It's absurd to think that Hillary has been the main force behind the Ayers thing.  It's obviously GE fodder.  Is this going to be the response when the GOP uses it against Obama - "uh, Hillary did it too?"

This kind of story doesn't just show up out of nowhere, especially with that paper.

What on earth is the reasoning behind this?

Is this some attempt to move Obama away from some radical fringe (as compared to Clinton) or is it just an attempt to pound in the last nail of the Clinton campaign?

Either way, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Why move this now?

I remember we liberals thought that was a great idea. The legal system is only for people who are good, law-abiding, decent citizens. Not for people who get accused of crimes.

And I think Jeralyn wonders about this too.

I don't know how anybody who studies this sort of thing couldn't ask that question.

It seems to be very odd timing.

We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."

I think Hayden is an idiot. Always has been.

That information is more likely to help Hillary among old lefties like me. As for the right-wing, who might take offense, they already hate her.

Kenneth Lamb, a researcher for major newspapers, did fact checking on those books and found he was not able to speak any language other than english.

I wasn't paying much attention when this campaign first came out of the gate, but I do recall hearing his friends dispute his claims that he used drugs, too.

Do you think that there is traction in the story from Chicago Tribune about how he got the four other candidates in his first race disqualified before a single vote? Or the women's protest? Or the 3 out of 4 folks in the new Pew survey who were mad about the media and Obama claiming victory and annointing and wanted the race to go on.  Said 8 times as many people were watching them talk about getting rid of Hillary than watched the stories of Jenna's wedding!

Then the stuff about his book being half made up and the Law Review.  A lot of people posting on talkleft awre writing long passionate negative reactions the last  few days, it seems like something is building.  Maybe they know it too.  I saw that got really worried back in Pennsylvania when the Philly suburbs turned out for Hillary and less than a quarter of the newly registered young people appeared to vote and the AA vote showed lower numbers turning out than they had predicted.

 Isn't that when the big push started to sell the meme that it was over and inevitable.  I wonder if this Hayden thing will be the first of many little hits because the inevitable thing is still not producing the internal numbers they need.Every time I hear a soundbite of his stump speech sinc Pa, he seems to be spending the speech whining and defending himself about some criticism instead of talking about the people there, even 75,000 people don't seem to demand his focus.  wow.

I understand the talking heads today were terrible. We really need to give them something to talk or not to talk about by Tuesday or it will be just like last week.  Maybe we could tell them that if anyone mentions Hillary being finished, Obama being the nominee or the veep stakes, we will turn them off and write their sponsors!   Ok,then how about suing them for election fraud, lawyers?

Obama's and supporters' push has always been more emphatic for Sen Clinton to quit when she's about to score big: PA, WV and now Tuesday. His campaign also works overtime to minimize her huge victories. THey're essentially tied right now because he's still using this fraudulent "finish" line.

HE CAN'T SEAL THE DEAL so he's declaring victory now to depress her Dem vote and to keep Repug women from getting behind her now and in the GE.

(Don't know which of the remaining contests they participate in: they might very well be the cavalry here!)

They can quite naturally gravitate over in enough numbers to give her a strong final-lap kick.

Unless she QUITS of course. And begging the question, if he was so Teh Awesome as to have this thing in the bag, he wouldn't be making such a shameless play for her supporters at this point.

That being said, I think there's a need in America to get away from 'guilt by association', or the notion that knowing someone who has such-and-such views means you have those views, too.  Whether you know them very well or hardly at all.  I think there are a lot of closets in America, at present, in this respect.  There's a much more open atmosphere about such things in Europe, for example.  More intellectual tolerance, in ways.  But we're still very straight-laced on the surface.  And it makes it more difficult for us to assess candidates on their ability, instead.  We get into all kinds of games.

This is actually a pretty laughable attempt to smear her. I mean, what's Hayden saying? "Don't vote for her! Back in day, she was associated with a firm that represented radical leftists like me! Instead, vote for us old SDS guys' current choice: Barack Obama!"

This kind of baiting has been going on for some time but is always in response to a current Obama related issue. But Obama is not being currently accused of being alligned with radical left or anything. So why this. As per Obama team the campaign is over then why bother further tarnishing Hillary over dubious claims.

One could be like J and others have suggested something bigger may be leaked and this is to deflect or dilute the impact of the same.

They are trying to making Hillary even more "toxic" to the Party and complete the vilification that the MSM started.

Simply because everyone, like her or love her, knows who Clinton is, and they still have very little idea who Obama is.

This is just another example where record and experience come into play.

Let's pretend, hypothetically speaking, both of them were revealed to be card carrying members of the communist party.  Aghast!!!!  Now.  

Now this hypothetical fact would be added to a relatively clean slate in Obama, we have no idea how he will govern, he may actually govern per the ideology of communism.  All we have to go on that he wouldn't is half a Senate term, some state Senate work, and some community activism.

Now this same hypothetical fact would be added to a known entity in Senator Clinton.  More people would be inclined to see this as a youthful digression tempered by wisdom and old age, simply because she is older and we have more to go on when we're thinking about how she will govern.

1. Try to scare us with the SCOTUS as if we could be sure what Obama really thinks about anything less of all reproductive rights.

2. Tell us how bad the nineties really were as if we had not lived through the 90's and saw the economy rise from the pits.

3. Try to say that because of NAFTA Clinton was anti-labor as if Kerry, Kennedy and other Democrats in Congress didn't vote for it.  Or are they trying to say that all those right wing nuts and their Republican Friends in Congress who were and are against NAFTA are pro-labor, like Helms was pro-labor??

Agree, he wants to besmeerch her..deal a death blow. The latest in EGOMANIA was a planned attempt to claim the election in Iowa this  Tuesday night; NYT had to print a CORRECTION because the rules aren't in sync.  

The longer this goes on, I keep looking for some glimmer, something to convince me that what I've thought about his candidacy all along, was bias speaking, my preference for Hill.  

Nothing has. I am more convinced than ever that he has way too big an ego to speak directly to the 17 million who didn't vote for him in a personal, face-to-face way, not in an audience of thousands, mass appeal way... it will never happen.

Clinton is too FEMALE and too STRONG for him to ever accept her as VEEP, because I think he feels completely emasculated around her. The only vindication at this point, for enduring through this, would be for Hillary to FORCE herself into the VEEP spot or of course, win outright!  

1.ABC said  ...'the Oregon and Kentucky primaries, after which he believes he'll have the outright majority of pledged delegates to perhaps clinch the party's nomination.'

Notice the 'perhaps.'  I do not think I have seen that in there before....

2."For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class and I think they -- most of the American people would think that as well," he said. "I would never think of going after somebody's spouse in a campaign."

Is anyone else getting really tired of being treated like we are so stupid we would think there is any comparison to be made?

Ridiculous.  I guess it's about trying to blunt the effect of the Ayers connection, but while there might be some itty-bitty gain for Obama against Clinton as a result of this information, how does it possibly help him if he is the nominee?  

Let's picture a general election contest and ask ourselves, which opponent is John McCain most likely to go after on the issue of ties to domestic terrorists - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?  Gosh, that's a real tough one, isn't it?

I agree with Jeralyn. If this is over then why are they worried about something that happened 35 years ago.

Tom Hayden had way more connections to the Black Panthers than Hillary. What a hypocrite.

And, as I recall. FRED HAMPTON was murdered by the FBI.

The article was titled, amazingly, "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream"!! It's opening is equally gobsmacking:

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.