Apparently, the activities of a 1960s fringe radical are very relevant to the 2008 presidential election. At least ABC says so, even though Barack Obama was less than 10 years old when the group in question was active. 10 years old. I think the limit of my political activism when I was 10 was simply grasping the notion that my parents voted for Bill Clinton (if that). And yet, Barack Obama is confronted with an endorsement he neither solicited nor accepted, from a man whose questionable tactics were conceived at a time when the only tactics on Barack Obama's mind related to G.I. Joe. Not that it matters that former President Bill Clinton (no relation to Hillary, right? Right?) pardoned Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans, two members of the same exact organization in 2001.
So if Barack Obama can be questioned in a sanctioned debate by "journalists" on just such an endorsement, I think any endorsement by or of either candidate from 1960s radicals should be fair game, no?
In 1964, Hillary Clinton was 17 years old. Not old enough to vote yet, but certainly more politically aware and active than Barack Obama at 8 or 9, and she was active in support of a particular candidate in the presidential election of that year. Given her long history of Democratic Party involvement, many would probably initially suspect that her active support came on behalf of President Johnson. It did not.
No, in 1964, Hillary Clinton actively supported Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, darling of the far right, protector of American exceptionalism, defender against communist paranoia, and rabid anti-union activist. As a meta-note, I'm not trying to perfectly analogize Barry Goldwater and William Ayers. They're two different kinds of bad. But they're both bad, and were both considered radical by many in their time. Yet I somehow doubt Clinton will ever be confronted with a question like that, despite the fact that Barack Obama never openly expressed support for his radical, while Hillary Clinton actively and personally supported her radical.
But for the sake of comparison, let's draw a quick contrast.
Here is the question that George Stephanopoulos asked of Barack Obama with regards to William Ayers:
...on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
He responded with honesty and clarity, noting (as I have) the fact that Bill Clinton himself pardoned two former members of the Weather Underground.
But I think it would be a fun little exercise to mix things up a little bit as a follow up to Senator Clinton, no?
...on this issue, the general theme of conservatism in your political activities. A gentleman named Barry Goldwater, he was part of the Republican Party in the 1960s and 70s. He voted against the censure of Joe McCarthy, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, jokingly advocated pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union, he's staunchly anti-union. He's never apologized for any of that that. And in fact, he was quoted in December 1961 saying "sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea."
In 1964, when you were 17 years old and nearly eligible to vote, you actively supported Barry Goldwater's candidacy for the presidency, and have yourself admitted to being a former "Goldwater Girl." Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
So, Senator Clinton, why did you support a candidate who opposed the Civil Rights Act?
Why did you support a candidate who thought Joe McCarthy wasn't worthy of censure?
Why did you support a candidate who thinks your 'home' state is a detriment to America, and ought to be let out to float in the sea?
Why did you support a candidate who never met a union he didn't want to crush?
We can, and will wait for answers. But as the media perfects its dereliction of any sort of duty or diligence, I suspect we will never get them.