Christopher Pratt (cpratt) wrote,
Christopher Pratt
cpratt

"I'm just angry"

Here's a bit about my favorite news story of the day: Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer's remarks at a press conference in Washington yesterday.

Here's a sample:

"When Time's Jay Newton-Small inquired about the Obama photo on Drudge, Singer used the occasion to complain about the press's failure to examine Obama's ties to violent radicals who were part of the Weathermen of the 1960s. 'As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps,' he said." [as quoted in the Washington Post]

Let's have a closer look at that, shall we? What Singer is referring to is the story of Bill Ayers. Ayers is currently a professor at the University of Chicago; previously, he was a member of the Weather Underground, an American terrorist group active in the early 1970s.

Barack Obama was born in 1961. He was probably 9 or 10 years old when the Weather Underground were setting bombs and killing people. I think it's blatantly ridiculous for the Clinton campaign to accuse Obama of ties to "violent radicals" when he wasn't even junior high school at that point.

The real story is of course that Singer and Obama both sat on the board of The Woods Fund at the same time. Of course, the Woods Fund is hardly an organization for "violent radicals" - their most recent achievement is raising "$20 million to build Center on Halsted, the first LGBT Community Center in the world to integrate recreational, cultural and social services programming under one roof."

If sitting on the board of a charitable organization doing good work for the greater community of Chicago, one that contains an ex-terrorist (as well as folks from notoriously radical outfits like Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill and UBS Investment Bank) means that you have "ties to violent radicals" then, well... hell, call me crazy but I call bullshit.

What's more disappointing than anything is that Hillary Clinton is running a campaign where it's OK to say anything, do anything, insinuate anything in order to win. I mean, what the hell? Yes, it has to be hugely frustrating to be losing against someone you didn't even think had a chance just three months ago, but accusing him of ties to violent radicals? Is that even remotely rational? I'm not buying it for a minute.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 24 comments