Thank the Clintons for Ayers … and Obama
Bill and Hill's clever calculations gave Democrats an unelectable nominee.


Andrew C. McCarthy

‘Smear!” “Guilt by association!” “Politics of fear!” The Obama campaign has its cue cards at the ready whenever any of us right-wing demagogues has the temerity to suggest it might be relevant that a candidate for president is a friend of — is a business partner of, is simpatico with — a died-in-the-wool, America-hating terrorist.

The campaign doth protest too much. The sheer thuggery in their reaction to patently relevant questions about Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers, raised by the intrepid Stanley Kurtz and the American Issues Project, betrays their candidate’s panicked self-awareness. Of course it’s relevant. Compound an era of terrorist threat with the Democrats’ decision to nominate a walking, speechifying tabula rasa and what could be more relevant?

Republicans are flabbergasted that Democrats could nominate such a man. Honest Democrats shut their eyes and quake at their party’s roll of the dice — one that could very well elect John McCain in a year when Democrats should be running the table. No one is happy.

And you know why?

Here’s the dirty little secret: You can thank Bill Clinton and his co-president.

For all Bill’s whining about Obama playing the race-card, for all the armchair psychoanalyses of Hillary campaign infighting and mismanagement, the Clintons and all the rest of us should know that Hillary — not Barack Obama — would be the Democrats’ Anointed One today were it not for a single, solitary, gut-check issue.


I’m not talking about the Clinton administration’s feckless response to al Qaeda. Sure, I could be. But Hillary could have ridden that out. After all, no one seriously thinks Obama would be any better on that score.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review