Jodie Evans: Code Pink founder, Obama bundler, Osama apologist

posted at 7:44 am on June 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Politico reports that Jodie Evans, the founder of Code Pink, has joined Team Obama as a bundler. She has pledged to raise at least $50,000 to elect Barack Obama to the White House. However, she has a long history of making controversial statements that may overshadow the campaign itself — including some apologetics for 9/11:

According to research being circulated by GOP sources, Evans has a record of inflammatory statements such as saying that women were better off in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, “Men are dying in their Hummers in Iraq so you can drive around in yours” and, my favorite, that the invasion of Iraq amounted to “global testosterone poisoning.”

Evans, though, is not just a single-issue crusader. She’s worked in politics and liberal causes for decades, including stints working for Jerry Brown during his years as governor and in his 1992 White House run.

That an activist liberal is raising money for Obama isn’t all that surprising. But in a campaign that has been dominated as much by the associates of candidates as the candidates themselves (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush), Evans is a reminder that what may not have mattered much in a primary has the potential to be resonant in the general.

Evans may have made controversial statements in the past, but that won’t hold a candle to the statements she made on a radio show called “The Conscience of Kansas”. Paul Ibbetson spoke with Evans about the 9/11 attacks, and …. well, listen for yourself:

Ibbetson tries to explain that we hadn’t done anything to provoke the 9/11 attacks by saying we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan. Evans replies that we were in Saudi Arabia, which to her gave al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a rational reason to kill thousands of Americans in terrorist attacks. Note that she says, “I don’t think any terrorist attack is justified,” and then says we should listen to Osama bin Laden and change our policies because — “Sometimes, it would be a good idea to listen to why someone is trying to blow you up”.

Q: Do you think that’s a valid argument?

A: Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East?

Does Barack Obama share these views with his new bundler and the founder of Code Pink? Does he also feel that we should heed Osama bin Laden’s speeches and adjust our policies in the Middle East accordingly? If Evans represents the kind of people Obama wants to attract to his campaign, that says quite a bit about his approach to terrorism and the defense of American interests in the Middle East.

Sweetness & Light has a primer on Jodie Evans:

Jodie Evans is a radical activist and Democratic fundraiser best known as the co-founder (along with Diane Wilson, a Wiccan calling herself Starhawk, and Global Exchange’s Medea Benjamin) of Code Pink for Peace. Evans also works closely with Leslie Cagan, the pro-Castro leader of United For Peace and Justice.

And from Front Page Magazine:

Throughout the 1990s, in fact, many of the Marxists currently working for Code Pink were busy organizing anti-free trade protests – some of them violent – and filing numerous high-profile lawsuits that forced American corporations to spend enormous sums of money to defend themselves…

Jodie Evans… sits on the board of directors of the Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), a coalition of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate environmentalist groups. RAN’s co-founder Michael Roselle also founded the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI ranks alongside the Animal Liberation Front as the foremost domestic terrorism threats in the United States. According to the FBI, during the past seven years those two groups have been responsible for more than 600 criminal acts and $43 million in damages

As the photo on this post indicates, Evan also felt comfortable putting her arm around Hugo Chavez. So, surprise surprise, Obama has decided to associate himself once more with a radical associated with violent radicals, tinpot dictators — a woman who thinks Osama had a point on 9/11. What does this say about judgment?

Melanie Morgan and Redstate have more.

Update: Evans, not Davis.  I didn’t even like the Cubs.  (See comments for the joke.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2