Barack Obama finds himself haunted by the '60s

Will the taint of the late 1960s and early '70s -- at least as it affects mainstream politics -- ever fade?

Barack Obama, who was grade-school age during the peak of the counter culture, could be excused for muttering that question to himself after Wednesday night's debate in Philadelphia on ABC-TV.

Throughout much of its first half, the faceoff with Hillary Clinton must have seemed like a root canal for him -- and no more so than when his links (however tenuous) to an extremist from the days when radicalism was often the norm on college campuses was explored.

As we noted in a running blog on the debate, questioners Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were in a no-win situation. After a period when it seemed there was a debate every other day, almost two months had passed since the last one.

Gibson and Stephanopoulos could have ignored the various furors that have flared -- and been thoroughly covered -- over that time. But they would have been widely scorned had they done so.

So they raised the expected topics (and, as a result, have been widely scorned anyway): Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rants; the non-existent sniping in Bosnia; "bittergate."

The unexpected came when Stephanopoulos, under what he termed "the general theme of patriotism," asked Obama about "a gentleman named William Ayers (pictured above and, as a young man, below). 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."

Ayers and his even more notorious wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were on the lam ...

from authorities for about 10 years. After various charges against them were either dropped or reduced, they became established parts of the progressive political scene in Chicago (both are college professors).

And they reside in Obama's neighborhood. Stephanopoulos noted that "an early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held" at their house "and your campaign has said you are 'friendly.' "

He asked Obama to "explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"

Obama, who a moment before had complained about "manufactured" issues, responded: "George ... this is an example of what I've been 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."

Obama had made his point and probably would have been well-advised to stop there. Instead, he struck a blow against bipartisanship by mentioning that he is friends with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who he termed "one of the most conservative Republicans" in the Senate and a politician who "once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions."

Continued Obama: "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, that 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."

Clinton, seeing an opening, went through it, noting that Obama had served with Ayers on the board of a philanthropic education foundation in Chicago. And she mentioned that an article about Ayers, in which he said he did not regret setting off bombs, happened to run in the New York Times on 9/11.

Her blow landed, she added: "I know Sen. 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."

Well, yes ... and now with her imprimatur.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credits: Associated Press; Chicago Historical Society 

Comments

[dave]

The questioner is certainly free to ask any question they want and the cadidate is free to answer any way they want. I thought Sen. Obama responded beautifully and it was a slap in the face of the muckraking journalists. The posters above who are trying to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist should apply for a job at ABC. Kudos to Mr. Obama for slapping down the fear-mongerers.

[Dana Garrett]

Gibson and Stephanopoulos were in a "no win" situation? They would have been "scorned" for not raising what has been discussed endlessly and ad nauseoum? Surely you jest.

They had the opportunity to discuss w/ 2 of the 3 Presidential candidates vital ISSUES in some depth...to discuss them at greater length than the lightening round they reserved at the end of the "debate." Issues and positions are what the public hungers for and needs.

But you, Mr. Frederick, are merely justifying the kind of journalistic sensationalism that increasingly characterizes the mainstream print and broadcast news media.

The near universal revulsion to Gibson's and Stephanopoulos' performance indicates that a tabloid approach to electing the most powerful leader in the world is no a "no win" with the politically interested public.

[Robert]

I dont care about Bill Ayers or Bosnia snipers or Rev. Wright or someone making $100 million. I want to know what each of these candidates will do to help America once again look like a leader to the world and what they plan to do with health care, the economy and America's deteriorating infrastructure. I am sick and tired of having to read and see these stupid stories that have nothing to do with how these people will run office. No one is perfect. We are looking for a president, not Mr. or Mrs Congeniality!

By the way, after watching these two candidates over the last year, its safe to say that Hillary is much better at debates than Barack and Barack is much better at perfecting speches than Hillary.

[sophie]

The conduct of the press and it's petty focus on non-issues does not create "debate". What is does create is considerable and deepening bitterness aboout the lack of responsibility of the media to do real journalism.

There are live ticking time bomb issues - the environment, the economy, the war - and yet the candidates sound like 6-year olds bickering about "he said this" or “his preacher said that” and I'm gonna run to the "press" and tell on you. This is frustrating.

A lot of us are far more capable than the perceived "idiocracy" that America is being called in European based news articles. It is my hope that politics along with the press start catching up - sooner rather than later - or we will all go bitterly over the cliff.

[Phillip]

Bottom line this blogger did just that---blog. The only true newsworthy station left in the US is the the News Hour. I am disappointed in some of Stephanopoulos' questions. I expected more in depth questions that didn't relate to who knows who and when. Who cares? The Bushes are best friends with the Saudi's and allowed Bin-ladins out of this county during 9-11 when not one American was allowed to fly! Who cares? Everyone in US politics is in bed with someone and remotely connected to individuals who are questionable. This debate and situation is a good test for Obama. To see if he can handle the criticism and change the storylines back to what really matters---depth and substance. If he can, he'll be that much more electable.

[Sheri]

Also left out was the fact that Mark Penn and Bill Clinton are/were working with the Colombian's to get the same trade deal through that Hillary supposedly opposes. Also left out was the fact that Hillary has in the past supported NAFTA. Hillary's negatives are getting higher and higher. She blatantly lies and then laughs about it and people say, oh, that's alright. It's ridiculous.

[jk boaz]

If this was not so sad, it would be hilarious. This kind of crap is what Obama has been talking about his entire campaign. For those who are "sucked in" to this kind of politics, get a life. It is no secret that Hannety has been trying to raise this issue for weeks to attack Obama, he finally persuaded an old Clinton employee to bring it up at a "debate". Living in the same neighborhood, serving on a charity board, and accepting 200 friggin bucks is a reason to not vote for this man? Nice try. Sad that we cannot focus on what really matters in this race. Obama WILL be our next President...and THANK GOD...not a MINUTE too soon.

[Nickberry]

Apparently, some of the Obama supporters (who are dismissing Ayers and the Weather Underground) do not have a clue to who they are. They "bombed" the Pentagon and other public buildings.

Obama KNEW who the history of these people (they in fact told him so directly)... and coupled with his ongoing disingenuous denial of being previously unaware of Wright's fiery sermons (he found out about them from an article in Rolling Stone) ... Well, it does not look good.

Especially, after Obama threw his so-called friend Senator Coburn under the bus (and it is getting pretty crowded there with his Grandma, Jesse Jackson, and more) in defending the Ayers association. Last I knew, Coburn never committed a violent act... Ayers did.

I appreciate that these questions were asked... because the GOP blogs and news have already been discussing the Ayers issue... and it will be general election fodder.

Ayers is still a radical in his beliefs. Wright is also radical. How many radicals can Obama associate with before it hurts him?

P.S. Clinton pardoned a couple of Weatherman... who regretted their actions... whereas Ayers and his wife have never done so and continues to justify and promote their anarchist ideas.

Note also... albeit both became known for violence...one cannot equate the Black Panthers (civil rights and self defense) with terrorist bombings of the Weatherman (revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States). Read some history.

[Eric of Reseda]

Hey! Another NON-issue we all get to suck on. Ayers is a teacher in Chicago. Period. Whatever he did 40 years ago has obviously lost the interest of law enforcement. The guy is "legal", and like it was said earlier, "The 60's were the 60's...". Back then, our government was engaged in a idiotic war, TENS of thousands of young men were being sent to die or be maimed for life, Nixon was violating the Constitution left and right. So some Americans acted. And rightfully so. Fighting for "democracy" and the "American Way" begins at home. If Americans weren't so fat and complacent and greedy, they'd notice guy like Ayers were quite right to fight against a government which is increasingly neglecting the People.

[jennifer potenciano]

i've read the full transcript of the hillary-barack debate, since it wasn't on philippine cable the time it was on air on abc in philadelphia.

moderators charlie gibson & george stephanopolous (whew, what a tongue-twister this former press secretary' name is, really greek to me) came aboard throughly prepared, & were clearly well-informed. kudos to the two competent journalists.

though you say the two were damned for asking the controvesial issues (especially against obama), yet they handled it well. better that, or they would have been accused of incompetence, if not of being part of a grand conspiracy to cover up some things for the democrats.

it was, to the duo's credit, one fine, one great moment for journalists.

hillary was her usual brilliant self, & more so that day, having obviously done her homework. but of course, you can't fault her for seizing the moment in zeroing in on obama's weak points, his achilles heels, as, subtly though, she went for the jugular.

this debate (with obama shown for the most part being on the defensive) showed how vulnerable the illinois senator will be at the hands of mccain (particularly after obama's 'bitter' remarks & due to a number of negative issues thrown his way).

ergo, the democrats should not make the mistake of delivering barack into the hands of the executioner mccain. only hillary can serve as the democrats' very able equalizer, who can wallop the "vietnam war veteran" in the polls this november, not only with gusto, but with enough power as to beat the lights out of the pleistocene-era creature (intellect-wise & in terms of a sound program of government).

but to be fair to obama, he held his own quite well, acquitting himself remarkably well in this philadelphia debate.

be that as it may, yet examine, though, their positions, hillary's & obama's, & we can see fairly common grounds on many policy issues. the major bone of contention, then, is electability--& obviously, now that's obama is being thoroughly vetted, he comes across as an easy target for mccain. hillary will be, no, not mccain's match (the fight between her & mccain in november will be a mismatch, with maccain eating hillary's dust), hillary will be mccain's superior, in all respects.

proof? i must say that hillary showed in that pa debate that she is still the better candidate & the more brilliant nominee, with a program of government that would put the american people at ease & in comfort for the next four years; & a welstanschauung that would make the world a better place to live in.

another forum where hillary showed her panoramic knowledge of politics & good governance, as well as her complete grasp of the powers & range of influence of the office of the u.s. president was at the meeting hosted by the associated press days before the pa debate. (i had also read the full transcript of hillary's speech there at ap.)

in that ap speech, which was like an impromptu hillary lecture on the office of the american executive, hillary expostulated on the nature & powers of the u.s. president, & how it can make a great difference on the lives of the american people & other peoples of the world, if those powers were properly & briliantly wielded by the office holder.

to the great misfortune, however, of the long suffering american people (fooled twice over by george bush), hillary pointed out that the current tenant at the oval office has chosen instead to pervert those very same powers in the fashion that a deluded imperial moron in history past did, insulating the presidency away from the american people, & treating it as if it were his own self-made fiats.

(as an aside: & it dawned upon this fellow that, couldn't hillary be speaking of the de facto philippine president, gloria macapagal arroyo, who has done exactly what bush is doing? that is to say, perverting the powers of the philippine president solely for her, her biological family, & her equally corrupt surrogates' benefits & aggrandizement? hillary's dig at what she intends to do with the presidential power to use "executive privilege" --which she said bush has thoroughly abused--was a prescription that arroyo should heed, & the philippine supreme court--or gloria's fawning lapdogs there masquearding as justices--should follow, by clipping gloria's use of it. yes, indeed, it is blogs like these, commentaries like these in american press that has made arroyo behave well lately, for these have put her on the spot . see her crackdown on various criminal syndicates the past days. hope it's not lip service.)

& then, hillary showed how she will change all that, including all the calamitous policies & monstrous decisions that george bush the younger has wrought for 8 long years, that had led to the virtual degeneration of america & the pauperization, as it were, of the great masses of the american people.

in comparison, barack's speech at the same ap meeting (whose transcript i also have read thoroughly), but days later, was shallow, as he delved, again for the most part, on the ramifications of his "bitter" san francisco remarks against smalltown people in pennsylvania, then suddenly transporting his parallelism to national issues on loss of jobs, healthc care, etc.

i could sense here that obama was at great pains as he was doing this houdini act, as he tried to wiggle out of the mess he has created with his "bitter" remarks.

yet, by all intelligent reckoning, in summation, let me do a cuomo. i say that a HILLARY-FOR-PRESIDENT-&-BARACK-FOR-VICE PRESIDENT TANDEM will be the BEST TICKET that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY can & should come up with this november. it will not only be a marquee ticket, it will be the BRILLIANT TEAM to beat.

obama can, thus, have a first-hand, ringside view of, & training on, real power politics that will prepare him fully when his time comes. Godspeed!

[jeff Bernius]

Quent,

You should do your homework better-

William Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground - The group was a violent anti war organization who's charter was the overthrow of the United States government. They bombed the Pentagon, the US Capitol and a number of NY City police stations.

William Ayers own girlfriend and 2 other members of the group were killed by a bomb they were building to use against military recruiters at Fort Dix. The group also killed 2 police officers and a security guard during a botched bank robbery-the purpose of which was to gain funds to further their terrorist activities.

William Ayers has never renounced his actions and to this day defends them and laments that the group had not done more. Look it up.

Obama knew exactly who this man was and yet chose to nurture a personal and professional relationship with him. I'm sorry Quent my friend, but someone aspiring to the Presidency of the US does not do that.

As for Obama comparison of his relationship to Ayers and Bill Clinton's pardoning of two of the groups members - it is absurd to equate the two - the two women pardoned served nearly 2 decades in prison, renounced their past activities and swore an allegiance to the US to gain their pardons - a far cry from what Ayers has done.

[Will]

I actually enjoyed the debate. Barrack has had no hard questions from the media all year and now that the ABC crew actually asked pointed questions and didn't let him off the hook easily, his supporters are up in arms. The negative vitriol aimed at ABC on the Internet is so over the top when they were simply asking questions that a large segment of the country wanted to hear. I already know Hillary's shortcomings but Barrack has had a free ride. His friendships/associations are issues -- birds of a feather flock together! They are telling of a man's character and judgment, Beyond this area, HIllary & Barrack don't differ much on the other issues.

[Benjamin]

The Obama detractors are now in full blind failing punches mode. It's funny. One day he's "elitist" and the next day he's guilty of having too many associations with too many different types of people.

Why yes Kay Rain Lay, Obama was indeed 8 when bombings occured. That's a valid point. What was hillary up to at that time given she was much older? I've worked with a lot of people whose backgrounds I have no clue on and I've also worked with people who have done time in prison. Do I have an obligation to act like an elitist asshat and refuse to work with someone based on something they did 30 years prior? Are we forbidden to grow and to let others grow up out of the mistakes of their youth?

The country is teetering on the brink of catastrophic financial meltdown right now, thanks in large part to the "leadership" provided by those in Mrs. Clinton's age range. Very few are asking any tough questions about that. Instead we are once against looking 40 years back in time and trying to make an issue out of the counter culture of the 60s. Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the now continue to care how history is going to view things like the Iraq War and the economic deciscions that are being put in place because we will indeed be alive to reap the fruits of both things good and bad. We have to continue to weather the storm of what to us, are increasingly old crustified political hacks who can't let high school rivalries die and do what's best for the country as a whole.

People say there's no reason to believe Obama will bring change, but I totally disagree. Obama wasn't part of the infighting of the 60s generation and that alone is reason to believe he can bring change. It's the economy and war stupids, who the hell cares about the 60s?

[Art]

This country makes me laugh. I laugh when soldiers die in Iraq. I laugh when when we are attacked abroad. Why do I laugh? Because when it comes to electing our leaders this is what we care about. So, please fat, lazy ignorant Americans.. please, please, please have more debates like this. It's the greatest form of entertainment anywhere!

[Brad K]

The Hillary Clinton/Sean Hannity smear-by-association campaign against Barack Obama is reaching truly McCarthyite proportions. Hillary bashes Obama for serving for a time on the board of a Chicago foundation alongside former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. That foundation happens to be one of the most respected "do-gooder" foundations in Chicago, the Woods Fund of Chicago (formerly the Woods Charitable Fund). It supports community organizing, the arts, and anti-poverty initiatives. It's been around since 1941, founded by prominent telephone company executive Frank Woods.

Other Woods Fund board members: Laura Washington, distinguished professor of humanities at DePaul University. Jesus Garcia, longtime political and civic leader in Chicago's Mexican-American community and Executive Director of the Little Village Community Development Corporation. Lee Bey, executive at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, a leading architecture firm. Doris Salomon Chagin, executive at BP (the global oil company). Beth Richie, professor and head of the department of African American Studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Patrick Sheahan, executive at UBC Investment Bank. Charles N. Wheatley, president of Sahara Enterprises (a coal mining company). These people are among the cream of Chicago's business, civic, and academic leaders.

Should we smear all of them, too, for "meeting" and "associating" with Bil Ayers by virtue of serving on the foundation board with him? What about the numerous community, arts, and civic organizations supported by the Woods Fund, who surely "met with" or "associated with" Ayers in securing their grants---are they, too, guilty by association? Is Barack Obama personally responsible for everything every one of these people has ever said or done, because he "met with" and "associated with" them while serving on the Woods Fund board? These charges would be truly laughable if they weren't so dangerous and . . . well, downright un-American.

We've been through all this before, in the McCarthy era when hundreds of decent and honest Americans were similarly smeared for similarly tenuous "associations" with communists and "communist sympathizers."

To paraphrase what Army lawyer Joseph Nye Welch famously said to Joe McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, Hillary, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[Brad K]

The Hillary Clinton/Sean Hannity smear-by-association campaign against Barack Obama is reaching truly McCarthyite proportions. Hillary bashes Obama for serving for a time on the board of a Chicago foundation alongside former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. That foundation happens to be one of the most respected "do-gooder" foundations in Chicago, the Woods Fund of Chicago (formerly the Woods Charitable Fund). It supports community organizing, the arts, and anti-poverty initiatives. It's been around since 1941, founded by prominent telephone company executive Frank Woods.

Other Woods Fund board members: Laura Washington, distinguished professor of humanities at DePaul University. Jesus Garcia, longtime political and civic leader in Chicago's Mexican-American community and Executive Director of the Little Village Community Development Corporation. Lee Bey, executive at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, a leading architecture firm. Doris Salomon Chagin, executive at BP (the global oil company). Beth Richie, professor and head of the department of African American Studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Patrick Sheahan, executive at UBC Investment Bank. Charles N. Wheatley, president of Sahara Enterprises (a coal mining company). These people are among the cream of Chicago's business, civic, and academic leaders.

Should we smear all of them, too, for "meeting" and "associating" with Bil Ayers by virtue of serving on the foundation board with him? What about the numerous community, arts, and civic organizations supported by the Woods Fund, who surely "met with" or "associated with" Ayers in securing their grants---are they, too, guilty by association? Is Barack Obama personally responsible for everything every one of these people has ever said or done, because he "met with" and "associated with" them while serving on the Woods Fund board? These charges would be truly laughable if they weren't so dangerous and . . . well, downright un-American.

We've been through all this before, in the McCarthy era when hundreds of decent and honest Americans were similarly smeared for similarly tenuous "associations" with communists and "communist sympathizers."

To paraphrase what Army lawyer Joseph Nye Welch famously said to Joe McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, Hillary, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[Greg Neubeck]

In the Philadelphia debate, both Hillary and Obama regurgitated their familiar mantra that they would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary and Obama say favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For examples on the lower end of the scale, a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillary/Obamaspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary and Obama's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of their forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. Greg Neubeck

[Smart T]

All politicians have a past. I am voting for the future of Hillary for President. Obama should get his ego in check, and if he really wants to serve this country, step down and be the VP.

FYI, He has run a very negative campaign too, attacking Hillary at every move. I am glad he is finally getting the questions he deserves.

Someone tell Obama this is Politics not poetics. It's not for the weak at heart.

[Tessla]

I keep reading how McCain was the winner in last night's National Enquirer debate and I wonder what world the people who say this are living in. If the American people vote for a President based on a flag lapel pin, they we really do deserve to be a second rate nation owned in whole by Saudia Arabia and China.

[RAM]

I agree with the statements of others who believe that the performance by ABC's moderators during last night's so-called debate hit a new low in television journalism. Frankly, it was shocking.
Not all journalists are defending their bretheren, by the way. Tom Shales' excellent article in today's Washington Post accurately summarizes their dismal performance as television professionals.

[Rick Taylor]

Kay Lane Ray Rafko wrote the following:
"As an adult Obama made the decision to work with a terrorist. This is a legitimate issue, the judgment and associations of the possible nominee. . Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections."

Odd, seeing how John McCain has recently posed to get his picture taken with, and received an endorsement from a terrorist of almost infinite magnitude greater than Ayers (George W. Bush) that the writer thinks the democrats have a problem winning elections because of judgement issues regarding the people they can be associated with.

By the way, the photograph of Cheney shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while shaking him down for some corporate cash didn't keep him from winning an election. Odd how your old buddies can turn on you when it is politically expedient, isn't it Saddam?

I think the guilt by association and judgement lapses don't matter for republicans because their propaganda machine is so much louder than the dem's.

[John B Sheffield]

The majority of US Voters are now getting sick and tired of all the negative campaigning and the mud slinging, theory seems to be throw as much as possible at Barack Obama and something has to stick, well like the TV Debate we now treat it as a JOKE! and just laugh at it.

It is Policy that matters more to the real people, we are the ones who are struggling to survive with the current economic problems, that is more important than what may or may not have happened ion the 60's, who wears a pin badge or what someone at a church may have said. These attacks are petty and no longer impress or concern!

[shirley]

when i was young my father always said to me "you are judged by the company that you keep"When my children were young I told them that same thing.BHO you are judged by the company that you keep.

[BillForObama]

re: Kay Lane Ray Rafko

Let me correct you, Senator Obama worked WITH and not FOR Ayers!!!

Makes all of the difference in the world.

[Benjamin]

Shirley said "when i was young my father always said to me "you are judged by the company that you keep"When my children were young I told them that same thing.BHO you are judged by the company that you keep."

I wasn't raised by my father Shirley, but by my grandfather, and when I was young and looking down on others, he would quote something interesting to me "Let you who are without sin throw the first stone". If I still remained stiff necked, he would say "The measure you use shall be measured unto you."

I say we measure Hillary by this measure applied to Obama here. She has not denounced the lying under oath done by her Husband. The primary responsibility of the Office of the President is to uphold and execute the laws of this land. Her husband not only failed in his duty, but brought disgrace to that office by violating the very laws he took an oath to uphold.

There's some guilt by association for you. But something tells me the hillary drones will quickly decry dirty politics all of a sudden, even while they sit there with their fists full of mud.