Last week, while watching the infamous lowlife debate on ABC News, I got so disgusted I had to turn off my computer (was watching online) and go home.
Most people were disgusted at the moderators, with reason. So was I, but I expected so little from Stephanopolous and Gibson that I wasn’t shocked by their shabby and shambolic questioning.
Instead, what made me want to wretch was watching Hillary Clinton during the Ayers questioning. That’s when I turned off the debate. Here is part of her despicable pile-on:
Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.
Let’s catalog the reasons why this is so pathetic, despicable, and unworthy for a Demcratic contender:
1. Hillary Clinton knows — and essentially admits — there is absolutely no substance to the Ayers attack. It’s pure political piffle and theater. It has absolutely zero to do with Obama’s character, his readiness to be President, his judgment, his values. Obama was eight when the Weather Underground were active, and nothing in his record, life, or actions suggests he sympathized with their agenda or use of violence.
2. Coming from the Hillary Clinton, the attempt to paint Obama to the Weather Underground is downright hypocritical. After all, Bill Clinton, in his final days as President, pardoned two members of
the group who were actually tried and convicted of setting bombs (one
of the people pardoned was allegedly involved a decade later, while on
the lam, in a Brinks robbery that resulted in the death of a policeman).
4. Clinton uses the Bush-Cheney-Rove playbook, and exaggerates the facts to try to make the mud she’s dishing seem stickier and more substantive. Note the key, dog-whistle words: "And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died." Except that:
- Ayers himself was never charged nor convicted of any such acts
- The only people actually killed by bombs made by the Weather Underground were members of the Weather Underground (in an accidental explosion in NYC)
- Her own husband pardoned someone who was charged and found guilty of making those bombs!
Chutzpah doesn’t even begin to describe this kind of attack by Clinton. Sadly, folks on the right are ecstatic given the rank hypocrisy involved. Here’s the National Review Online last week:
…the Ayers/Evans/Rosenberg controversy is just another example of how
surpassingly strange the Democratic race has become. Given Evans and
Rosenberg, how can Clinton credibly criticize Obama? But given Ayers,
how can Obama credibly criticize Clinton? No one has room to accuse
the other of anything. Now, John McCain, on the other hand…
That Clinton is doing the right’s job for them annoys me. But the reason this has made me so mad — and essentially guarantees I’ll
never vote for Hillary Clinton, ever, for any office — is that she’s
using the very same, vile character assassination tactics used against
Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, Al Gore, John Kerry and countless other
Democrats in the past two decades.
Finally, there is this. As I watched her tonight on Olbermann, I
couldn’t help but be impressed by her grasp of the details, her effortless recital of policy points. She always
shines there. But at the end, when his question about her embrace by
Richard Mellon Scaife drew her inauthentic cackle, the worm turned. She reminded me of that former President also known for his detailed grasp of policy, but whose mendacity and vicious brand of politics that Clinton now practices gave us this adjective: Nixonian.