Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Clinton's Radical Past" smear email completely debunked

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:00 PM
Original message
"Clinton's Radical Past" smear email completely debunked
Why hasn't Obama called for his supporters to stop spreading this email smear?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/15/clintons-not-so-radical-past/

Clinton's not-so-radical past
By Robert Farley
Published on Friday, February 15th, 2008 at 06:04 p.m.



SUMMARY: A chain e-mail says Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers and interned for a law firm run by a Communist. The source? An article by Clinton adviser-turned-foe Dick Morris.

The latest anti-Hillary Clinton chain e-mail making the rounds comes not from an anonymous voice in the blogosphere but from a former political consultant who once helped guide the Clintons’ political life in Arkansas and the White House.

We’ll start with the Black Panthers. Here’s what the e-mail, taken directly from Morris’ article, says: “Hillary’s main extracurricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.”

Here’s the history.

In 1970, eight Black Panthers, including its national chairman Bobby Seale, were brought to trial in New Haven, Conn., on charges of murdering a fellow member, Alex Rackley, who was suspected of being a police informant. He was not a federal agent.

The trial consumed the Yale campus, and many Yale students rallied in support of the black defendants, or at least for their right to a fair trial. Consider this statement from Yale president Kingman Brewster: “I personally want to say that I am appalled that things have come to such a pass that I am skeptical of the ability of black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the U.S.”

Clinton, a Yale Law School student a the time, played a “minor” role in the doings that year, said Paul Bass, a journalist who spent years researching the Black Panther case for a book he co-authored called Murder in the Model City. She co-chaired a committee whose main role was to prevent violence at a May Day demonstration, he said.

Clinton’s committee also offered legal advice to demonstrators who got arrested and to monitor the trial for civil rights abuses, Bass said.

But if that civil-rights monitoring ever happened, said two sources interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, one thing is certain: Clinton was not an every-day trial watcher, as Morris claims. Nor did she “help” the defense.

“I can’t say she was never in court,” said David Rosen, a junior member of the defense team for Seale. “But she was not there every day. In fact, I don’t even remember seeing her there at all. I know she didn’t do any work for the defense team.”

According to Carl Bernstein’s biography A Woman in Charge, Clinton was among the student-observers from a civil liberties class who attended the trial daily “to report possible abuses by the government, discuss them in class, write papers about them and prepare summaries for the American Civil Liberties Union.”

That last part is news to Mike Avery, who was hired by the ACLU as a staff lawyer to keep tabs on the Black Panther case.

“I didn’t see Hillary Rodham anywhere around the place, and I would have known,” said Avery, now a law professor at Suffolk Law School in Boston.

People involved in the case all knew each other and socialized, he said. “She was not in that crowd,” he said, “by no stretch of the imagination.”

Clinton’s campaign did not respond Times inquiries.

Another Morris charge sent by chain e-mail said: “Hillary interned with Bob Treuhaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.”

In 1971, Clinton did spend a summer interning as a law clerk for Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

And senior partner Treuhaft had once been active in the American Communist Party, though he was not “head of the California Communist Party” as Morris claimed in his article. Investigated and harassed by McCarthyites in 1950s, Treuhaft was listed by the House Un-American Activities Committee as one of the most dangerously subversive lawyers in the country, according to his 2001 obituary in the Times of London. But he became disillusioned with the party and left it in 1958, before Clinton started her internship with the firm.

In her autobiography, Clinton makes only passing reference to her responsibilities at the firm, which she called “a small law firm in Oakland, California.” She wrote, “I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case.”

Burnstein, who was never a Communist, is retired now. Reached at his home in California, Burnstein recalled that Clinton was one of the firm’s better summer interns: smart and a hard worker.

“She wasn’t political at all, that I remember,” Burnstein said. “The only politics that were discernible were probably liberal politics ... She came to us because of the civil rights cases we did, the things we did with racial equity and other civil rights things. That was her interest.”

In addition to Treuhaft’s former association with the Communist Party, another partner in the firm, Doris Walker, was, and still is, an active member.

Clinton must have known about those associations, Burnstein said. “It’s not like it was a secret.”

Walker, now retired, said she figured someone would try to make political hay out of it eventually. Reached at home in California this week, she said she “must be the only living Communist Party member of my generation.”

“It was sort of a left-wing firm,” Walker said, but most of the lawyers were not Communists. To dredge it up now, she said, amounts to little more than red-baiting.

Although Morris did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment, in his 2004 book, Rewriting History, an acerbic rebuttal to Hillary Clinton’s autobiography, Living History, he takes a more measured stance.

“Hillary was no Communist, nor should her work at the Treuhaft firm imply that she was,” Morris wrote. “But the fact that she chose this job out of all the summer jobs that might have been available, traveling three thousand miles for it, tells something about her orientation at the time. Just as the fact that she does not describe the firm’s work or reputation says something about her today.”

That part’s not in the e-mail, which ends with Morris’ assessment of Clinton: “She is a disaster for all Americans.”


Still waiting for Obama to ask his supporters to stop forwarding this email.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. You can only post 4 paragraphs, per fair use rules. Please fix that.
And please provide some substantiation that Obama supporters (officially connected to his campaign as either volunteers or staffers) are forwarding it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dick Morris is a pig! Now, what about this despicable e-mail from Hillary's campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. stick to this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Isn't denial grand? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. It does address the last line
It is the CLINTON campaign doing things like that - how Rovian to turn around and accuse Obama people of doing what they are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. dicky again. gawds what a bunch of sewage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. kicking for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Wasn't "truth" missused in 2004 too
This op lies in saying that these lies that have been out on the right for over a year are circulated by the Obama people. As Senator Kerry said, Senator Obama wants to end swiftboating not use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Don't even make me go there....
You really believe that Obama has not swiftboated anyone????
C'mon! His whole campaign is about how you have to vote for him - he is the future----everyone else is the past. HE is the only one that can bring change - everyone else is politics as usual.
He is right -- and everyone else is wrong.

C'mon! He is a master at framing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Framing is NOT swiftboating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. It's basically the same thing. You put an idea in people's heads and
provide examples to prove the point.

Except with swiftboating, you start with a lie - or stretch the truth.
example - Obama is the only one candidate that could achieve change and hope in Washington.
Or John Kerry changes with whichever way the wind blows. Same thing. Obama used his line
to successfully take down 7 other candidates; the rw used their line to take down Kerry.

Personally - I don't see any difference. And I will give kudos to Obama for being so
proficient at framing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Obama did not take down 7 other candidates - that is Bill Clinton's framing
Many of the candidates, for whatever reason never gained traction. Like you, in 2006 I preferred John Kerry, who I still think is the most qualified person to actually BE President. I was impressed with Biden but, each time as he seemed to gain some traction - he lost it and it was not because of Obama.

The media that decided the magic number was 3 in terms of number of candidates was quilty. Biden may have had his best chance in January 2007 when he should have been able to capture a large part of the pretty consistent 10+% that always stayed with Kerry. I suspect that had he praised and defended Kerry to the degree Kennedy did ONCE HE WAS OUT rather than continuing to repeat media smears of Kerry and Gore, he might have gotten most of that segment and had numbers near Edwards.

Richardson, who had a great resume, was horrible on every talk show and really was not impressive in the debates. I wanted Dodd to really impress me when I watched various talk shows - and I did not se the Dodd I saw in the Seanet making that wonderful speech against torture. He barely held his own against Gingrich on Iraq, at a point where we had the edge in the discussion.

Kuchinich and Gravel did not lose because of Obama - they never had a shot. Vilsack was polling 4th in Iowa the state that he had previously governed - hardly Obama's fault.

In every race, people drop out when they find they can not convince enough people to back them. Seeing that HRC was still the front runner when all these people left, it was interesting that Bill Clinton opted to blame Obama for what the frontrunner always does - make a better case for why they should be President.

Obama did run on change - and it was the obvious theme that would work - just as it was in 1992. After all those people were out it was HRC, Obama and Edwards. Edwards was the one who hit HRC the hardest - saying she had no conscience and that she was corrupt. He also made the strongest case that he and Obama were "change" and HRC as part of the power elite since 1992 could not be change.

Edwards lost the race to be the change candidate with Obama mostly because of the frame that HE created - that he would fight everyone to get the change while Obama would "negotiate". It was a well made distinction and Edwards expressed it well and often. The problem for him was that a country sick of the partisan squabbling opted for the one who chose working together. (That was also the heart of Kerry's endorsement argument)

Bill Clinton and HRC have had the reputation of stabbing competing Democrats in the back. His whining here is pathetic - Obama did only what he did in 1992 - positioned himself as the fresh face of a brighter new day - and he did with less backstabbing than Bill Clinton used.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. It is not Obama people circulating it - it is Dick Morris and the RW
It is the CLINTON CAMPAICN apparently passing Obama smears to the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Do you have any proof it's "not Obama people circulating it"?
Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It is incumbent on people claiming something to prove it
which has not been done. Proving a negative is harder, but there are no posts here of media people saying they were sent this by Obama people - something that has happened too often with the HRC people.

I do know that the RW were spouting this stuff before Obama entered the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The burden of proof is on the accuser
Not my rules. Lady Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. One does not prove a negative.
What proof do you have that it is circulated by Obama supporters? After all, Dick Morris has been a darling of the right wing for many years. I've never seen this email before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Oh, OK. The anti-Clinton smear email is being sent by Hillary herself?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. Excuse me? Do you have even a shred of evidence
that Obama supporters are forwarding this? No, of course not. You're just smearing. lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. Jeez, Hillary and Barack are as radical as a glass of milk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. The link in your OP says the emailw as based on...
an article in frontpagemag.com, a wellknown RW site. So couldn't it just as easily have come from a GOPer? Does the email menation Obama anywhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. if any of it were true she would have been worthy of my support
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. And the Clinton campaigns blast at Barack for having associated with a former radical?
Sorry, but that one came directly from her campaign. I'm still waiting for her campaign to apologize for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC