a spouse?  Oh, forgot, that junk came from his supporters, not him.  No blame for Obama!  (Noblama?)

    Also read in TM message boards (none / 0) (#180)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:50 AM EST
    the following:
    When asked if that means he will declare victory on Tuesday, Obama said “it doesn’t mean we declare victory because I won’t be the nominee until we have enough, a combination of both pledged delegates and superdelegates to hit the mark.”
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/18/obama-holds-huge-rally-in-or egon/?mod=WSJBlog
    willie brennan | Homepage | 05.19.2008 - 07:57 am | #

    Till now he was all about declaring victory, now he is being more cautious.


    Driving in this morning, C-SPAN's (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anne on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:38 AM EST
    Washington Journal read from the article, and I immediately thought, "how is interning 35 years ago in a law firm  whose clients may have been controversial compare to having a relatively current personal relationship with someone who admitted to participating in bombings and has no regrets about it?  Do these people know the difference between being in intern and sitting on a board with someone?  Do they understand the difference between being a glorified go-fer and having someone host a fundraiser?

    Is anyone else getting really tired of being treated like we are so stupid we would think there is any comparison to be made?

    Ridiculous.  I guess it's about trying to blunt the effect of the Ayers connection, but while there might be some itty-bitty gain for Obama against Clinton as a result of this information, how does it possibly help him if he is the nominee?  

    Let's picture a general election contest and ask ourselves, which opponent is John McCain most likely to go after on the issue of ties to domestic terrorists - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?  Gosh, that's a real tough one, isn't it?

    I can't believe people are being paid to write these stories.

    reason for slam against Hillary on radical ties (none / 0) (#185)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:44:40 AM EST
    Is because on May 22 at a news conference in Washinton highlighting Obama's radical ties and the media basically not telling the story.


    I guess it could be this (none / 0) (#196)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM EST
    but I wouldn't exactly trust a right wing organization to be accurate in describing the "explosiveness" of their charges.

    It may well be just be a rehash of what's already known, with a few minor embellishments.

    We'll see.


    Obama's (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    campaign sounds worried. If the last polls out of KY are right, Obama is going to get even less of the white vote than he did in WV. Oregon seems to be pulling closer.

    I agree with Jeralyn. If this is over then why are they worried about something that happened 35 years ago.

    There certainly might be new videos that are about to surface.

    I was correct--Latest (none / 0) (#241)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    in NYT said Obama is holding off declaring vistory (out of respect for Clinton's supporters--NOT).  Speculation is he is going to 'tiptoe' up to the winning count--feeling sure he has it wrapped up, just not pulling a Dubya.

    Chicken!!! (none / 0) (#244)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    Breaking News (none / 0) (#192)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:29 AM EST
    News Conference May 22 in Washington with Cliff Kinchaid at the helm talking about Obama's radical ties. If it happens then look for Hannity Fox news to cover it. We will see what happens with this story.

    So things are so bad (none / 0) (#207)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    now that Hannity is recommended viewing?

    The WashPo is going the (none / 0) (#201)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    way of MSNBC.  I am completely disillusioned with the media and with Obama's campaign.  As for Tom Hayden, if he is for Obama that is reason enough to vote for Hillary.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#221)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:41:55 AM EST
    actually went the way of the WAPo. That rag has been on the "Clintons are evil hicks" for years. They have been obsequious toadies for the GOP for years and Sally Quinn is a human horror show.Pfft.(at them, not you)

    tom hayden (none / 0) (#222)
    by LizDexic on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:42:26 AM EST
    Good post by Lupin.

    Tom Hayden had way more connections to the Black Panthers than Hillary. What a hypocrite.

    And, as I recall. FRED HAMPTON was murdered by the FBI.

    So his people really had no need of legal protection did they?

    Obama has very real ties to Farrakhan/NOI (none / 0) (#245)
    by Exeter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    As well as a friendship with Ayers and Dohrn that is much closer than he has intimated. I suspect this is an attempt to muddy the waters of upcoming info being rolled out soon, with their intellectually dishonest "six degrees of separation" argument.

    So, first she was a race baiter (none / 0) (#248)
    by kayla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    and now she's a black nationalist supporter?  Good stuff.

    Hillary Was An Intern At A Law Firm That (none / 0) (#254)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    defended black nationalists. Obama's friend and  associate was a slum lord. Obama has said that he still considers Rezko his friend even now that it is a well known fact that Rezko's tenants went without heat and other necessities.

    Something is wrong with this picture.


    So in other words (none / 0) (#252)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    if you've ever worked at a legal firm defending alleged criminals if they happen not to be "the right kind" of criminals, you can't run for president.

    Whoops, that rules out a lot of folks.

    Tom Hayden first wrote about this in late April (none / 0) (#268)
    by jawbone on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    in The Nation, the seeming attack magazine of choice for leftists.

    The article was titled, amazingly, "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream"!! It's opening is equally gobsmacking:

    My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

    For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.

    Old 70's Sexism comes out in the Oughts of the 21st Century.

    just as silly a conection as (none / 0) (#269)
    by thentro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    bill ayres.

    Hayden has always been a nasty little creep. (none / 0) (#270)
    by Susie from Philly on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    I doubt his opinions influence anyone who isn't already in Obama's camp.

    And about Tom Hayden (none / 0) (#272)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    Tom Hayden was one of the "leaders' who helped insure the election of Richard Nixon,
    lengthening the war and spreading it into Cambodia.

    The whole truth is more complex. (none / 0) (#273)
    by halstoon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    These people Hillary worked for were Communists, not just the clients. When you apply for a job at a firm run by Communists, you're doing more than upholding Constitutional principles. You're saying that you want to work with--and learn from--Communists.