A couple of Barak's buddies

[evditchpig]

"Kill all rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." -- Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, as well as friend, campaign supporter, and former boss of Barak Obama.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." -- Ayers, 2001.

Comments

[evditchpig]

Lazy? Read the entire link you posted, and ask if working under Ayers (Ayers was Chairman of the Board -- Obama was a member of that board) and getting the start of his political career in Ayer's living room are in sync with the characterization given by Obama's own campaign describing their relationship in that same article.

But if the cognitive dissonance present there isn't sufficient, here's some citations.

1) As far as Obama's political career begining in Ayer's house, see "The Friends of Barak Obama, pt.1" PowerLineBlog.com, April 22, 2008; Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited 60's Radicals," Politico.com, Feb 22, 2008; Joanna Weiss, "How Obama Became Radical News," Boston Globe, April 18, 2002; Maria Warren (certainly a "regurgitator" of Republican propaganda) in her Musings & Migraines blog, entitled "Get to Know Barak Obama," January 27, 2005.

2) As far as Ayers being Chairman and Obama working on the board under him, that is established on the Form 990-PF federal tax forms filed by the Woods, fund, but you probably take this as a given since no one is disputing it.

3) Obama, prior to this, worked with Ayers' father and brother on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Education fund. From Tom Maguire, "Obama and Ayers Worked Together Once?" from JustOneMinute.com, April 27, 2008.

4) In 1995, Bill Ayers co founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers chose Obama as the first Chairman on the Board, where Obama remained for 8 years. Larry Johnson, "Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money," from NoQuarterUSA.com, April 26, 2008.

Sounds like "just some guys who know each other from the neighborhood," eh?

It's not guilt by association, either. It's the fact that he has associated with these unsavory individuals throughout his political career, has in fact been intimately involved with their projects, and has the audacity to mischaracterize it, thinking people won't know better.

A note: left-wing propaganda is just as insidious as right-wing propaganda. Leave you biases at the door or you may not notice the sort that reinforces your presuppositions.

[evditchpig]

For # 3 the link isn't working if you try to access it directly. Go here instead: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/04/obama-and-ayers.html

A pretty good summary, I think.

[albadore]

I'm still not convinced that we're not talking about guilt by association. Obama's association with Ayers in the 90s, even if he's trying to downplay it, doesn't make him a bomb-throwing yippie radical. Think about some of the douchebags you've worked at various jobs with over the years. I'm sure if you were running for office, somebody could make a spurious case that because you worked with one of them that it made you somehow dangerous by association. Now if somebody can come up with actual crimes commited by Obama, rather than by someone he knows, I'll be happy to eat my words. But so far, all I'm hearing is typical Rove stuff.

Left wing propaganda can be insidious too, I agree, but nobody can beat the Republicans at "pigfucking" tactics.

[evditchpig]

You're reading more into this than I'm saying, or even implying. Of course Obama isn't a bomb-thrower, terrorist, or whatever (although who could really know if he is a radical -- all politicians will cover up what they really think if it leads to the corridors of power.)

It's not merely a matter of working with someone. It's working with someone and their associates repeatedly, across jobs, over long stretches of time. If I thought someone was deplorable, I certainly wouldn't keep seeking out opportunities to work with them. I wouldn't accept invitations to their house and accept material and moral support from them. You think if John McCain had the same kind of involvement with Terry Nichols, the Dems wouldn't be jumping all over this?

First it was argued that the contact was minimal. When shown that it wasn't, you then ask for evidence of something (criminal acts) which were never alleged in the first place. If you keep moving the goal post, it doesn't reduce the validity of the original accusation.

As far as rightwing vs. leftwing propaganda, I don't think Karl Rove has ever put out anything comparable to some of the stuff MoveOn.org has spewed forth to a nationwide audience. And the Palin attacks this year have been as nasty, or nastier, than anything put forth by the Republicans. (This is coming from someone who doesn't like Palin at all, btw.)

[nohopenoharm]

Guilt by association has no part in this, that I can understand. Obama is what he is, and it scares the shit out of me that he may be president. His own books, written in his own words, should be enough to send anyone running from supporting him. How anyone can take him serious boggles my mind.