A Tale of Clintonian Spin: Trying to Blow Past the Weathermen Question
| Mon Apr. 21, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
All campaigns spin. All candidates spin. But there is something about Clintonian spin that is...well, spinnier than conventional spin.
Here's an example. Last Thursday, following the mis-moderated Clinton-Obama debate of the previous evening, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided to follow up by blasting Barack Obama on two issues that had been tossed at him the previous evening: his past support of a handgun ban and his connection to William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has become a distinguished professor and education expert. During a conference call that morning, Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, two senior Clinton aides, hammered Obama for having held a fundraiser in 1995, during his first campaign for state senator, in Ayers' apartment. At the time, Ayers, who has admitted taking part in bombings during the 1970s (which never caused any loss of life) and who was never arrested for any of his radical actions, lived near Obama, and the two served on the board of a nonprofit that provided grants to groups working on poverty issues. Obama, Wolfson insisted, had "to be more forthcoming" about Ayers.
During that conference call, I asked Wolfson whether Senator Clinton supported the pardon Bill Clinton issued in 2001 to two Weather Underground radicals: Linda Evans, who was sentenced to prison for participating in a series of bombings in the 1980s, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with being part of a bank robbery that left a guard and two police officers dead. Whether or not the Ayers matter was a non-issue, if Hillary Clinton's aides were going to bash Obama for having once had a connection to a former radical who had never been arrested, it seemed fair to wonder if she had opposed her husband's pardons of two radicals who had served time for their crimes.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Wolfson did not answer the question. Instead, he noted that the pardoned Weather Underground radicals had never held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. I pointed out that was not the issue--and again asked if Senator Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons. "I don't know what she said," Wolfson replied. And in front of the dozens of reporters on the call, Wolfson promised he would get back to me.
Once the call was done, I emailed Wolfson a reminder that he had promised he would provide an answer to that question. Within minutes, he responded, "It was a fair question and I know this issue does inspire a fair amount of passion." There was no answer in this email.
I waited patiently for a day and then shot Wolfson another note: "Any answer to my question from yesterday?" He replied, "turns out i actually answered this in '01." And he sent me an excerpt from a news story at the time of the pardons:
"She thinks that it was a pardon made by the president," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. Wolfson provided the same response to questions about her view of the pardon of former Weather Underground radical Susan Rosenberg, serving a 58-year weapons-possession sentence and long suspected by law-enforcement officials of involvement in the 1981 Brink's truck robbery in which two New York police officers were killed. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has criticized that pardon.
Consider Wolfson's reply: She thinks it was a pardon made by the president. It's close to a non sequitur. Imagine if you asked Hillary Clinton what she thought of her husband's affair with an intern, and her spokesperson said, "She thinks that it was an affair."
Did Wolfson believe he could get away with pretending this was actually responsive to the question of whether Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons? Meanwhile, other reporters--and Obama aides--were asking me if Wolfson had yet provided an answer.
In an email to Wolfson, I noted that the quote he had sent did not answer the question. "The question is," I wrote, "does she believe the pardons were appropriate? And at the time, did she support or oppose them?" In return, there was silence. I waited a bit and sent another email: "Am I going to get a reply to my last note?" Nothing came.
On Monday morning, during a Clinton campaign conference call, I asked Wolfson once more if Clinton supported or opposed the pardons. He remarked that he had sent me that clip. I pointed out that it had said nothing. He then commented, "I'm not aware she had an opinion" at the time the pardons were granted. He next insisted that my question had only applied to that time frame. It certainly had not. In the first call, I had asked "whether she thought [the pardons] were appropriate" and "what she thinks of" the pardons. (Note the verb tenses.) I also had asked whether she would "do anything like that herself." But now I said I would amend the question to cover then, now, and any time in between. He replied, "I don't have any more for you than what I've given you." That is, more nothing.
Clinton's pardons for these two radicals--like Ayers' relation to Obama--is no big issue. But Wolfson had promised an answer. Instead, he sidestepped and then ducked. Wolfson makes about $450,000 a year working for the Clinton campaign. I suppose evading questions is part of the job. But absurd spin? She thinks the pardon is a pardon. Mischaracterizing questions to avoid answering them? If this is how Wolfson handles this not-so-tough question, what would he do as White House press secretary?
Clarification: Clinton did not issue pardons to Rosenberg and Evans; he commuted their prison sentences. Media accounts often conflate the two different actions. These two commutations were announced by the White House on January 20, 2001, as part of a long list of almost 140 pardons and commutations, which included the infamous pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich--which was a pardon.
Comments
Tim McGuire -
I'm not necessarily a defender of William Ayers, but I am so tired of people on these blogs taking liberties with quotes ... not just Ayers' quotes, but everybody's quotes, in order to make their point ... so SINCE YOU ASKED, here is the answer about what William Ayers has actually said about regrets (and when he said it).
And I think you owe David Corn that apology you promised.
You, as many people, are misquoting William Ayers. TV broadcasters have taken his words out of context ... as well as the fact that his comments were in response to 9/11.
As it turns out the interview that appeared on 9/11 (about his book Fugitive Days) was obviously written PRIOR to 9/11 as it actually appeared on September 11 in the NY Times.
And secondly, here's what he has to say about his famous inaccurate quote (you can find this on his blog http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fa...)
I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets." This is not true. For anyone paying attention?and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways?life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say "no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government." Sometimes I add, "I don't think I did enough." This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.
I guess this more or less reveals the total denial of life itself that pervades the world's most imprisoned people. As though "the weathermen" or the "black panthers" or the "john Birch society" or the "KKK" and all the multitude of organizations that make their place in the American Society are not in truth part of what the constitution has made room for. It is true that there are aspects of many organizations that if acted upon by members of these organizations that are illegal but if not acted upon do not present themselves as a constitutional nor a legal difficulty. When a "radical" breaks the law and serves his or hers time then they have paid the price?what is unconstitutional and illegal is to persist in denying these individuals the rights afforded them according to the constitution once they have served their criminal sentence. A former member of the weatherman is no longer a member, is not a "criminal" nor even a "radical", but rather was a criminal, was a radical, was a terrorist but today is an educator. Thus if individuals that lie on the periphery or the organizations they represent that lie on periphery of society in fact find that they like some particular candidate and thus openly claim that they are going to back that candidate?should this be viewed as the candidate having become inducted into the organization or does it suggest that the candidate poses an alteration in the organization's standpoints? The media apparently is interested not in checking out the story in any form of depth but is interested only in the chance to commit slander (because of its sensationalism)?thus it is the press that is guilty of a crime when they fail to properly express the details and more importantly the facts. When Hilary Clinton makes her accusations it merely says that, "She is a dogmatist of the old McCarthy era?just as John McCain is." Of course anyone who has read Obama's geopolitical views could with reasonable force argue that he is merely another form of American Neoconservatism, meaning the right has nothing to fear from the left because when it comes to Geopolitics they are both equally ignorant.
We might do well to recall the radical Eldridge Cleaver. Did the Republican Party denounce Eldridge Cleaver when he joined the Republican Party? Were those who associated with him labeled "terrorist suspects" and did they face banishment within the party for "guilt by association"? I think not?because the sensationalism of it was great PR. That people adopt a given view at some point in their lives, to then deny that individual the power to change their stance (something that is obviously becoming so rigid in the US that if at the age of 16 you thought that Barry Goldwater was great but at the age of 25 you thought the man was deranged?should this be the criteria upon which you are judged? As a flip flopper? I mean it is almost like an episode from the Simpsons?where Bart after his first day at Kindergarten is declared as not being College material) strikes me as not only ignorant but a total denial of life. In the course of a life an individual can arrive at many vantage points only to discover that these vantage points do not hold and thus they abandon them and seek anew.
Life does not afford such a rigid world view. Life is dynamic and in truth, in the highest form of reality that is, what separates the wave of time, in the sense of our presence and the movement of each and every moment is the fact that each moment is totally NEW. This aspect of the world means that if we were all a bunch of turkeys and decided that just because we were fed at the exact same time each day that this is how it would always be?namely meal times at 7:00 12:00 and 7:00 for all eternity because as Christmas time approaches our life of leisure will suddenly be interrupted as we are grabbed from our cages, our throats cut and we find ourselves on the sliver platter for Christmas dinner. "Gobble, Gobble".
Tim McGuire -
I'm not necessarily a defender of William Ayers, but I am so tired of people on these blogs taking liberties with quotes ... not just Ayers' quotes, but everybody's quotes, in order to make their point ... so SINCE YOU ASKED, here is the answer about what William Ayers has actually said about regrets (and when he said it).
And I think you owe David Corn that apology you promised.
You, as many people, are misquoting William Ayers. TV broadcasters have taken his words out of context ... as well as the fact that his comments were in response to 9/11.
As it turns out the interview that appeared on 9/11 (about his book Fugitive Days) was obviously written PRIOR to 9/11 as it actually appeared on September 11 in the NY Times.
And secondly, here's what he has to say about his famous inaccurate quote (you can find this on his blog http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fa...)
I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets." This is not true. For anyone paying attention?and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways?life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say "no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government." Sometimes I add, "I don't think I did enough." This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.
I guess this more or less reveals the total denial of life itself that pervades the world's most imprisoned people. As though "the weathermen" or the "black panthers" or the "john Birch society" or the "KKK" and all the multitude of organizations that make their place in the American Society are not in truth part of what the constitution has made room for. It is true that there are aspects of many organizations that if acted upon by members of these organizations that are illegal but if not acted upon do not present themselves as a constitutional nor a legal difficulty. When a "radical" breaks the law and serves his or hers time then they have paid the price?what is unconstitutional and illegal is to persist in denying these individuals the rights afforded them according to the constitution once they have served their criminal sentence. A former member of the weatherman is no longer a member, is not a "criminal" nor even a "radical", but rather was a criminal, was a radical, was a terrorist but today is an educator. Thus if individuals that lie on the periphery or the organizations they represent that lie on periphery of society in fact find that they like some particular candidate and thus openly claim that they are going to back that candidate?should this be viewed as the candidate having become inducted into the organization or does it suggest that the candidate poses an alteration in the organization's standpoints? The media apparently is interested not in checking out the story in any form of depth but is interested only in the chance to commit slander (because of its sensationalism)?thus it is the press that is guilty of a crime when they fail to properly express the details and more importantly the facts. When Hilary Clinton makes her accusations it merely says that, "She is a dogmatist of the old McCarthy era?just as John McCain is." Of course anyone who has read Obama's geopolitical views could with reasonable force argue that he is merely another form of American Neoconservatism, meaning the right has nothing to fear from the left because when it comes to Geopolitics they are both equally ignorant.
We might do well to recall the radical Eldridge Cleaver. Did the Republican Party denounce Eldridge Cleaver when he joined the Republican Party? Were those who associated with him labeled "terrorist suspects" and did they face banishment within the party for "guilt by association"? I think not?because the sensationalism of it was great PR. That people adopt a given view at some point in their lives, to then deny that individual the power to change their stance (something that is obviously becoming so rigid in the US that if at the age of 16 you thought that Barry Goldwater was great but at the age of 25 you thought the man was deranged?should this be the criteria upon which you are judged? As a flip flopper? I mean it is almost like an episode from the Simpsons?where Bart after his first day at Kindergarten is declared as not being College material) strikes me as not only ignorant but a total denial of life. In the course of a life an individual can arrive at many vantage points only to discover that these vantage points do not hold and thus they abandon them and seek anew.
Life does not afford such a rigid world view. Life is dynamic and in truth, in the highest form of reality that is, what separates the wave of time, in the sense of our presence and the movement of each and every moment is the fact that each moment is totally NEW. This aspect of the world means that if we were all a bunch of turkeys and decided that just because we were fed at the exact same time each day that this is how it would always be?namely meal times at 7:00 12:00 and 7:00 for all eternity because as Christmas time approaches our life of leisure will suddenly be interrupted as we are grabbed from our cages, our throats cut and we find ourselves on the sliver platter for Christmas dinner. "Gobble, Gobble".
Submitted by Dean (not verified) on Mon Apr. 21, 2008 10:27 AM PDT.
You know, I read up to the "mismoderated" part of your article, and just had to post:
If a candidate can't answer questions, ANY questions, given to him/her, without complaining about it, what the hell kind of president will this person make?
A propos, Steve, do you think David Corn cares if he gets any answers to his questions from Obama's flacks?
Enjoy your revolution... In 2031, when Ex-Prez and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama is laying a wreath at Ahmedinajad's grave, some of us will remember why (insert US city here) is a smoking radioactive hole in the ground.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Mon Apr. 21, 2008 10:47 AM PDT.
DC,
Good piece, and thanks for the follow up. It is a fair question that needs an answer.
Maybe if we are lucky it won't matter after PA.
(fingers crossed)
"following the mis-moderated Clinton-Obama debate"...ROFLMAO!
Smart, Fearless Journalism?!?!?
Stephie Boy and "soft ball" Gibson finally have the nerve to ask Hussein Obama a question of substance and its, "mis-moderated"?!?!
You people are just to funny!
There's honest spin and dishonest spin. Honest spin is putting the facts in the best possible light. Dishonest spin is lying about the facts. In this campaign, the Obama team has almost always stayed on the "honest spin" side of the line, while the Clinton team traipses back and forth across the line as if they are unaware it exists, which indeed they may not be. This is one of the reasons so many people are for Obama.
"mis-moderated". What a joke.
A long time ago, I learned that when planning a military operation, I had to keep in mind that the enemy would get to vote on my plan.
Obama seems not to have learned any lesson like that. Or worse, it may even be that he's decided he deserves the coronation Hillary thought was her due.
If Obama can't handle Stephanopoulos and Gibson, do you really think he can take on, say, Putin? What's he going to do if the Iranians nuke, say, Indianapolis? Whine? Make a strong statement?
Obama's got a political glass jaw. Not a good thing in someone so completely untested.
"Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same." This quote taken from an article by Alex Koppelman. Last time I heard about this the it had increased from 25% to over 30%. I could not find that poll however. Guess we know who the real Democrats are. I hope that these whiney traitors come to their senses. Kinda like the kid who gets bonked on the head and decides to get even by taking the ball away and crying to his Mommy.
Patrick
He did handle the questions from the neo con ABC squad. Unlike Clinton who tried three times to say she lied about the sniper story without using the word lie.
"On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book."
And:
"But I have talked about this and written about it. And then, unfortunately, on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past."
And:
"And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth."
Dear unidiotic,
"neo con ABC squad"? My God! Sorry to ask it, but what planet are you living on? IIRC, Stephanopolous did work for the Clintons, right? When did he become a neocon? When he started asking pointed questions of Obama?
And if, as you say, Obama handled the questions, why did he look like such a loser? Why did he stammer and stutter? Why was Hillary judged the winner of the debate? And lastly, why did he immediately start whining?
Patrick
--
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Mon Apr. 21, 2008 12:19 PM PDT.
I have always believed it is not the people voting (for any candidate) that are the problem, the problem is the people that don't vote.
I have never expected to be in the majority on many things but if more people vote I can accept the results as more representative of the will of the electorate.
If only half the people who are eligible to vote split 50/50 at the polls - our direction is being set by only 25%? That isn't a good thing.
So, I say vote for whomsoever you feel is best, get someone that never votes to the polls. The more the merrier!
The elections are harder to fix if the margins they can effect are a smaller percentage of the whole.
David, Ayers is widely quoted as saying he has no regrets about his bombing past except that he wished he did more of it. If that is accurate, than Obama's assocation with him is of huge importance and your dismissal of the controversy is at best disingenuous (I'm being generous to you by suggesting you're a liar; the alternative is far worse).
I had to laugh when you tried to brush off the bombings by pointing out that no one got killed--as though that mattered in any way--and that today he is an educator. The bomber is now an educator! Isn't that special?
Please tell me that position I attributed to Ayers at the beginning of this comment is incorrect. I'll be happy to apologize. But if it is accurate than the admiration I've had for you as one of the most intelligent and rational liberals in journalism since your New York Press days has been misplaced.
All the questions he asked of both candidates were for McCain's Benefit. No substance, no issues, just made up stories that make them both look bad. Obama tried to explain his comments. Hillary just found screwy ways to say she outright lied. Please read my post about the 30% of Hillary supportes who are chomping at the bit to screw the democratic party and you mihgt start to understand my frustration with Hillary and her supporters. All ego and no true concern for the political reality that we face.
Ayers was never arrested because he turned himself in. He was never tried because the evidence against him was tainted. That does not make him an innocent man, just a lucky one with blood on his hands. He admits to having used bombs in order to advance a political agenda and, indeed has never regretted having done so, only not having used more of them.
His wife went to jail for refusing to do her duty as a citizen and give testimony against people who were subsequently convicted of murdering three people in the course of an armed robbery.
What was Barak Obama doing associating with people who have such utter contempt for democracy and such utter contempt for the lives of innocent people?
That is a question that Barak Obama has to answer. As far as I can see his prevarications so far have amounted to nothing more than "There are no enemies--and no crimes--on the left, so what's the big deal? How dare you even raise the subject?"
I doubt that the voters will buy that.
Your 2031 scenario is not very plausible Todd. It puts me in mind of the statement, "The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" that Condi Rice used to justify the Iraq war.
Stephie Boy and "soft ball" Gibson finally had the nerve to ask Hussein Obama a question of substance? What exactly, Juandos, was that question of substance? Was it the question about the wearing of flag lapel pins? Or was it Reverend Wright again, or Hussein Obama's comments about guns and religion? Are these the questions of substance concerning American voters in 2008?
Remember the weapon of mass distraction in the last election - gay marriage? Are the voters who considered that so important happy now with the war, the debt, and the economy?
If none of those "issues" rock you, maybe Faux News will fabricate and even more juicy issue of "substance" and you'll prefer that breaking news story.
In the Karl Rove playbook, nobody did it better than the "Swift Boat Commandoes for Justice" who attacked John Kerry's war record. Never mind not one of them actually served on a swift boat - it was the "substance" of the message that counted - right?
This is all old school politics - negative campaigning - that so many of us will not tolerate any more. Vote for me because look how bad the other guy is. Obviously, the majority of Democrats are saying enough of that, and are voting for Hussein Obama.
And finally, the implication that we should not vote for anyone with the middle name of "Hussein" is about as relevant as saying vegetarians should not vote for Porky Pig.
Hi capt - Hussein,
I think a way to boost turnout would be to have more representatives. Instead of 435 reps, make it 4350. Your rep would immediately become a much more local figure, so people would be much more interested.
Glenn
--
After reading someof the posts here I have to say I am disappointed. I see Hillary supports acting like republicans talking about barack middle name and pure delusional fiction about laying wreaths at the Iranian presidents grave? Oh sorry they must be dumb republicans thinking others will be fooled into buying into trash like that!
Everybody, Patrick Caroll is right. The only thing that is preventing Iran from nuking the united states right now (aside from technological capacity, motivation to do so, lack of willingness to attack a key customer, and the fact that the US is a fortress ringed with $500 billion per year's worth of military might) is Hillary Clinton. Or maybe McCain. But definitely not Obama--he has a funny name!
Submitted by Greg Jones (not verified) on Mon Apr. 21, 2008 1:35 PM PDT.
WHY IS THE MEDIA HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY'S SECRET RELIGION (CULT ?)
It was obvious as one would watch the 'coverage' of the war that all of the cable news networks were working for the Bush Regime. The ONLY place we as Americans could attempt to gather some truth was through C-Span, Huff, Democracy Now and a few other sites which would show all of the networks to be actually misleading America. Now, with as simple a tool as Google, Americans can find out information that the networks won't give. Hillary's secret religion (cult) known as 'The Family' is a D.C. based group of the richest folks in America who 'pray to Jesus for the elite to rule the world' . The fact that there has been absolutely no mention of her cult leads one to believe that the higher-ups at the networks (and other big corporations) are a part of 'The Family'.....and the plan to rule the world. I know.... it sounds far fetched. You can find a great list of links regarding 'The Family' at www.Blacks4Barack.org. Truthtellers like Huffington, The Nation, Mother Jones and others have all done recent stories about 'The Family'....but where's CNN, MSNBC, Fox or the gang. They all know that there's an internet rumbling going on right now about this cult. But....no mention. Do the research yourselves....Google 'Hillary The Family' or 'The Fellowship' or 'The Christian Mafia'....once you do....you'll see that it is not only scary....BUT IT MUST BE STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEARN/SHARE !!!!!
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization Dedicated to Truth)
"At the time, Ayers, who has admitted taking part in bombings during the 1970s (which never caused any loss of life)"
Which never caused any loss of life? Which never caused any loss of life? Which never caused any loss of life? Which never caused any loss of life?
Sorry I could not get past that paragraph!
Dear Zack,
Please read what I wrote, not what the voices are telling you.
What matters is not the amount of equipment, but the willingness to use it. Since Obama's Presidency looks like it'd be Jimmy Carter II - based on Obama's own words - I think the question is legitimate.
Patrick
--
Wow. Impressive Clintonian spin in the article. Never killed anyone. Never arrested. I believe several of them managed to kill themselves with faulty bomb making, there are reports of his considering taking into account the danger blowing things up posed to innocent people as "unrevolutionary", he is completely unrepentant for his actions. You also left out the part where he went underground to keep from being arrested until he finally turned himself in. You also forgot to mention WHY he was never convicted. How about his peers who got pardoned by Bill Clinton (not his wife)? Were they repentant? Or did the come out of prison saying they would do it all over again. I dislike Hillary, but come on. Are you also going to associate her with all the GOOD things that came out of Bill's time as POTUS, or just the bad things? And yes, connections to a radical, unrepentant terrorist is relevant when electing the president. Or is that only a problem with a Republican has such ties?
Why is the MEDIA afraid to call out Sen. Clinton for "throwing dirt and putting her hands behind her back"? How much longer do we have to endure Sen. Clinton spitting on us and calling it rain? Can we stick to the issues and leave the character issue to the Republicans?
Oh, yeah that is right the Clintons have a real close relationship with the Bush's. In a way she is acting in her comfortable element.
Hi all,
I'm kind of glad that at least one party's nomination wasn't locked up after California and the Northeast states. Think about it: When was the last time candidates put this much effort into Pennsylvania?
Anyway, after this election, expect the Democrats to change their primary rules to be more like the Republicans, in order to prevent a repeat of the the current unsemliness. Heaven forbid that the sausage-making that is democracy should be played out to the end. Better let a few large states determine the entire thing, and let the rest of the country go hang.
In any event, this election is pretty much over. Hillary's too divisive, and Obama can't take the heat. McCain's going to be the next President, unfortunately.
Patrick
--
The real shame is that the whole issue of 'connections' to 60's hippy terrorists is a non-issue that just keeps pushing itself back in the limelight.
Let's look more at the differences in healthcare plans or housing and financial regulation. Lets look at energy use, and fuel standards. Let's look at government spending in the defense industry in areas that are no longer valid uses of money (dead strategy). Let's look at whether we want to continue building a mercenary 'contractor' army that isn't held to the law.
I admit that there is a hypocrisy being shown here about whether you can spotlight an opponents relationships without answering for your own but the plain truth is that politically they'll do what they can to keep the flack off of themselves. My concern is that when all is said and done, we're all still just being led around by the nose to another stinking pile of politics.
"Swiftboating." Gotta love it. Kerry lied, misrepresented his experience, then threw his fellow servicemen under the bus with his wild, unsubstantiated testimony. He could not counter the charges, so he attacked the messengers.
Kerry could have put this to bed simply be releasing all his service records. But he did not. And, as far as I know, he has not. And you can bet he will never run for president again, because he does not want to ever release those records.
It is pretty clear the Democrat party has been taken over by the third column.
Obama is a Muslim plant. He cannot be described as an American. Obama is disgrace to our country. He should be impeached from the Senate for converting with Criminals (Syrian Muslim Tony Rezka,, Muslim Extremists (Farrakhan and his murdering half brother Raila Odinga in Kenya,) and the in our very own in house terrorist Ayres.
Hint, there is something wrong with this guy's character.
I think the Democrats would vote in Osama Bin Laden as long as he focused on the issues.
so what do these commentators with funny names want to do?
Re-arrest Ayers? Look up all
the people in the community
who had done something in the heat of that great patriotic undertaking of pesticide and napalm and call to re-arrest them? Take away their vote and citizenshp,sentence them to the stocks and tar and feather?
That is the answer I would have liked from Obama.
Clinton campaign likes to say that she has been 'fully vetted', but that's preposterous. If she would get the nomination a whole new 8 years of Bill and Hillary shenanigans would be opened up, the pardons, his new business connections, donors to his library, and who knows what else? Fact is that the vetting and scandalmongering has been entirely one-sided in this campaign, because of Obama's insistence on sticking to his message of a new politics. If she is the candidate does anyone think the Republicans will handle her this graciously?
>>If Obama can't handle Stephanopoulos and Gibson, do you really think he can take on, say, Putin? What's he going to do if the Iranians nuke, say, Indianapolis?<
It's just not an accurate analogy. Is it so crazy to suggest that the kind of play Stephanopoulos and Gibson were engaged in helps PREVENT us from devoting the proper amount of attention to Putin or Iran? I mean, this is not a particularly wild idea, right?
And what, in your mind, would "handling" Stephano and Gibson look like? What would Obama have had to do in order for you to say he "handled" the situation? Pardon me for assuming, Todd, that there is no circumstance in which you would actually be satisfied.
Tim McGuire -
I'm not necessarily a defender of William Ayers, but I am so tired of people on these blogs taking liberties with quotes ... not just Ayers' quotes, but everybody's quotes, in order to make their point ... so SINCE YOU ASKED, here is the answer about what William Ayers has actually said about regrets (and when he said it).
And I think you owe David Corn that apology you promised.
You, as many people, are misquoting William Ayers. TV broadcasters have taken his words out of context ... as well as the fact that his comments were in response to 9/11.
As it turns out the interview that appeared on 9/11 (about his book Fugitive Days) was obviously written PRIOR to 9/11 as it actually appeared on September 11 in the NY Times.
And secondly, here's what he has to say about his famous inaccurate quote (you can find this on his blog http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fa...)
I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets." This is not true. For anyone paying attentionand I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/wayslife brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say "no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government." Sometimes I add, "I don't think I did enough." This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.
Has anyone asked about the" Keating 5"
scandal? Probably not because McCain is so pure. After all he was a playboy all his life and actually served only 20 hrs. in flight and received 20 medals while soldiers on the field facing hand to hand combat did not get but maybe on medal.Oh, he is a son of an Admiral, no wonder. What about the Forestal Fire?
Why do people keep saying that Obama "can't take it", "has a glass jaw", is "whining", and other overcompensatingly-macho blather after the ABC debate? He didn't whine, he didn't cry (unlike Hillary some months ago), he didn't quit. He smiled and did a brush-off move (like Jay-Z) in subsequent appearances, and he went back to his message. Is this mis-attribution of "crying" etc. some kind of hallucination, or wishful thinking, or what?? Honestly, what gives?
Sure, some of his fans and spin-doctors are whining/complaining, just as happens when partisans think someone is being unfair to Hillary, or McCain, or Bush or Limbaugh.
Personally, I'm leaning McCain, but I can still perceive reality. How about some perspective and honesty, folks, whaddya say?
E
Everytime we find out something like Obama's racist pastor, his wife's lack of pride in her country, William Ayres, Tony Rezko and whatever else is coming next you leftists want to dismiss it as a mere distraction from the real issues. But if John McCain had a relationship with a person who bombed abortion clinics and later said that he was unrepentant and wished he'd bombed more abortion clinics and it later turned out that this friend had hosted a campaign event for John McCain all you leftists would indeed think that was relevant and would demand to know more. You would praise the journalist who raised the question and John McCain's run for the presidency would be over. You know you would and I know you would.
What's really disgusting is that STILL there are people who actually believe that Bush, the C student, drunk and drug user, TRUE military service dodger was the hero and Kerry wasn't. It's like we're looking through two different prisms... Those who are smart and see the lies told back then...And those who will toe the line for the republicans (or dems who ACT like republicans) without regard to facts or logical thought.
Ayers is a "distinguished professor of education"---that's a multiple oxymoron in my book. What discipline is"Education"..Let's see, there's law, mathematics, literature, philosophy, medicine....oh, yes and "Education". What a hoot. And what about the schools that would hire such crazed unrepentant bomber- terrorists as Ayers and his wife? Let's see the liberal colleges hire unrepentant abortion clinic bombers or KKK bombers of black churches. Ayers is distinguished? by whom? Certainly not by anyone except frustrated lefties who can't believe they didn't bring down the U.S. And all those days and best years of your lives spent spouting that Marxist true believer drivel,defending Alger Hiss to your graves, and then to have a "B" movie actor bring your motherland to its knees, crying "no mas". Would make me crazy too.
