Hillary Clinton and the Black Panthers
I won't pretend to debunk this email from scratch, since it has already been researched by two fine sources on which I will rely: "Black Panthers" by David Mikkelson and "Hillary Clinton and the Black Panthers" from Urban Legend Zeitgeist.
Here are the main points of contention: Was Hillary Clinton a "defender" of the Black Panther murderers? No. Remember, they were accused murderers at the time (unless the principle "innocent until proven guilty" applies only in select cases). Secondly, there was a widespread suspicion that the Panther leaders had been framed by police and in any case were unlikely to get a fair trial in New Haven. Lastly, it's evident from the role Clinton volunteered for during the trial itself – that of observer for the ACLU – that her interest lay precisely in its fairness and legality.
Did Clinton help the accused murderers "get off easy?" No. How could she have?
Did Clinton organize demonstrations that "shut down" Yale University?
She was involved, but how big a leadership role she played is in dispute. Eyewitness accounts place her at planning meetings but also characterize her as contributing a "moderate voice" to those proceedings. Lastly, the demonstrations did not "shut down" the university.
Does her participation in the demonstrations or trial monitoring 30 years ago reflect negatively on Clinton in the present?
Not unless you assume that having once been a student activist taints one for life. Given the turmoil of the times and the spirit of dissent permeating college campuses during the Nixon era, Hillary Clinton's brand of activism was tame and rational. She was not anti-American. She was not a gun-toting revolutionary. Certain parties would like you to think so, however.
The Smear Campaign Continues
David Mikkelson's thoughtful dissection of the email rumor supplies the missing context needed to fairly judge Clinton's allegiances and activities at the time. It also undercuts the aims of those circulating the smear and thus has aroused their ire. The piece was derided on one conservative message board as a "a thinly-veiled whitewash." The angry respondent wrote: "The learned liberals with their college libraries and research powers appear to first find an answer they like and then use their intellect and university education to obfuscate the truth that might hurt their views or their hallowed leaders."
In other words, we're to think that Mikkelson has a left-wing agenda and his critique was biased. Unsurprisingly, no one on the message board took issue with Mikkelson's exoneration of G.W. Bush in the racial covenant affair (though no doubt he has received complaints from the left). The fact is, Mikkelson and his wife, Barbara – who between them have researched an enormous amount of like material for their Website – have an unblemished track record of impartiality.
Another nexus of conservatism on the Net, Insight Magazine, regurgitated the Clinton charges this year in an article called "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling." It offers testimony to verify that Clinton and Bill Lann Lee "indeed were student leaders during the Panther protests" and concludes that both are therefore at least partially accountable for the accused murderers "getting off easy." But it's not entirely a rehash. The article also goes on to enumerate, in some detail, Clinton's contacts with various communists during the trial.
You heard right. Insight tells us that Hillary Clinton associated with communists.
Is it true? Yes. There were communists and former communists among the lawyers trying the case.
Was Clinton herself a communist? No.
Then, what is the purpose of naming names from 30 years ago? It should be obvious: to find her guilty by association.
In the 1950s this was known as McCarthyism. Like I said, the age-old techniques are still the best.
And please don't blame me for this left-wingers rant defending Her Heinous. I report, you decide.