«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Clinton Ducks the Weathermen Question

The Hillary Clinton campaign keeps ducking on the Weathermen issue that it tried to use against Barack Obama. First, campaign communications director Howard Wolfson broke a promise to tell reporters what Clinton thought of her husband's 2001 pardon of two Weather Underground radicals who had gone to jail for involvement in violent crimes. Then, yesterday, Clinton herself played dumb when asked about those pardons:

I didn't know anything about it? At what point? The question, though, is, what do you think of those pardons? In this interview, Clinton said, "When you run for president...you know that everything is going to be fair game." So if you're going to blast an opponent for having once held a fundraiser at the apartment of William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical, you ought to be willing to handle questions regarding your closest campaign adviser's decision to pardon two Weather Underground veterans. That's certainly fair game.

Clarification: Clinton did not issue pardons to the two radicals; 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

has anyone questioned obama about the misleading ads he was running in pennsylvania the past month claiming that he didn't take money from oil companies, which factcheck.org found to be true for all the candidates? so many questions, but i don't hear anyone asking them. c'mon media!

Posted by: Ashley on 04/23/08 at 8:53 AM Respond

DC,

Stay on them, it is a fair question that remains in play until answered.

What would we do without you?

Thanks

Posted by: capt - Hussein on 04/23/08 at 10:44 AM Respond

I'm with capt-Hussein again. I want this brought up - if by a miracle Hillary winds up against McWalker, you know they'll press her on this question.

Posted by: Paul Miller on 04/23/08 at 11:46 AM Respond

When will someone come out and admit that at least 5% of the people voting for Hillary are Republicans who will vote for McCain in the election?

This is starting to piss me off. I just don’t buy these numbers. I know a bunch of hill-billies in Fort Wayne who are going to vote for her. They think that if this drags out, it will help their boy Bush (or it it McCain? - HArd to tell the difference).

Posted by: kirkbrew on 04/23/08 at 5:03 PM Respond

Keep it up, David. I would also like her to respond to the youtube video of Rendell heaping huge praise on Farakhan and the Nation of Islam. If HRC's reasoning re: Obama should apply to herself, she should have to answer for not rejecting and denouncing someone who praised Farakhan and with her 2 degrees of separtion mentality regarding such matters, not only does Farakhan=Rendell, Farakhan=Hillary.

Posted by: maria on 04/24/08 at 1:59 AM Respond

Kirkbrew:

Actually, the info is out there but—of course—the MSM is not following up on it.

You are right (er, Right?): In Texas HRC received 5% Republican vote, but so did Obama. In Mississippi, figures suggest that a whopping 25% of her total vote was Republican. There were around 160,000 Repubs that voted in PA and she took the vast majority of those (I don't yet have the hard figures, but the sizeable majority has been pointed to in several places viewing stats).

But, to tell truth, I believe there is triangulation between HRC and the Republicans at a much deeper level (derived from her own political judgments; they pretty much still all hate the very name "Clinton"...).

Consider: Hillary Clinton has, for around 15 years, belonged to a religious organization called "The Fellowship" -- side by side with other members like Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback and George "Macacca" Allen. It is sexually segregated and organizes itself in (its terms) "cells." One of its stated goals is to change the Washington landscape to better reflect conservative religious values.

Consider: Aside from starting her political life as a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964, she considers John McCain to be one of her biggest pals (slight paraphrase of her words), Rupert Murdoch has contributed to her campaign, she and Pres. Bill both praised Fox "News" network for their "unbiased" coverage just this week, and she now seems to be buddying-up with Mr. Heart of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy himself, Scaife.

Does that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy now love the Clintons? I suggest they do not -- but they will do anything they possibly can to run against her in the fall, and many have said so.

I take her at her oft-repeated word: If she doesn't win, she wants John McCain to win in the fall and is doing absolutely everything she can -- including cozying to the neocons -- to make sure one of those options occur.

In fact, no matter who wins in the fall, I would be vastly less than surprised to see her run in 2012 as either an independent (a la Lieberman) or even change to the Republican party. At this point that change would require only a small leap.

Posted by: TheRealFish on 04/25/08 at 5:52 AM Respond

From Blacks4Barack...Regarding NEW STRATEGY !
CALL TODAY !!! Stress THE FACTS to DNC & SuperDelegates !(FACT IS: Clinton Has Lost ENTIRE BLACK VOTE !)

It is absolutely amazing how the media is spinning the Clinton victory in Pennsylvania.....regardless of the facts. First of all, although she was leading in the polls by over 22%, she won by 9.4%....not 'double digits' which sounds so much more like a blowout. Secondly, unless Hillary wins every remaining primary by 76% or more, it is absolutley mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count. That's just a fact. Obama is leading in delegate count, number of states won and popular vote, even though now she has convinced some in the media to count the votes in Michigan and Florida to claim a lead in popular vote, although the fact is.....those states don't count.
While the media is dissecting the demographics, for some reason they keep leaving one verrrrry important statistic out of their breakdown. The Major Fact Is.....BILLARY HAS ALIENATED AND LOST THE ENTIRE BLACK VOTE ! Where's THAT fact ? And they have the gall to think that they can claim her to be more electable to superdelegates.......with close to zero black support......ARE THEY NUTS ???????? Hillary Clinton is the first democratic presidential nominee in modern day history to lose the entire black vote ! That, too, is a fact !

THE STRATEGY IS SIMPLE:

It is time for EVERYONE to contact the DNC and every superdelegate that we can trace and remind them that due to her own actions HILLARY HAS LOST THE ENTIRE BLACK VOTE ! How in the world could she and Bill have the nerve to claim more electabilty when they have lost an entire race of people....the very group that the Democratic Party has always been able to count on.
SPEAK OUT !!!!

TIME TO MAKE CALLS....SEND EMAILS....CALL RADIO TALK SHOWS....EVERY WAY YOU CAN THINK OF !!!!!! THEY MUST HEAR FROM US !!!!

Call The DNC TODAY at 202-863-8000 or contact them at Democrats.org.

This is in no way meant to be racial. We are all in this together....blacks, whites, young, old, rich and poor......working together for a better America. But the fact that Hillary Clinton (wife of 'The First Black President', who started this campaign with 82% of the black support)has lost the support of an entire race of people....is not only pitiful.....but should be made....a very well known FACT !

Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization...Dedicated To Truth !)

SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE !