Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
HIllary Clinton: Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been a Member Of the Communist Party?
During the 1950s, the scariest letter you could get was a summons to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) chaired by one Joe McCarthy.
The worst questions you could be asked was are you a Commie, a Pinko, a Red? Do you hang around with them? Do you know anyone who does? What are their names?
If you're into the arts, you know those questions led to blacklists; good writers, musicians, painters, playwrights, screenwriters, directors, actors, and others were banished from the world of arts and entertainment. So were engineers and architects, and garbage men and school teachers.
Thus, some 50 years later, one candidate is asking the same questions of another in an attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination from that candidates grasp.
We all remember -- even if only played out once again on the local cineplex screen via "Goodnight and Good Luck" -- the seminal moment: "Have you no shame, sir?"
It is time to ask one candidate both of those questions, as she has sought to smear her opponent with the stain of guilt by association.
First, Hillary Clinton, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Have you ever been affiliated with or employed by, or maintained a friendship with a member of the Communist Party?
To the first question, the answer is unclear. To the second question, the answer is yes. YES.
Carl Bernstein, noted author and biographer can provide this insight:
"I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland California, and he soon said he would like to go to California with me."
That is the total verbiage expended on so formative an experience, and the lasting -- but distant friendship -- she maintained for the next twenty-some years with Bob Treuhaft and his wife, the muckraking journalist (and, like her husband) former communist party member Jessica Mitford.
"The reason she came to us," Treuhaft told me [the quotation is in my biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman In Charge] "the only reason I could think of, because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called "Movement law firm at the time. There was no reason except politics for a girl from Yale" to intern at the firm. "She certainly... was in sympathy with all the Left causes, and there was a sharp dividing line at the time. We still weren't very far out of the McCarthy era."
Did that connection continue while you and your husband, the former President, were in the White House?
Answer: YES
Have you ever worked on behalf of any person, or group of persons committed to the violent overthrow of the government of the United States?
Answer: YES
Let's allow Mr. Bernstein's testimony with regard to Hillary Diane Rodham's activities to continue:
In her 2003 "memoir," Living History, Hillary mentions not a word about her role in the Panther trial in New Haven--during which she directed Yale law students monitoring the proceedings for evidence of government misconduct in its prosecution of the Panthers accused of murder. "It meant going in and out of the Black Panther headquarters to obtain documentation and other information," a classmate told Donnie Radcliff of the Washington Post, quoted in Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady For Our Time. "Hillary's job was to organize shifts for her classmates and make certain no proceeding went unmonitored...[for] civil rights abuses..."
So Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has had long-standing affiliations with persons of the Commie-Pinko persuasion and persons known to advocate for the violent overthrow of the United States government.
She would seek to destroy the candidacy of one man while hiding her own connections to radical elements far worse than a pastor who preaches a brand of theology not to her liking, and a former 60s radical with whom her own alliances and affiliations suggest a natural allegiance.
Have you no shame, madam? Have your craven quest for political significance driven you to this? Have you reached such a nadir that you would lie and manipulate to hide your own trail of shame and concoct one of wholecloth lies about another? Is your secret allegiance to the Communist Party why you do not wear a flag pin next to your heart? If by some stroke of all things unholy you attain the highest office in the land, is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States? Is your husband also a Communist? Have you ever invited American Communists to the White House?
These are the questions we musst send to George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson. But since they have been so instrumental in aiding and abetting her, can we trust them to be True American Patriots or are they secret communist sympathesizers as well? What do we make of Mark Penn, Geoff Garin, even Chelsea Clinton? Where does this communist taint end?
If we must question the casual acquaintances of Sen. Obama, we must demand even more scrutiny of Sen. Clinton, who has known Communist associates.
After all, she started it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/the-shame-of-hillary-clin_b_99912.html







Comments (7)
McCarthy didn't chair the House Un-American Activities Commission being a Senator. But you have his witchhunt tactics down pat.
May 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire your pursuit of trying to make accountability a little more equitable in this campaign.
I'm not sure the communist issue is the one to pursue though. Just my opinion.
Reaching into the Clinton's past isn't necessary because what Hillary and Bill have been doing in the present raises a lot of serious questions.
Those questions, we all know, will not be asked. Not by the MSM. Their not even brought up in the local state papers.
The Obama campaign doesn't demand the same accountability the Clinton's do. And I respect that.
So the job of raising these questions is in the hands of the voters.
There needs to be stronger coordination in terms of raising these questions.
I would recommend focusing on one issue and amplifying it everywhere.
For example, the Clintons have not been properly vetted on the whole free trade issue. The Colombia Free Trade conflict of interest was so underplayed it's infuriating.
Meanwhile Hillary is going around promising jobs, jobs and more jobs and coming across as the champion of the white lower income working class.
So questions about her ambiguous positions on NAFTA and global trade would run entirely inconsistent with who she's portraying herself as.
May 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the reasons I support Hillary, albeit a minor reason. I wonder if she might still have some of that 60's radical in her just hiding away waiting for the power to actualize. I thought the same way about Gore when I learned he was a pot head. To survive as a politician for 30 or 40 years you have to hide parts of yourself.
But this issue is way too old to have any traction. No one will care what law firm she interned with even though there were I think 4 members of the communist party or former members as partners.
May 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we must question the casual acquaintances of Sen. Obama
And what "casual acquaintances" of Senator Obama have "we" questioned?
May 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary was alive at the time, is there any doubt whose side she would be on???
Her McCarthyism is shocking, and the quiet from the DNC on it is too.
"This is one of the reasons I support Hillary, albeit a minor reason. I wonder if she might still have some of that 60's radical in her just hiding away waiting for the power to actualize."
60s radical? Are you kidding? She was Goldwater girl, took part in minority voter suppression tactics (socalled "vote fraud"), and was repulsed by what she perceived as "radicalism" of the non-violent civil rights movement (the MLK wing).
May 3, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was a republican as a teen, like her family, like most children she followed the politics of her parents. She was the president of the young republicans at Wesley in her freshman year but as her politics changed she resigned.
She was not repulsed by the non violent tactics of MLK but by the violent tactics of other groups. She supported McCarthy and 4 years later worked in Texas for McGovern.
Sure, she was a republican who worked for McGovern, interned with commie lawyers and was part of the team in the impeachment of Nixon. Pretty typical behavior for republicans at the time I guess.
May 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
dude. calm down.
May 3, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment