Tom Hayden reflects on Hillary Clinton's radical days

I wonder, was that part of her thirty-five years of experience?

Organizes against an immoral war.
Helps impeach a criminal president.

Sounds like what we need for the job description.

If only she still did those things.

She voted with a criminal president for an immoral war. When is she going to apologize for that vote?

She did then and will as president.

Asked and answered.

There are a lot of years that went by between then and now? What would make that behavior kick in again? I don't think she is going to make president, so that won't be it.

here's the rest of the article...

(All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.

Exactly. Her mind set is win or destroy everything around her. Which is why the majority of democrats have rejected her campaign. They are tired of politics as usual and want C H A N G E.

You are half right TouchArt, questions about Clinton's vote have been asked (several thousand times), but have yet to be answered properly. If she's all about holding Bush accountable for the war in Iraq, then she's got some accounting to do too.

The entire Congress has some accounting to do regarding holding Bush accountable... especially those still funding his war.

Maybe Jan...but there is a difference between de-funding troops in the field and voting to send them there.

Edwards apologized and admitted his vote was wrong. Isn't 8 years of a president who can't admit mistakes enough?

Well, Obama iisn't known either. How do you know he would? You don't, and he made a mistake in Illinois when he watered down a bill that allows nuclear plants to continue leaking toxins into the water and putting the health of residents at risk. Will he admit that was a mistake and admit that nuclear is not green? Will he continue to push liquid coal? Will he continue to back down to corporate interests in lieu of putting the health and safety of our people and waterways first? Will he continue to vote for energy bills that give huge subsidies to the oil, coal, nuclear and ethanol lobbies?

I am not defending Clinton's vote, I am making a clear observation that for you to say you are against a war and then to fund it shows you are playing both sides and are not being sincere and frankly I am tired of that as well. John Edwards also called for defunding this war and for the Congress to continue sending that bill up to Bush no matter how many times he would veto it because it is actually not funding troops in the field but filling the pockets of military industrial contractors that are not only raping Iraq of its resources, but using it to have an imperial presence there.

Therefore, constantly intimating that those who call for defunding this war are not for the troops (as is the excuse those voting for funding use) is disingenuous at best. Congress has the power of the purse according to our constitution. To use it in this instance is not a slight on our troops, it is supporting them to not have to spend one more day in that hellhole than they have to. Funding it only prolongs it.

Clinton reminds me of the bratty kid that can't get along with the rest of kids because they won't let him be boss. So he takes his ball and bat and goes home. No problem they play kick the can without him.

Jade_Azul16 wrote " (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)"

The title of the letter above is "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream" by Tom Hayden.

Your point is, what?

The facts are Hillary Clinton has always worked for Americans, and, in 1968, that work was to organize students at the democratic convention against an unjust war and go to D.C. to work on the impeachment trial of Richard Nixon.

Why can't Obama supporters ever give credit where credit is due when it comes to Hillary Clinton?

You can project negative motivations onto her, you can repeat Republican talking points to attack her, but you can't change the fact that she's lived a live of public service and been a strong advocate for Americans for 35 years. She's been scrutinized and attacked and she's still standing.

Picking up the Karl Rovian banner and creating a caricature of Hillary Clinton does not make your false picture of her true. Just as refusing to look at Obama's flaws as a candidate, does not make them go away.

Neither Obama, nor Hillary Clinton are perfect. No one is. But one, Hillary Clinton, has proved for 35 years, she'll work for America, and Barack Obama hasn't.

I'll certianly give her credit for her work then, and in standing to impeach Nixon. How I wish they would all do the same now regarding Bush and Cheney.

JanforGore, word.
Thanks for asking why Obama has not been held accountable for his lie about passing the Senate bill to require the nuclear industry to report radioactive leaks and other important issues on which Obama stands against the interests of the earth.
All of Congress has a responsibility to stop this war.
Voters are turned off by the endless picking at Hillary Clinton about the one vote to enter the war, because Obama voted exactly with Hillary on every vote about the war once he was a senator.
To continually harp on that one vote, just shows how weak the Obama campaign's argument against Hillary is. And to continually claim she hasn't apologized, when that question has been asked and answered multiple times, is pretty pathetic.
Again, that tired old question has been asked and answered over and over again.
She's apologized many times, but people who hate her refuse to accept her apology and move on.

Jade_Azul16, the "Hillary of today" you describe is a construction of the media, and not at all who Hillary Clinton is.

Why aren't all the young, smart Obama supporters asking themselves why the Republicans, and the multinational energy, chemical, and weapons corporations that advertise on mass media news shows hate Hillary Clinton so much?

It is because she will stand up against them for Americans.

If any of you think FOX and the Clintons are working together, you're tripping. Karl Rove also has a bridge in Arizona he wants to sell you.

Talk of destroying the democratic party with a contentious primary is ridiculous. We're not babies, and as you know, this is not a game.

Democratic presidential primaries are always contentious and they should be. It is serious business giving one person so much power to govern this country.

Study history and you'll see that this isn't even among one of the most contentious Democratic Presidential contests. Start with Adams vs. Jefferson. This election season is mild compared to Humphrey vs. McCarthy in 1968. Carter vs Kennedy, etc, etc.

The majority of Democratic voters don't buy the slander and rhetoric many of Obama's supporters spew.

This primary race is a statistical tie.

If Obama can only claim to win the popular vote by suppressing the votes of over 2.1 million voters in Florida and Michigan over a technical party rule, then he is the one resorting to disenfranchising millions to get his way.

That should sit well with voters in Florida and Michigan in November, as well as will many Americans who are sick of their vote not counting.

Touch Art yes, Adams vs. Jefferson...two men who stood together to craft the Declaration of Independence, turned into political adversaries... I believe 37 or 38 ballots voted on in the House of Representatives before Jefferson was elected, but only after a Delaware Federalist representative conceded his vote to Jefferson because he claimed he would honor Adam's request regarding the navy. A very contentious race with Alexander Hamilton involved as well smearing Adams and Jefferson at every turn and sabre rarttling for war with France... I believe it even resulted in a duel...so yes, not much change in that respect, only in the sums of money used to conduct it and of course, the duel. ;-). And I agree about Michigan and Florida... count the votes.

And if Clinton resorts to super delegates over turning the will of the voters and the pledged delegates, that would lead to massive disenfranchisement in more than just two states. But I guess you're okay with that as long as your candidate wins, right?

"She's apologized many times, but people who hate her refuse to accept her apology and move on."

TouchArt please provide some citation for that statement. If you can, I'll be happy to apologize for continuing to "harp" on it.

The majority of Democratic voters are not rejecting Obama, he is winning. It is simply not a statistical tie. Are you purposely trying to mislead people? Or are you just misinformed? If Clinton were leading this race like Obama is, you'd be screaming for him to get out for the good of the party instead of resorting to fuzzy math and outright distortions. Talk about pathetic.

And Jan, I don't know whether Obama would admit to the mistake of voting for the war. And you don't know that he wouldn't, but that's all beside the point because he was the ONLY one of the three candidates who was right about the war. He doesn't have to admit a mistake because he didn't make one. That may not mean anything to you, but it clearly does to the majority of democrats...since he's winning the race and all.

Thanks though for your posts...they are alway fun to read.

Well, I believe even he stated had he been in the Senate at the time of that vote he didn't know how he would have voted. Wishy washy to say the least. And if you think watering down a bill to put a corporate donor over the people's health is not a mistake, or voting to fund an empire grab, then I have no more to say to you on that. This also isn't "fun." Amazing how you think to dismiss the validity of others' comments here so subtly.

Thanks again, JanforGore, for being a voice of reason.

Notice how our question about Obama's lie to Iowa voters about passing the Senate nuclear bill is ignored.

That is a lie that matters.

The race is basically a tie.

But only if Obama continues to obstruct Florida and Michigan primary voters being counted.

Obama has outspent Hillary 2.5 to 3 times.
If he can't close the deal, he won't win against McCain.

Why do Obama supporters have to constantly resort to name-calling, insults and false accusations against Hillary Clinton and any one who doesn't hate her?

If Obama is such a positive candidate, why does he inspire such vitriole?

In nearly every post by Obama supporters on current and other lists like on ccn, abc, aol, etc., the posters invariably insult and name-call Hillary and/or her supporters. But they accuse her of being negative.

Again, asked and answered. Any one paying attention has seen and heard Hillary apologize. Get over it and move one.

And moving on. Just why did Barack Obama lie to Iowa voters about the Senate bill he "passed"? Guess he misspoke.

Where is the vitriol? I didn't call anyone names. And I wasn't being dismissive, I enjoy both your's and Jan's posts. They are almost always well reasoned and supported by facts...even if I often disagree with the conclusions. Weren't you two just talking about how important a spirited debate was? Remember all that Jefferson and Adams stuff? Why all of a sudden are you being thin skinned? Weird.
Anyway...your normal thoroughness makes you lack of citation on Hillary's apology even more glaring. Here...I'll show you how it's done with John Edwards as an example, who actually did apologize for his vote.

Here's the site:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2867.html

Here's the quote:

"John Edwards said today that he apologized for his 2002 vote approving the invasion of Iraq because he realized about two years ago he should not have given George W. Bush the authority to wage war.

“I thought it was important, if I believed that, to take responsibility for it and take that responsibility publicly,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a telephone interview."

I'm happy to move on to lesser issues once we have this one resolved.

Look forward to your next post.

Touch Art: As you know from my comments here I am not an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton either. However, I agree with you about the vitriol and hype and definitely give her credit for her work on behalf of children and the American people over the last thirty plus years. She too served her country as First Lady and that should garner a bit more respect than we see from some. My only hope is that she too has learned something from her mistakes and would work to rectify that should she be given the chance. And I will hold her feet to the fire as I would anyone else should she be given that chance, but I don't hate her nor do I hate Obama. I am simply tired of the double standard practiced in this campaign which you eluded to in your last response. That nuclear bill really bothers me because it shows that Obama may not lead in the best interests of people should undue corporate pressure be exerted upon him. I think that too needs to be discussed, but i do see it being pushed to the side in lieu of attacking Clinton constantly and it is very telling. I am really waiting for all of these candidates to come out regarding the climate crisis calling for 80- 90% reductions in GHGs by 2020-30. We don't have time to wait until 2050. I am waiting for them to stop pushing nuclear and coal and ethanol. I am waiting for some real leadership instead of playing to the same corporate interests behind the scenes while publicly saying you aren't. I hope we see it soon.

"She's apologized many times, but people who hate her refuse to accept her apology and move on."

Many times? Please prove this allegation as I've been waiting to hear that for quite a long time.

"But only if Obama continues to obstruct Florida and Michigan primary voters being counted."

Please explain how it is Obama who is single handedly obstructing these states.

"Jade_Azul16, the "Hillary of today" you describe is a construction of the media, and not at all who Hillary Clinton is."

If true, and unless you know her personally, couldn't that apply to Obama as well?

krag2112, again, asked and answered.
I don't waste precious time doing other people's research.

Moving on.
Still no answer to Senator Obama's lie to Iowa voters about "passing" a Senate bill to protect Americans from nuclear radiation when he didn't.

JanforGore, WORD.
I need to hear the answers to those questions as well.

And, yes, I know you're not an avid Hillary supporter, and I appreciate your level, reasoned and substantial arguments about crucial issues to our country and the survival of the 7th generation.

Like you, "I don't hate her nor do I hate Obama". Hatred is a useless destructive emotion, and it is disturbing that so many people hate Hillary when they don't even know her or the truth of what she has done in her life.

What you may not know about me is that I was not an avid supporter until recently, and in fact, did not decide to vote for Hillary until our NM primary in February on Super Tuesday.

I support Hillary Clinton for president the more I research her record, listen to her now, read her detailed well-thought out platform, and see how strong she is in the face of the republican attack machine.

Hillary Clinton's grace the day after the last debate contrasted strongly with Barack Obama's display of disdain.

The fact that the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) hates Hillary Clinton makes me like her more. Theyve hated Bill Clinton for decades to because he vetoed a bill they supported.

search Hillary Clinton at www.nei.org

In contrast, Senator Chris Dodd who is a big endorser of Barack Obama, is a major proponent of the Nuclear Energy Industry quoted on their website, as is Speaker Pelosi who's pushing Obama.
Bill Richardson is long known to have ties with the PNM Ceo pushing renewed nuclear energy which requires renewing uranium mining in the Four Corners, Navajo Nation and other areas in New Mexico, Arizona and elsewhere.

The most disturbing element of Senator Obama's behavior about the Senate Nuclear bill was that he initially proposed the bill at the request of parents of pediatric cancer victims, promised he'd protect them, then gutted the bill to give the nuclear power plants the discretion to decide whether to report radiation leaks after specific pressure from the nuclear industry, contributions to his campaign by people at Excelon and Senate Republicans, then let the bill die without being passed.

This something Senator Obama did while a senator, employed by Americans.

Where is the explanation?

The second most disturbing element in this incident is the fact that Senator Obama told his lie about "passing" the Senate Nuclear bill to the primary voters of Iowa who gave him the surprise primary victory that helped him raise so much money.
Do the Iowa voters who relied on Obama's word about "the only nuclear bill I passed" get a chance to change their primary vote?

Okay TouchArt. Let's be clear. Here's what you said.

"To continually harp on that one vote, just shows how weak the Obama campaign's argument against Hillary is. And to continually claim she hasn't apologized, when that question has been asked and answered multiple times, is pretty pathetic.
Again, that tired old question has been asked and answered over and over again.
She's apologized many times, but people who hate her refuse to accept her apology and move on."

Those are some pretty serious accusations you're dropping on us. And now you're saying that you shouldn't have to do the research for us? Um...okay, I guess that's your perogative. But it seems to me that if you want to be taken seriously on these other issues you raise, you'd back up your earlier comments with some proof. Until you do, most people are going to assume that you can't. And for the record, I found the Edwards example in about 45 seconds.

But as always...thanks for your posts.

"politically lobotomized Clintonistas"

"homely"

LOL. Way to be above name-calling.

What was the word you all have used so often to "discredit" legitimate disagreement?

Pathetic.

Again, personal attacks don't reflect well on your candidate and don't solve any of the critical issues facing the world.

By the way, why no answer on why Obama lied about "the only nuclear legislation I passed"?