Flag Pins and the Weather Underground

Among the mindboggling array of things we didn't hear about during the debate while Charlie Gibson and former Clinton staffer (what was up with that?) George Stephanopolous grilled Obama was this:

The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas

That's not my opinion, that's the TITLE of a report to Congress by that hot-bed of inflammatory rhetoric, the GAO.

More than six years since 9/11, and we not only don't have Osama, we don't even have a plan to have Osama. Of course, why should that matter?

al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."

And yet, for some reason Stephanopoulous thinks it was important to question whether the fact that a former 60s radical once had people over to his house when Obama was running for state senate somehow suggests that Obama is maybe not patriotic enough to be President?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up 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?

In the vernacular, WTF??!!!! Is he kidding? We've got soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there appears to be no one at the helm (now that they've looted the treasury, torn up the Constitution and run the ship of state aground). And this is what he chooses to ask about?

SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Damn straight. And it ought to have ended there.

Sadly, there was another former staffer from the Clinton Era there also:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they're going to be out there, full force. And you know, I've been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Right.

Sadly, Senator Clinton seems to have failed to notice that, during the years people have been rummaging through her baggage, quite a lot of dirt has stuck to her, rightly or wrongly, and while she may be still standing, it's completely unclear how the general electorate would respond to hearing it all over again this fall. Is she really reduced to contending that she's the better candidate because she's already been smeared?

And if the goal is to find a candidate best capable of taking on McCain, then why isn't the Senator from Illinois being asked to talk about McCain? Why is his policy position better?

Even, for god's sake, if they really can't resist the faux-patriotism thing, how does he feel about the fact that McCain often doesn't have a flag lapel pin on?

And wouldn't it be great if Senator Clinton thought the best way to convince people to put a Democrat in the White House wasn't by spending the spring rummaging through baggage, but by building a convincing message about just what a disaster the Bush administration continues to be and how the GOP candidate is not just nobody, but more of the same and worse?

Seriously, people. The Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will quite likely be the next President of the United States, and have to deal with historic environmental calamity, global economic change and crisis, shortages of fuel, food and water, and then more conventional threats like, you know, al Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, etc.

The world is going to hell in a handbasket, and we need to be doing something about that.

Were those questions really the best way to be spending the time?