Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's Weather Underground Problem - Either She's Lying or She's Not
Damned if she is, damned if she isn't.
Hillary made a big mistake the other day on Inside Edition when she said, in regards to her husband's Weather Underground pardons, "Well, I didn't know anything about it."
Oh, reeeeeeeeeally.
I'm glad to see that Josh is diving into this story, because a response of "I didn't know anything about it," just begs reporters to prove her wrong. Any sort of flat denial like this raises more questions than it answers, because a touchstone of Hillary's campaign has been the implied assertion that she was something of a co-president or at the least a trusted adviser during her husband's tenure. Hilariously, any time a current issue becomes unpopular (NAFTA, pardons), Hillary seems to have been magically absent from those White House discussions or was, even more amazingly, "secretly" lobbying against it.
Simply put, Hillary put her foot in her mouth big time in the Inside Edition interview. If she would have instead just obfuscated or ducked the question, I'm sure she'd keep skating for a few more weeks. Instead, she flatly denied knowledge of the pardons and pricked the ears of journalists around the country. Bad move.
The fact is, Bill's pardons are a huge deal and they are going to be a big issue in a general election should HRC get the nod. And so it comes down to: either she knew about them or she didn't. If she knew about them, and I think there's ample evidence that she must have known about most of them and possibly even lobbied on behalf of some of those who were pardoned, then she needs to explain herself. On the other hand, if these were all done without her knowledge, let alone without her consultation, then it raises serious questions about how much of the White House operated on a level above Ms. Clinton's head.
To sum: either she knew about the pardons and is outright lying, or she didn't know about them and her claim to have been a major player in the White House should be seriously questioned.
So, which is it, Hillary? Are you lying to us, or have you been exaggerating your role in the White House? You can't have it both ways.













Comments (6)
Interestingly, as I was composing this, Greg Mitchell (editor of Editor and Publisher) weighed in on the matter over at Daily Kos. Link here.
April 25, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Hillary Clinton world, there is only one way. That is both ways. She was an active co-president with Bill, and all her time during Bill's presidency counts as her experience. She knew absolutely nothing about anything that Bill did that is not viewed favorably now. She had nothing to do with it. Except for NAFTA, which she was against, even though she was publicly for it. Why are you asking these questions? The media is against Hillary!!!! Look, over there, scary black man. What? I didn't say anything about a scary black man. I did not say that quote you just played back to me of my very own words. Wait, that was Bill. Hillary has nothing to do with anything Bill does. Hillary gets credit for everything good that happened during Bill's presidency. Why are you asking these questions? Go talk to Rev. Wright.
April 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
April 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is worse, knowing a terrorist who didn't kill anyone or pardoning a terrorist that was responsible for the death of a Nyack cop?
April 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and you do realize that if Bill Ayers was a black man, that the story would be blown up waaay out of proportion.
April 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we have no reason to believe that Hillary would lie, cough, cough, let us assume she did not know. Then she merely needs to denounce and reject Bill Clinton for pardoning the convicted terrorists.
April 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment