Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Tom Hayden Looks at Clinton's 60s Past

April 27, 2008 12:35 PM

In The Nation, former 60s radical Tom Hayden -- in an essay called "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream" -- hammers Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for attacking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, for his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. "Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties," Hayden writes. "She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an 'unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged.' She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. ... She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

"Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others 'tolerated communists'. Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. ...

"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?"

April 27, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (142)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is there some reason that you do not refer to former Sen. Hayden with his title as a former elected official? He served in both the California Senate and the California State Assembly. Calling him simply a "former 60s radical" is ignorant and misleading.

Posted by: TKD | Apr 29, 2008 7:37:04 PM

I thought mr. tom was ailing?
it is true-ANY press is better than
NO press.
so someone dusted off mr. tom.
of the chicago seven-how many are still alive? Mr. tom, barbequeing bobby,
anyone else?

Posted by: middle of the road | Apr 29, 2008 7:52:38 AM

"obama has cnn.msnbc
mccain has fox
clinton-has everybody against her"
----Posted by: jgaw | Apr 27, 2008 1:08:50PM

==============

Ha,ha, ha...

CNN=Clinton News Network and Obama-hating Dobbs

FOX=Non-stop Obama hater and...Clinton lover! (For now.)

CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIR TERRY MCAULIFFE SPEAKING TO FOX NEWS ON APRIL 22: "Fair and balanced FOX."

PA Governor and HUGE Clinton backer Ed Rendell interview [3/31/08]: "FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks... you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news."

William Kristol in NYT, 4/28/08: "Hillary Clinton....a very impressive candidate."

Rush Limbaugh: Vote for Hillary! Operation Chaos!
======================

"moderation in all things
take the middle road
sen. clinton"
----Posted by: jgaw | Apr 27, 2008 1:08:50PM
-----------

Guffaw!
Pseudo-tough China comments, to the extent that her campaign's China policy adviser recently resigned in protest. Richard Baum resigned in light of what he called “grossly misguided accusations” made by Clinton about China. “As a lifelong Democrat, it saddens me that Sen. Clinton has chosen to take the low road in her effort to gain our party’s presidential nomination.”

Clinton said this on 4/22/08: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran....In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally OBLITERATE them."
---------------

And this from HRC in 4/16/08 PA Debate:

“I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur MASSIVE RETALIATION from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”
------------
This drew incredulous reaction from many, including this one from nuclear deterrence theorist George E. Lowe, who wrote the book "The Age of Deterrence" and has won awards for his writing on nuclear deterrence:

"Who the HELL is she talking to? Whose IDEAS are these", Lowe asked me, rhetorically, "[Wesley] Clark didn't seem to know anything about this; he was blindsided. So where did these crazy, dangerous ideas come from? Look, I've been in this business for fifty years, I know nuclear deterrence. She had to have been talking to somebody like Doug Coe or his elite inner circle."

[NOTE: Coe is the head of the Washington-based Christian fundamentalist group 'The Family,' first covered at length in Jeff Sharlet's 2003 Harper's story 'Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover Among America's Secret Theocrats.'"Book is out this May.]

It was conjecture, and Lowe would be the first to admit that, but he would also stick to his call pegging Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" as a fast track to global nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons can't be used as "umbrellas." That's nuts, an idea one would have expected from SAC head General Curtis LeMay, parodied in Dr. Strangelove. Today, one would expect it from a Neocon.

And this reaction from conservative David Books on MTP:
"I’m amazed…that it didn’t become a bigger issue. Because what it says, I think, to a lot of Americans, two Arab countries or two Middle Eastern countries get in a war and we’re going to get in the middle of it?..I don’t know why she would’ve said it, what policy thinking behind it was. It seems to me extremely perilous."
-------------

Add to that MANDATED health care....

So, moderation in all things and taking the middle road EXCLUDES Sen. Clinton!

Posted by: Boomerang | Apr 29, 2008 7:13:58 AM

As we look at Tom Haydn's 60's past

Posted by: karen | Apr 29, 2008 4:20:17 AM

Don't worry.
Have some more Obama's secrets.

Posted by: crisis08 | Apr 29, 2008 1:20:21 AM

Does anyone know what happened to the Peter Paul lawsuits against the Clintons?

Posted by: Bluesky | Apr 28, 2008 7:50:15 PM

Chris,

Mutual funds in 401Ks do pay capital gains by the fund managers when they sell positions as they rearrange their portfolis. And, if investors in stocks that make up the mutual funds are going to pay more in taxes, that would discourage them investing in those stocks they will park their money elsewhere which indirectly affect stocks in funds. Chill out dude, Rev. Wright and Howard Dean are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic aka the Democrat Party. And the band played on...

Posted by: samd | Apr 28, 2008 4:42:53 PM

Clinton, Obama, McCain....

Unless anyone of you are running for president, I suggest you all quit whining and choose.

If anyone of you are from Florida or Michigan... "I UNDERSTAND!"

Be sure you choose correctly...

Posted by: Randy | Apr 28, 2008 4:06:56 PM

I'm not one of these nut cases who believes that 9/11 was an inside job or anything like that, but I have to admit I was intrigued by the candidacy of Ron Paul. The mind-numbing uniformity of candidates for any high office these days is truly stultifying. There is no appreciable difference between Clinton and Obama, and McCain is just another rich white guy (not that I have anything against rich white guys) whose belief that government has the cure for whatever ails you differs little fundamentally from what the Democrats offer. You want real change? How about a smaller government that intrudes less on our personal lives and takes less out of our pockets. Now that would be REAL change.

Posted by: Rob | Apr 28, 2008 2:55:39 PM

I thought Tom Hayden was dead.

Posted by: mike gino | Apr 28, 2008 2:16:06 PM

Hillary is just too plain negative and she has far too much baggage for the nation to herald her as someone with a fresh perspective. Ditto for McCain who spent most of his politicla life decrying the platforms he has now been forced to choose as the GOP nominee.

Obama is the only rational choice. It's is Obama's policies that will lead the nation. It is not the spiritual reckoning with Christ that was assisted by Wright nor is it the work of the charitable foundation board on which he served with Ayers.

America is great at finding distractions to problems. For once, make a generational change that will scream out we want better. We demand better.

Obama is a leader that we cand hol dup and who will restore the shine of America on the world stage once again.

Taking that chance is well worth it.

Posted by: Sircorn | Apr 28, 2008 2:07:57 PM

Look, as a conservative, excuse me; fascist, I don't see a dime's bit of difference between these two on policy matters.

The only question is; will the Dem's put forth a pathological liar or a fool who chooses to associate with the blame/hate America first crowd?

Either way... Are you kidding me? Is that the best the left in this country has to offer?

GOD help us all....

Posted by: Brian | Apr 28, 2008 1:56:33 PM

Attention America! We must not allow our nation to be divided by politicians seeking election or media outlets seeking “Hot” stories to gain advertising dollars.

Other than the indigenous people, all other Americans came from some other nation and brought with them a corresponding cultural influence. A casual observation would reflect English, Irish, Italian, Polish, French, Chinese, Spanish and yes African traditions interwoven into the fabric which is America. Our pre-American origins and traditions are as important too us as family history. We should not be required to abandon who we are nor should we seek to destroy the cultural heritage of other Americans.

The beauty of America is its diversity and the ability of this diverse population to love this country. What makes us unique as Americans is the flavoring we receive from exposure to this diversity. What make us strong is the ability of our citizens to rally in defense of the promise of our Constitution and our common interest.

As a nation we are faced with some of the greatest challenges in our history. To overcome these challenges we must unite our people. Do not be deceived… the real enemies of America are those that seek to weaken us using the age old “Divide and conquer” strategy. “United we stand…Divided we fall”.

Posted by: Frank | Apr 28, 2008 1:47:35 PM

OPERATION CHAOS!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Predator | Apr 28, 2008 1:45:31 PM

Couple of things...

1. Please don't cite a blog as "proof" of your view. Yes, computer keyboards lie still and let you write anything you want- and the same goes for blogs written by those with a personal view to push, regardless of how preposterous it may be...

2. If you find a blog or other source that intrigues you, please check other sources to confirm the information included within. That's called "research and verification", folks. It is what us pros do. If you can't find that confiration, then don't trust the info in the blog until you can...

3. Maybe it is just me, but why wouldn't we want a president who is willing to listen to and interact with people from all political views? Isn't gathering input from different sources before making a decision something we want a good leader to do? Would you rather have an adminsitration made up of one person belieivng the are the sole source of knowledge and them being surrounding by boot-licking yes-men lackeys? We've had that for the past 8 years and it hyasn't worked out so well...

Posted by: TJ | Apr 28, 2008 1:33:37 PM

OxyCon:

I agree with you wholehearted! And would add further; Hillary has not admitted to having "friendly relations" with any of those radicals either. It is the duty and responsibility of an attorney to represent his/her client to the fullest extend of the law. I don't hear of anyone of them being on the board of any company with her or raising funds for her campaign either!

Posted by: Haydens' objectivity questioned | Apr 28, 2008 1:20:09 PM

tom hayden is michael corleone's attorney

Posted by: Rob | Apr 28, 2008 1:11:50 PM

And let us not forget her husband's commutation of Weather Underground Susan Rosenberg's sentence. She told Inside Edition she knew nothing about it but last week Newsday did an investatigation and found that claim to be suspect.

It was Jerry Nadler who asked Bill Clinton to help Rosenberg and it was Jerry Nadler was was working to get Hillary elected to the Senate in 2000.

Posted by: southamco | Apr 28, 2008 1:11:38 PM

America- where no trial is necessary- you're guilty by association.

Posted by: julie | Apr 28, 2008 1:03:48 PM

Eyes wide 0pen?

Gaily frolicking.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | Apr 28, 2008 12:46:19 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS