AUDIO: Hannity Feeds Stephanopoulos Debate Question On Weather UndergroundBackground:
On March 6, 1970, a bomb explosion destroyed a Greenwich Village town house, killing three members of the radical Weather Underground and driving other members of the group even deeper into hiding. On Wednesday night, those events emerged as the focus of a sharp exchange between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama at their debate in Philadelphia.
<...>
Mr. Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weather Underground figure. Both were indicted in 1970 for inciting to riot and conspiracy to bomb government buildings, but charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.
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.
Edited to add:
Wolfson also said that "Bill Ayers is unrepentant of what he did…and that is a difference, of course, between Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg."
But when Evans was released after Bill Clinton pardoned her, she told the Austin American-Statesman, "I'm not repentant. That's for sure. I wouldn't go about it the same (violent) way." But "we still need solutions, and we still need justice just as badly as we ever did."
link_____________________
It's an intriguing move, to say the least. The Clinton camp was so eager to get Ayers' name into the political conversation that they were willing to risk not one, but two possible blowbacks: First, the inevitable criticism they'll take for going so negative; and second, questions about Bill's pardons.
Strange that the question asked during the debate wasn't about the pardon of convicted felons, isn't it? No, they asked about Obama "knowing" a guy who was once accused (not convicted) of a crime 38 years ago.
Classic!
Created: April 17th, 2008 | Written By: DM Metzger
The best way to respond and react to “the textbook Washington game”? Mirth and humor, of course:
(
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/04/the-textbook-washington-game">Video)
It’s no surprise that George Stephanopoulos has
gotten defensive about his and Charlie Gibson’s “moderator” performance; it’s all he knows. Gotcha games aren’t just part of the game, they practically define it. This has never been more true then in recent years. Whether it’s from jaded experience or because they’ve never known anything else some politicians and media personalities simply can’t see past the gossip. They, it seems,
can’t focus on the issues, it’s an alien concept to them.
Unfortunately for the jaded politico’s and they’re media brethren the game can only go on for so long. Combine an increasingly politically literate audience, a charismatic candidate, and vocal secondary opinion sources like blogs and you end up with the makings of a paridgram shift on the game.
: "People also take into account...how candidates handle controversy," he said. "That's what campaigns are about, as well."
George Stephanopoulos has addressed criticism of his and Charles Gibson's conduct as moderators in last night's ABC-sponsored Democratic candidate debate, in the form of an
interview with TalkingPointsMemo's Greg Sargent. And George went straight to the "electability" defense:
Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.
Ah yes, "electability," which makes discussion of any criticism of a candidate, frivolous or serious, instantly relevant, on the theory that the opposition will hit the nominee with all this crap, so we might as well see how they handle its endless repetition today.
There are several problems with this line of "reasoning" that arrogates to journalists (not to mention the candidates themselves) the right--nay, the responsibility--to ape the nastiest hit tactics they can imagine emanating from conservatives later this year.
First of all, why is Stephanopoulos all that sure that "electability" is in the "forefront in the minds of voters evaluating" Obama and Clinton? Maybe he thinks that's the only significant difference between the two candidates, and maybe he's tired of hearing their substantive pitches, but that's not necessarily true of actual voters who have heard far less of their policy ideas lately than any manner of gotcha stuff or "symbolism."
Second of all, "electability" is a highly speculative concept at this stage of the presidential election cycle. Who knows how "electable" Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to look in October? I don't; you don't; George Stephanopolis doesn't; and grilling the candidates on their alleged "vulnerabilities" doesn't cast much real light on that question, either.
moreYes, what about Hillary's vulnerabilities?
In a way, his answer shows just how deeply he bought into the Clinton campaign's argument. She is only arguing about electability at this point, even as she goes through the motions on the campaign trail giving her usual speeches. Obama studiously avoids all talk of delegates, The Math, and Clinton's electability. But if ABC News wanted to focus on electability they should have been fair and balanced and asked Clinton how she could possibly win a national election after alienating the entire black community by destroying Obama's reputation through right-wing attacks and wresting away the nomination despite having less pledged delegates.
I don't disagree that electability is an important consideration in the Democratic campaign. ABC News would have been justified if they had asked a question on the topic to each candidate. But they didn't limit themselves to one question. They spent a full fifty minutes on the topic, and they did not adequately question Clinton's vulnerabilities (high negatives, trustworthiness, and no clear path to the nomination). One question about Tuzla is insufficient balance to four electability questions for Barack.
linkLook at how she handled that controversy:
Bosnia Sniper Fire - Hillary Clinton - Democratic Debate (video)
What about McCain's vulnerabilities:
here and
here.
ABC presents:
Juicy (video)
edited typo in title.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
