MyDD :: UPDATE - The Woods Fund Board: Dastardly Communist Terrorists!

UPDATE - The Woods Fund Board: Dastardly Communist Terrorists!

by Bob Johnson, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM EST

As some folks know, Larry Johnson and his pal, susanhu (SusanUnPC) at the foul NoQuarter blog have been peddling this William Ayers garbage for months. And months. And more months. It was nice to see that they finally succeeded in getting someone in the media -- besides Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly -- to ask "the tough questions" on Obama's relationship to `60's radical, Ayers.

Obama and Ayers served on the board of The Woods Fund of Chicago for a few years in the 1990s. Ayers was, and continues to be, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago and remains on the Fund's board. The Board of Trustees consists of 10 people, most of whom are academics or business leaders.

The foundation, for those who don't know, has a long history of doing great things for the underprivileged in Chicago, dating back to the Fund's founding in 1941.

From their Mission page:

The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.

Sounds radical, doesn't it?

The Fund's current Board is headed by Laura Washington, the Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor at DePaul University in Chicago and a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times:

Laura S. Washington, Board Chair*
Ida B. Wells-Barnett University Professor and Fellow of the DePaul Humanities Center

Jesus G. Garcia, Vice Chair*
Executive Director, Little Village Community Development Corporation

William C. Ayers
Distinguished Professor of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago

Lee Bey
Director of Media and Governmental Affairs, Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill LLP

Doris Salomon Chagin
Category Manager - Ethnic Markets, BP Products North America

Beth E. Richie
Professor and Head of the Department of African American Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago

Patrick M. Sheahan
Executive Director, Public Affairs, UBS Investment Bank

Charles N. Wheatley
President, Sahara Enterprises, Inc.

Lucia Woods Lindley
Board Member Emeritus

Kristin Patton*
Secretary

Here are the criteria for the kinds of programs they fund:

Helping to engage residents in civic life

Addressing the causes of poverty

Promoting more effective public policies

Reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity

Promoting employment opportunities

Building a sense of community and common ground

And here is one of the organizations they are currently funding:

Center for Tax and Budget Accountability:

The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability is a bi-partisan 501(C)(3) non-profit research and advocacy think tank that promotes fair, efficient and progressive tax, spending and economic policies.

Dastardly Communist terrorists!

I have a few questions for our weak and feeble media, lil' Georgie, Larry Johnson, susanhu and the rest of the "soon-to-be-joining-the-Swiftboaters" crew:

Did Obama put Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund? Or did they just happen to be two of 10 board members?

Ayers donated a whopping $200 to Obama's Senate campaign and may have had a "meet-and-greet" for neighbors at his home during the Senate run (one of, literally, hundreds of such functions that candidates attend), according to reports. Does this mean that any politician who attends a meet-and-greet in their honor, including Hillary Clinton, agrees with every position -- past and present -- of the host?

Has Hillary ever attended a meet-and-greet at the home of someone who may have had something nefarious in his/her distant past? Ever?

Why did Bill Clinton commute the sentences of two Weather Underground members who were actually responsible for killing people, as today's New York Times reports:

After Mrs. Clinton criticized Mr. Obama for not severing all Ayers ties, Mr. Obama said, "By Senator Clinton's own vetting standards, I don't think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground."

That referred to commutations by Mr. Clinton in January 2001, shortly before leaving office, for Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg. Ms. Evans had been convicted of weapons and explosives charges connected with eight bombings in the mid-'80s and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Ms. Rosenberg had been charged in connection with a 1981 armed robbery in which two police officers and a security guard were killed, and was serving 58 years after being convicted of weapons charges in a 1984 case.

Does being a board member of a foundation along with nine other people mean that you, as a board member, agree with the politics and opinions of everyone else on that board?

Did any of the other board members hold a meet-and-greet for Obama? Did any of them donate to Obama's Senate campaign?

These are just a few questions that enterprising reporters should be pondering and researching.

God knows the hacks from the Clinton camp won't.

As for Larry Johnson, susanhu and their cohorts, I suspect they'll soon be joining ranks with the Swiftboaters (if they haven't already) for the general election match-up between Obama and McCain.

I don't think the folks spewing these McCarthy-ite tactics can be considered Democrats. They are Rovian Swiftboaters.

And if one wants to see "unelectable," one need only read yesterday's Washington Post...

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

... or look at Hillary's 56% unfavorable rating in the Rasmussen tracking polls and you have something very close to an unelectable candidate.

Please, Hillary, condemn the Woods Fund and its board members. Those dastardly radicals are conspiring to deliver better lives to the poor! Stop them before they do more good!

Update [2008-4-17 15:41:34 by Bob Johnson]:

Here is a long piece on William Ayers from The Chicago Tribune's "Swamp" blog today.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, William Ayers, Woods Fund of Chicago (all tags)

Permalink :: 114 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Woods Fund Board: Dastardly Communist Terr (2.00 / 3)

Amen, brother!

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST

Hillary Clinton: (1.80 / 5)

Not a democrat!

I'd still vote for her over John McCain...but she's definitely not what would I would call a loyal Democrat.

by Democratic Unity on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST

She's a rock-solid Democrat. (2.00 / 9)

But pushing this Ayers line -- if she, indeed, continues to push it -- will likely turn superdelegates against her.

It's a "go-for-broke" strategy.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's a rock-solid Democrat. (none / 0)

Oh yeah, everyone knows that most the superd's are ardent backers of William Ayers.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (2.00 / 3)

So was Obama. So were eight or nine other people. The Fund is a respected institution in Chicago. How would Obama's association with Ayers and Ayers' $200 contribution to his Senate run have any bearing on the presidential race?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (2.00 / 1)

Come on you can't be that naive. In presidential campaigns everything you have ever done is part of the campaign. Every organization you have ever belonged to is part of the campaign. And every innuendo that you can ever be attached to is part of the campaign. Do you really believe that McCain isn't going to question Obama's patriotism due to this association? As I said, you can't possibly be that naive.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you also believe that all the Clinton's ... (2.00 / 9)

.. post-presidency activities also won't be scrutinized? Bill's library donors (including Saudis and other Arab state officials), Bill's trip to Kazakhstan, the source of Hillary's campaign funds from the likes of Normnan Hsu and New York busboys and dishwashers who managed to scrape up $2,300 apiece to donate to her campaign.

Just because Obama has not raised these questions doesn't mean Republicans won't. They will. With a vengeance.

And nevermind how many dalliances Bill has had that Republicans are holding in the wings.

As I pointed out yesterday, I have been told over and over by Hillary backers that she was a "known quantity" and that the "the people who don;t like her already don't like her." In fact, Hillary rolled out this trope in the debate last night.

Only problem is, her negatives continue to go up. She is viewed as "untrustworthy" by nearly 60% of Americans. Sixty percent. Roll that around in your noggin.

And her unfavorables are at 56%.

So much for "she's a known quantity."

It appears that the more folks get to know her, the less they like her.

That is not a recipe for electability, friend.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you also believe that all the Clinton's ... (1.66 / 3)

Bob, since you are such a fount of knowledge, would you mind scraping together a list of what similar "hard questions" of Hillary might look like? Just for some perspective? Since folks think Hillary's had it OH so hard thus far?

Please include these questionable donations, her lobbyist donation quotient, Bill's 800K from the Colombians, his dozens of scumbag pardons, and perhaps Hillary's work for a Berkeley firm that defended radical cop killers. "Screw the working class" might not be out of order, as well.

I think that might make a very fine diary.

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here are some issues that Hillary would (2.00 / 7)

... likely face in a general election, in addition to her astronomical unfavorables and the fact that nearly 60% of Americans think she is "untrustworthy" and "not honest." This is a diary I posted on March 5:

Has Hillary Clinton really been 'vetted' as she so often claims?

It included this list:

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:

Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are some issues that Hillary would (2.00 / 1)

Thank you very much. As always, Bob, you are a gem.

Again, this is just some perspective for folks who think they've seen everything that can be thrown at Hillary, and who think Obama hasn't pulled any punches.

By the way, didn't the Clintons release their tax returns? Isn't that how we know about the 109 million?

I don't think bringing up who Bill schtupps will necessarily hurt Hillary--the "victim"--unless the question is about her "judgment" in staying with him. I don't think folks will care (I know I don't..)

That said, I look forward to a debate question to Hillary framed like the Obama question that started with:

"It's teeming all over the internet that.."

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was pre-release, I think (none / 0)

Bob posted that diary on the 5th, before the returns were released.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't release the 2007 tax returns (none / 0)

The Clinton's asked for an extension for 2007. Which was probably their most profitable year based on the trend.

Bob should also add that Bill Clinton spoke to at least one anti-democratic association in China.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The repugs would have a field day (none / 0)

with all of Bill's shady dealings. They wouldn't know where to begin. Like kids in a candy store.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are some issues that Hillary would (none / 0)

Hi Bob,

I would carry this one step farther. During Bill's trip to Kazakhstan he propped up the president, know for suppressing the opposition in his country. This was against US Foreign Policy at the time, and against Hillary's position. For this head not, he received $31 million, a fundraiser for $20 million, and a pledge of another $100 million. For working against US foreign policy.

He did the same in Colombia. He had positive words to say for Uribe, who's country murders union organizers. And, again he was rewarded with awards, $800,000 in speaking fees, and Bill invited Uribe to his own events.

He is also linked to the internet company in China that is censoring the internet. I haven't seen the money trail on that yet. I would be surprised if it didn't turn up.

The problem is, Bill is doing things Hillary speaks out against. I would feel for Hillary, but then she chooses to surround herself with advisors who side with Bill. I have to question her authenticity on policies for that one.

by Kiku on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you also believe that all the Clinton's ... (2.00 / 0)

Why don't you take this troll up on his request? I'm sure his yearnings, here, will go a long way in building party unity, republican party that is.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The troll diary posted here twice today... (2.00 / 1)

... is a repost of a Swiftboat-style piece directly from the Obama hatefest at NoQuarter.

I note you calling out those two posters as well.

Oh, wait...

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The troll diary posted here twice today... (1.00 / 1)

So you're telling me that you support trolls, because, in your view, the other side does too. I think that sounds like you have questionable credibility as an advocate for your candidate.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you a troll? (2.00 / 5)

Do you think the Ayers story constitutes a "vetting" that someone who claims to be a Democrat should be raising?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you a troll? (none / 0)

No I don't think the Ayers story constitutes a "vetting" that someone who claims to be a Democrat should be raising?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So now you're arguing with yourself. (none / 0)

I see.

Got it.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, come on (2.00 / 2)

It's a response to the people who are saying Clinton is ALREADY fully "vetted," that everything the GOP has on her has been aired, and that Obama and the media have hit her with everything there is on her.

The GOP has not BEGUN to attack her or show their hand in what they've dug up (I mean, if we can find this stuff and she's never had to answer for it, imagine what they've got..)

They are holding off on her in hopes of facing her in the Fall. McCain has all but endorsed her. And Obama has shown remarkable restraint, because going so negative would likely hurt him, since he's trying to run a campaign with a more positive ethos.

Nonetheless, Clinton folks should not delude themselves into thinking they have any clue what it would look like if she were REALLY "gone negative" on.

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, come on (2.00 / 1)

As I've learned more about Hillary and Bill, I've been stunned. Sad to say, I suspect they are nothing as bad as Bush. None the less, when I read a post listing what we've learned about Hillary, we sound like conspiracy nuts. That isn't to say it isn't true, but it's so over the top. An x-president propping up despotic rulers for personal gain?

Obama is wise not to go there. People who haven't been following it wouldn't understand it. And, they don't necessarily want to hear it. Instead, he waits, and eventually Hillary does something that makes her past relevant, and the press investigates. Such as her sniper fire in Bosnia, and Sinbad's counter comment. This opened the gates, and the news discovered that she also lied about North Ireland, Kosovo, and Macedonia, undermining her whole foreign policy claim. Oh, she did talk in China, but it wasn't broadcast in China. And, she did visit 80 countries.

Obama's a brilliant campaigner.

The Ayer story is one I was suprised at. George brought it up, but given that Bill had pardoned two memeber of the Weathermen group, I was suprised that she would pile on to Obama. What was she thinking?

Personally, I think Hillary has some potential to offer this country a lot of good things. But, she doesn't know how to hold her tongue. Neither does Bill. That's not a good thing in a president.

by Kiku on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And pollster (2.00 / 2)

your troll-rating was cheap and cowardly. You know damn well I'm not a troll.

Hillary has been running constantly on how "damaged" a candidate Obama is, that he's "unelectable," that he can't stand up to the RW attack machine, while she's somehow been "fully vetted," with all of her baggage a known quotient. She's defended gutter tactics that have hurt the Democratic brand by saying "well, this is what he'll face from the right."

Don't you think she's invited an examination of her claims? Should we not realistically LOOK at what they'll have on her, and use on her? Obama is pulling punches to preserve his image, and the right is waiting for their moment.

My argument is, she hasn't begun to taste the gutter this time around, and they've had seven more years to compile material, and Bill hasn't been twiddling his thumbs (the right hasn't even fully mined what was there before, like the pardons, because Lewinsky was such a distraction).

Or is this kind of "vetting" only appropriate for Obama?

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And pollster (none / 0)

When you come on here and use republican talking points as if they are gospel, along with filty republican innuendo, how can anyone come to any other conclusion as to your being a troll? When you publish that republican garbage almost verbatim, how can anyone come to any other conclusion other then the reality that you are working to boost the republicans? When you post all that garbage that the republicans spew about Clinton, but then say you would vote for her if she were the nominee, how can anyone trust your credibility?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are KIDDING me, right? (2.00 / 6)

This site's Rec'd diary list is dedicated to defending and promoting right wing talking points against Obama. Right up to celebrating the travesty of a "debate" that was on last night. Do you dispute that? Hillary's entire smear of Obama as "elitist" is STRAIGHT out of the right wing playbook. Have you been troll-rating the folks that champion that crap here?

My point, AGAIN, is that Hillary hasn't begun to face what the right wing will bring to her, and hasn't had to answer for much of anything they've got in store, so calling herself "vetted" while Obama is "unelectably damaged" is just nuts.

That said, several items Bob listed are in fact substantial issues that WILL be of concern to Kuchinich and Edwards voters and which should be addressed, not empty shit like lapel pins and "does your minister love America as much as you do?"

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dear 'Ridiculus' or whatever your name is... (none / 0)

Hillary has been receiving the worst the right has had to throw at her for a VERY long time. Given the fact that this 'vetting' process is nothing new, it strikes many of us as irony that Obama's fan club is whining so.

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you also believe that all the Clinton's ... (2.00 / 0)

So your response tells me that you think the republicans can effectively use this Ayers issue against your candidate, Obama, and that you are not naive in thinking it will have nothing to do with the campaign. However in your view, you belive the republicans can effectively use other issues against my candiate, Clinton. How delightful, you made my day.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, my point is that Clinton is more vulnerable to (2.00 / 2)

... Republican attacks than Clinton, given her substantial negatives.

As I asked on March 5, Has Hillary Clinton really been 'vetted' as she so often claims?

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:

Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

quite remarkable (1.00 / 1)

Ok, I get it you're a troll. No democrat truly interested in winning the election would actually put their name to such a post. You are either a troll or you are just incapable of seeing beyond this primary. I support Hillary, but I don't go around bashing other democrats with GOP innuendo. And, please don't tell me that the other side is bad too. I've heard you on that trite response already.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, so you think 'vetting' is a one-way processs. (2.00 / 2)

I get it.

Please note that no Democratic candidates have raised these issues about Clinton. But they are certain to be raised in a general election race.

Do you disagree with that? And do you think this list isn't known to Republican operatives?

Are you kidding?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

try to understand (none / 0)

I understand your point, and I know you are an intelligent individual. So please try to understand what I'm saying. if you are truly someone who wants to see the democrats win in November, you have to comprehend that we can't win unless we are all together in this battle. It will be difficult enough to win even if we do manage to attain party unity, but without it, the road to victory will be nearly impossible. All I'm really saying is bear this in mind when you go about your postings for your candidate in this primary.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And I am asking you if you think it is helpful (2.00 / 2)

... that Hillary pursue the Ayers story as she did last night?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And I am asking you if you think it is helpful (2.00 / 0)

Asked and answered already. How about answering my thoughts on party unity?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm all for party unity. (2.00 / 2)

But I think the person you need to address is Hillary Clinton. She and her campaign and some of her vile supporters here and at places like NoQuarter and Taylor Marsh have turned into Swiftboaters with this Ayers story.

I'm glad we agree.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm all for party unity. (2.00 / 0)

I'm glad we agree too, but I'm just sorry you don't appear to understand what I am saying. Hopefully this will change in the future. Talk to you more as the debate progresses.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Will you be writing a diary calling on Hillary (2.00 / 2)

... to drop the Ayers attack in the interests of party unity?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will you be writing a diary calling on Hillary (2.00 / 0)

I already gave you my answer on the topic. I'm still waiting for your answers. You don't keep getting to ask questions, unless you think this is a cross-examination, and not a dialog.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You did? (none / 0)

Where?

What are your questions?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You did? (2.00 / 0)

Please try to understand what I'm saying. if you are truly someone who wants to see the democrats win in November, you have to comprehend that we can't win unless we are all together in this battle. It will be difficult enough to win even if we do manage to attain party unity, but without it, the road to victory will be nearly impossible. All I'm really saying is bear this in mind when you go about your postings for your candidate in this primary. Could you do this?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am. (2.00 / 3)

This post explains the Obama-Ayers connection. And Clinton and her Clinton campaign are using the Obama-Ayers connection in arguments to superdelegates that because of this and Wright and the "bitter" comment, Obama is unelectable.

The flip side every superdelegate must consider are Clinton's relentlessly high negatives. Having a candidate who is at 56% unfavorable and nearly 60% "not honest" bode very poorly for the general election.

The supers have to weight the plusses and minuses of each candidate.

I am glad you agree that Hillary's piling on on the Ayers issue is not something a Democrat should do to another Democrat. Since you're a Hillary supporter, I hope you make your feelings known to the campaign, particularly since you have a steadfast belief in party unity.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am. (1.00 / 1)

Translation. You are either unable and/or unwilling to answer a very simple question. Therefore your political double-speak becomes quite obvious.

Furthemore your constant use of one aspect of one polls snapshot in time to define the Clinton favorability numbers shows a lack of judgement in backing up your claims.

And finally your inability to absolutely claim your allegiance to party unity come November, puts up a great big red flag as to where your loyalties truly lie. Thank you for a very enlightening debate. I will be glad to continue it, once you find yourself capable of answering my very easy question. Have a great day.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you lying? (2.00 / 1)

And finally your inability to absolutely claim your allegiance to party unity come November, puts up a great big red flag as to where your loyalties truly lie.

How very Rovian of you.

I have written here and elsewhere on numerous occasions that I will gladly back Clinton if she is the nominee.

Gladly.

I am a Democrat. I am a paying member of the Democratic Party. I am a Democratic precinct captain. I have voted for every Democratic candidate for president since I became eligible to vote. And I will continue to do so.

Can you say the same?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you lying? (1.00 / 1)

Rovian of me? That's cute.

By the way, you only answered part of my question. Please review my question again, and don't ask me to have to post it for a 3rd time.

The answer to your latest question is yes. And I am glad that you appear to be a loyal democrat. I just hope that your posting will reflect that as the campaign goes on.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you lying? (1.00 / 1)

You have been reported for TR abuse.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you lying? (none / 0)

Did you also report that you started it?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you lying? (none / 0)

hahaha. comedy.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you holding both candidates and their (none / 0)

supporters to the same standard?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: party unity (none / 0)

I am there too, and a Hillary voter if she takes the nomination.

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are falling for your own propaganda.. (none / 0)

straight from freepersville..

BTW, your pals, Bush I and Bush II, are IN BED with the Saudis more than you and your ilk could EVER imagine!

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you also believe that all the Clinton's ... (2.00 / 0)

>>And her unfavorables are at 56%.

>>So much for "she's a known quantity."

Hillary is still polling statistically equal to Obama in matchups versus McCain, and better in battleground states.

Who would I rather have a beer with? Obama. Who would I rather run my country? Clinton. I think a lot of people feel the same way. You don't have to like someone to respect their judgement and think they would make a fine leader.

by mikes101 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (none / 0)

If you find yourself in a heated argument, make sure it's about something more than hot air: -- David Dunham

You'd do well for yourself to go back and review your sig

by Djo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (2.00 / 0)

I have to say this is a first. In all the years that I have been posting on probably hundreds of blogs and message boards, and email lists, this is the first time anyone ever made reference to my signature. I guess you think that by doing this you will help your candidate. So good luck with your signature approach.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (none / 0)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill and with an sig like that, how can you not see the irony?

by Djo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (none / 0)

Oh I see that's your issue, you are upset because, in your view, my signature is not totally consistent with my comments; talk about mountains and mole hills.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (2.00 / 1)

You're right this could be trouble for Obama. Republicans would never bring up that Ayers' associates were pardoned by Bill Clinton. In fact, they'll hardly run any negative ads at all because Hillary's completely vetted. Completely. Really.

by niksder on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: William Ayers is a board member of the Fund. (none / 0)

And you can't possibly be that STOOOPID. This is one of the most respected foundations in Chicago that gives money to exceedingly worthy causes, mainly in the field of education. Have you all left leave of you senses? Is is all McCarthy time again just because a Black Man is running such an effective campaign for President? I can't believe what some of you guys are saying.

by Annabella on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You just invalidated your argument. (none / 0)

In presidential campaigns everything you have ever done is part of the campaign. Every organization you have ever belonged to is part of the campaign. And every innuendo that you can ever be attached to is part of the campaign.

If EVERYTHING is part of the campaign, then perspective obviously becomes MORE important just in order to sort out all the crap from the serious stuff. Everything may be fair game to use (and I dispute that) but that doesn't make everything significant. And this is insignificant.

By the way, didn't Hillary Clinton shake Yassir Arafat's hand and kiss Arafat's wife in public? Wasn't he a terrorist that actually KILLED people (unlike Ayers). Is that part of the campaign or is it insignificant? I say it's insignificant, but, hey, you make the rules up.

by Dumbo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wasn't it Richard Nixon who put forward the whole (none / 0)

'madman theory of warfare' to justify the secret bombing of Cambodia - which is has been the basis of post-cold-war US military policy since?

Fight fire with fire, so to speak?

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ideally we would only support nonviolence.. (none / 0)

So that would mean that a lot of the aid we send to the Middle East would have to go elsewhere.. To schools and economic development in the US, for example?

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's a rock-solid Democrat. (2.00 / 1)

Great diary Bob. I agree. I think the SD's will start deciding in Obama's favor sooner (rather than later) if this keeps up.

I'd Rec and Tip you, but I'm still on double-secret probation. I'm hoping my sentence is up soon...

by power of truth on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's a rock-solid Democrat. (none / 0)

That is very dishonest. GS asked the question, she followed up with her own comment after Obama answered.

She didn't push it, and it's not part of her strategy.

Stop the Donna Brazile type attacks.

Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.

by TxDem08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She did push it. (2.00 / 3)

Plus, she added Farrakhan's name, unprompted, during the Wright question.

Her strategy is not a secret.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She did push it. (2.00 / 2)

Farrakhan and Hamas, could she be any more transparent? She should have just announced her switch to the republican party right then.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't Farrakhan get some kind of nice comment (none / 0)

from Obama?

I mean, I am not trying to put him down with lies, he DID.

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's a rock-solid Democrat. (none / 0)

Her campaign pushed it to the press months ago.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Hillary ISN'T a Democrat... (none / 0)

who IS?

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right Bob, she is a Democrat (none / 0)

You're right Bob, she is a Democrat, but her tactics are pure slime.

But I too would vote for her over McCain in November, no matter how she got the nomination.

But those traitors over at NoQuarter are NOT Democrats. Not one person that posts over at NoQuarter should be welcomed back to the progressive blogs.

Or at the very least, Larry and Susan shouldn't. And I'm not too happy with Joe and Val either.

by DaveDial on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're right Bob, she is a Democrat (none / 0)

Well we won't have the choice of voting for her over Obama, because the nomination is his... all you have to do is the delegate math. She ran an arrogant, stupid campaign and now she has gone into the gutter. You tell me what's the difference between her type of politics and what most of us have come to detest from the Republicans? And look what and where it has gotten us! Why do you think her judgment would be one whit better when she has never demonstrated any in the past. Time to join the Obama nation and get excited for the November campaign.

by Annabella on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You think this math whining isn't arrogant? (2.00 / 1)

can't you just wait until the whole thing is decided?

what are you so afraid of?

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you Bob! (2.00 / 1)

Rec'd

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST

your sig line.. (none / 0)

Are a few more specifics too much to ask for from obama?

Like a price people can actually PAY (like Hillary's 5-10% of total income) instead of Obama's so-called 'fair price' (which is based on COST and so is UNLIMITED) for real, NOT cost-shifted to the consumer, COMPREHENSIVE healthcare.

Under Obama, nobody can be turned away- IF THEY HAVE LOTS OF MONEY

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Recced (2.00 / 1)

Especially for the facts in the piece.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST

Rec'd (2.00 / 1)

Good Work, Bob

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST

Bob is appearing on "Dirty Jobs" (none / 0)

on the Discovery Channel, although he's too modest to bring it up :^)

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which is more important (2.00 / 3)

(1) Helping out the poor

(2) Making sure that no one you would be working with has a questionable past.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

by thezzyzx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST

Re: The Woods Fund Board: Dastardly Communist Terr (2.00 / 1)

Ya know...
The problem with the Democratic party as seen through the DLC http://www.dlc.org/
is not only the DFH's ..but our kids. They are now in their 20's and ya know what...
we did ok.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST

Dastardly Communist Terrorists! (2.00 / 2)

Bob-

I think you do a good job getting your point across. I'm not sure you really address the underlying concern, though.

Regardless, I'd like to point out one particular area in which your comments are highly inaccurate. You act as if Hillary has been "pushing" this or any other story. Has she?

I'm curious, and please be honest in reading this.

Do you suppose that someone on Clinton's staff was aware of who Rev. Wright was?

I think reasonable people will agree that they most certainly were. And it sure would have helped them to have thrown this out into the media back in South Carolina, when the campaign was at a pivotal state.

But, they didn't.

Do you suppose that someone on Clinton's staff was aware of William Ayers?

Clearly.

And yet, the campaign has never once mentioned this. True, when Obama tried to falsely characterize th relationship as one of virtual strangers, she corrected him, pointing out that the relationship is closer than that.

And that was factual.

But do you really consider her comments to be brutal or combative?

Please Bob. Let's be real with eachother. She handles Obama like a kitten. Yes, she occassional brings these issues up, or responds to them when they come up.

But the simple fact is this: the actions of her campaign are in complete contradiction to your characterization. And, I say "your" characterization, but what I really mean is "the one that Obama media surrogates taught you."

I don't fault you at all for putting together a diary that difuses this issue, and sheds some factual perspective on it. I think that, as an Obama supporter, you are doing the right thing when you do so. So I have no gripe with that; it's consructive and it's healthy.

You cross a line, though, and lose credibility, when you buy into this myth that the Hillary campaign has been deviously conjuring stuff like this up. If that had been their interest, we would not have gone 13 months without hearing a peep about Wright or 15 months wihtout hearing a peep about Ayers.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST

Bob, she jumped all over it last night. (2.00 / 1)

And she even added Farrakhan's name to the Wright mix last night. She did that.

Are you truly so naive that you think she pounces on this for no reason? And how about when she said "Yes, yes, yes<" last night to the question of Obama's ability to beat McCain in the general election when report after report has noted that she has been making the argument, in private, to superdelegates that Obama is unelectable?

When is she lying? In the debate or in the private conversations?

Why would Clinton jump on the Ayers story or add Farrakhan to the mix?

You are not being realistic, bob.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's talk (none / 0)

Bob,

Please answer my question first. Then I will gladly respond to your counterpoints.

If, as you claim, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have been eager to smear Obama with this Ayers thing, why were they completely 100% silent on this for 15 months?

I mean, there have been several times where it would have really helped her immensely to change the subject by introducing something like this. But she never, ever did.

So why is that? How is it possible that she is the person you think she is, yet had the respect and discipline to never touch this, or Wright, for over a year?

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would she pile on if she is so righteous? (2.00 / 2)

I don't get it. Your reasoning is inconsistent. If she is really as righteous as you claim, why would she take the opportunity to pile on a fellow Democrat on the issue? And why would she add Farrakhan's name to the mix, unprompted, when the Wright question was asked?

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would she pile on if she is so righteous? (none / 0)

Just to be clear: you can't answer my question.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would she pile on if she is so righteous? (none / 0)

I showed him that the Clinton camp pushed it months ago.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would she pile on if she is so righteous? (none / 0)

You provided an editorial that stated that the Clinton campaign was aware that some others had reported this. And regardless, Bob has been unable to answer my question.

Can you?

You see, folks, the facts just don't fit with the picture you are trying to paint. Why did Clinton not shut Obama out of this contest back in SC by blasting his allegiance to a racist hate monger back then? Why did it instead wait for a year until enough Americans demanded that it be covered that the media had no choice but to give it limited play for a few days?

No, the Axelrod-created charicature of Clinton just doesn't jibe with her actions. While Obama has devoted day and night to character destruction, at great longterm cost to our Democratic party, Clinton has gone to her townhall meetings, proposed a policy to rebuild our infrastructure using publicly financed treasury bonds, reminded us that a cure for cancer is achievable in our lifetime, and succeeded in being the first and only Democrat to lay out a comprehensive plan, that tells us not only that "we can" succeed in Iraq, but how we get there.

I have to tell you, and I'm being very sincere here, when I speak with Clinton supporters the tone of the conversation is remarkably hopeful and positive. People like me are really inspired by her dedication, her tenacity and her optimism.

It's only when I converse with some Obama supporters that I am nearly drown in a sea of manufactured hatred and contempt. It bears an uncanny resemblence to the anger in Wright's speeches - a desire to find a target for all your angst, no matter how unreasonable or unfounded, and then to unload all of your most venomous hatred upon it.

It bothers me.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your a goal post-mover, bob. (none / 0)

He provided proof that the Clinton campaign was pushing the story to the media.

Are you Howard Wolfson?

Heh.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

I recall seeing it referenced some time ago by her people to the press.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Please cite.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (2.00 / 1)

Well a quick search turns up this report from about 8 weeks ago.

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)

In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

That's "pushing" a story? Because he noticed that others had reported it?

My goodness I hope Barack is not this fragile.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

He's not but yes that's pushing it since they offered it up. There is no evidence that they were asked about it.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Sounds flimsy.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Only to you. Clearly the reporter knew it was being pushed and even knew it was smart for them to push it in a manner that didn't have too many prints on it.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

So why has this never appeared on a single press release? Why had Hillary never spoken of it until the topic was raised last night? Why has this never appeared in a single blog, hubdate or fact check on Hillary's website?

Surely, if they were as devoted to pushing the story as you pretend they were, they would have taken such actions to help spread the word.

You know, I can accept perfectly fine if you prefer Barack Obama. And it would be wonderful if you could provide some legitimate rationale for feeling that way, although you're certainly not obliged to do so.

But stop the lying and old politics of character destruction please.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

As RLMcCauley has documented, her campaign has pushed the story. She hasn't done the more overt things in your post in order to fool voters like you. Seriously.

Do you not understand what a whisper campaign is? And this isn't even a whisper campaign, this is her aides pushing stories about Ayers to reporters and asking that they report on them.

by Mostly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

They were silent on it until they didn't win on 2/5. Which they clearly expected to do.

Then they started to push it that same month.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Do you really think the average American was even aware of this until last night? Be honest.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Not sure why that's relevant.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (2.00 / 1)

It's relevant because if this campaign had been pushing the story for months, people would have been aware of it. They have press conferences every morning, you know.

This information has never been published on Hillary's website.

It has never been mentioned in the many e-mails her campaign has sent to me.

It has never been the subject of a press release.

So how is this "pushing" the story?

You're really stretching it.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (2.00 / 1)

They pushed it 2 months ago and they pushed it again today. I have no idea if they've pushed it in between. You seem to think there's something wrong with pushing it though so you're trying to change the definition of pushing. I find that interesting.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not that it's my question to answer.... (none / 0)

She didn't need to bring it up when she was inevitable. It's really easy to be above it all when you think yourself the uncontested winner of all things.

She actually did a good job dealing with this situation, whatever the stupidity of her later criticisms.

She let the press bring it up and then pounced. What you're complimenting her on isn't her integrity, it's a showing of uncharacteristic prudence. It's complimenting the quarterback for not running off with the ball before the play begins.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (1.00 / 1)

She didn't let the press bring it up. Her camp fed it to the press and let them bring it up.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

Aha, well that isn't shocking at all. At least she's consistent. Thanks for the link. I actually think that was the first report that I had read on the Ayers subject. I had forgotten that it was actually a Hillary leak.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

Yeah a month before that she was calling him too liberal.

I find ther whole campaign very amusing.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

Just a question in logic here:

If the press says something, and you hear it, that constitutes "feeding it" to the press?

How do you feed to the press that which the press itself wrote?

Bizarre.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

They volunteered the info. They weren't responding to a specific question. Nice try though.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

The reports were written by (fill in the blank):

(a) Clinton people
(b) the media

The reports were written (fill in the blank):

(a) before the Clinton people talked about it
(b) after the Clinton people talked about it

The fact that you're clinging so desperately at this weak thread really serves to validate my position that actions just don't jibe the myth that the Clinton campaign is focused on negative politics.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (2.00 / 1)

Sigh. If a reporter doesn't ask you a question about something and you volunteer "negative" information about your opponent (and "wonder" what the GOP will do with it) you're pushing the story.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's talk (none / 0)

Let's say she didn't know. Let's say that she wasn't the one who outed this story. How was it effective or wise for her to jump on this story last night? What does it tell us about her judgment?

by Annabella on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, she did that... (none / 0)

and people like you are so unbelievably naive as to think these issues won't come up in the fall. And, you're so incredibly ignorant to the fact that this is his time to put these matters away, not in the fall when there might not be time to effectively defuse the issues.

So cut the crap, man. You're really looking like a world-class whiner. If you can't understand the benefit of him dealing with these matters NOW, when there's not much of a chance of losing the nomination due to the silly apportionment rules, rather than in late October, you really don't understand politics. It's laughable to read some of this stuff.

Obama should be thanking his lucky stars that he's got someone toughening him up for the coming fight, because trust me, this is nothin'. All this crybaby nonsense from people like you is maddening. Please, get a freakin' grip before you type.

If Obama can't handle a silly debate with someone from his own party, he does not deserve to be president...period. Enough, already. Grow up.

Reply to the wind, because I won't be coming back to answer this pap.

by DaTruth on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, where did I write that these issues won't come (2.00 / 1)

... up in the Fall? Of course they will. Under your rationale, Obama should be hammering Hillary on Norman Hsu, how dishwashers and busboys in New York managed to pony up $2,00 apiece to her campaign, Bill's library donor list, Bill's trip to Kazakhstan and dozens of other issues about the Clinton's lives, post-Bill's presidency that Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have brought up.

Do you think Republicans won;t bring them up in the Fall? Do you really believe the line of bull that "Hillary has already been vetted?"

She hasn't been touched on this stuff. But should she be the nominee, she will be absolutely hammered on it. Because they all play into voters' preconceived ideas about her that she cannot be trusted.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, she did that... (2.00 / 2)

It's your position that Dems should act like Republicans because Republicans will act like that anyway?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dastardly Communist Terrorists! (2.00 / 2)

"You act as if Hillary has been "pushing" this or any other story. Has she?"

Ayers was pushed in today's conference call according to firstread and thepage.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

by thezzyzx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dastardly Communist Terrorists! (none / 0)

Wolfson brought it up in the post-debate spin and suggested that the media should run stories on it.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reason she didn't bring it up on her own. (none / 0)

Because it's tenuous and irrelevant. It can only do damage when it is tossed out there like a hand grenade by somebody else. That way it doesn't do damage to the accuser instead of the accused.

There has been plenty of noise about Ayers. Politico had an article about it a couple of months ago, unsourced (!), pointing out that Obama and everybody else in Chicago liberal politics knew Ayers.

Politico article.

When you know the details, it becomes obviously no big deal. But when taken out of context and in stripped-down form, it can be used to make an implication that maybe Obama is a friend of terrorists. (And if that's true, maybe he's also Osama bin Laden!)

Call up Politico and ask them where they got the idea to run that story. If we could find out, I think we would discover it was somebody close to the Clintons trying to push it.

by Dumbo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: UPDATE - The Woods Fund Board: Dastardly Commu (none / 0)

"Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Tap yer toes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIulyVs G8

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:24:00 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.