On The Weatherman Pardon: What Did She Know & When Did She Know It?

[DeSwiss]

Don't Need a Weatherman to Know...

Talking Points Memo
Josh Marshall
04.25.08 -- 12:24PM

As you know the Weather Underground, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)#Greenwich_Village_explosion">somewhat hapless but definitely violent 60s and 70s radical group, has bubbled up into the 2008 presidential campaign. It's come up against Obama for his association with Bill Ayers and then Obama brought it up in response because Bill Clinton pardoned two former Weathermen in his end of presidency pardons.

Inside Edition of all places asked Hillary about the pardons and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsrf4IrKHsE">her response was that "Well, I didn't know anything about it."

Now, we've gotten a lot of emails from readers asking for us to follow up on this. And we ask for clarification from the Clinton campaign about just what she meant because I found her statement ambiguous. Did she mean she didn't knowing anything about it at the time? Or that she didn't know about it until Barack Obama brought it up in the debate? And Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told Greg Sargent that she was "unaware before it was done," which I take to mean that she wasn't privy to any of the discussions about it before the pardon and basically only heard about it in the newspapers like the rest of us.

But as New York Newsday http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/04/hill_on_brinks_radical_i_didnt.html">points out, the murders in question (the crime the two individuals were in prison for) took place in New York. And the campaign to get them pardons and the opposition to it got a lot of publicity in New York in the summer and fall of 2000, when Clinton was initially running for senate. Newsday's blog has a http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/04/hill_on_brinks_radical_i_didnt.html">chronology of who was doing what, including Sen. Schumer's lobbying against the pardon. So take a look and let us know what you think. For my part I think it makes her claim not to have known anything about this seem a bit dubious.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191349.php">LINK

- Now Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Did you misspeak? Again?? Then you probably were also misspeaking http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/why-hillary-makes-my-wife_b_98102.html">when you said in a college speech: "our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

Well, I know, that was a long time ago. And you were young and full of vinegar. Vinegar that has now apparently turned into acid. But I must say that I find it hard to accept that such basic beliefs can change so easily in people. Most people. At least it's not done so with me. I've been liberal all my life, as far back as I can remember. And I've always thought corporations were evil, even before I read what Thomas Jefferson said about them.

Maybe the best way for you to stop misspeaking is to either just tell the truth, or shut up altogether. Because if there's one thing America doesn't need anymore of is for the people that we elect to lead us, to lie to us. We've had almost 8 years of that and quite frankly, we're sick of it....
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[keep_it_real]

1. "Well, I didn't know anything about it" - Just another Clinton lie, lie, lie

When will people catch on that they are liars?

[DeSwiss]

2. I think that many....

...do know it. But they are attached to her campaign like a Siamese twin. For whatever their reasons. Obama wasn't my first choice, but as others dropped-out and the vitriolic race-baiting and outright lying became the central theme of her campaign, I lost all respect for her.

Personally, I think that the best indicator of a person's future ability to lead, can best be gauged by the person's trustworthiness. Americans will always be prepared to forgive a mistake when it is owned up to. We don't do so well with liars. And historically, we haven't forgiven them either, and then voted for them anyway. Until now. So that is an indication that "other considerations" are the principle motivation to swallow her BS. And she's played on it to the hilt. No matter how despicable.

Its not "just politics," so therefore we must blithely accept those lies. And its not naivety on the part of those of us who denounce it. I understand enough about the complexities and difficulties of governing to know that its impossible to please everyone. But these blatant lies and attempts to besmirch one's opponent to make oneself stand taller, only underscores the emptiness that lies within when your only message is vitriol.

- And besides, once we start electing people who lie to us so blatantly ("you know"), then what's the point???