It's so interesting to me that Palin and McCain have been fear-mongering about a tangential acquaintance -- also an established educational reformer who works regularly with Chicago's mayor and teaches education -- that Obama has not even spoken to in several years. They make their hateful speech sound so dire, so important -- "can we really trust someone who pals around with terrorist?" They don't even condemn it when their crowds sound like something about a Nazi crowd, screaming about terrorists and making death threats.

And yet somehow during the debates -- the most important occasions to speak DIRECTLY to the American people, not fervid party loyalists who love to hear dirt about candidates -- McCain and Palin both choose not even to bring it up. They absolutely know that it's just nonsense, and they can't speak those words in front of the entire electorate or it's just political suicide. They know they're distracting from true issues, in whatever slimey, undercover, subliminally racist ways they can. Again, if these character assassinations were so true and so important, wouldn't McCain have been brave enough to confront them in the debates???

Nothing the National Review prints is without a right wing tint. But then nothing you ever say is without it either.

of course it is and he is, but so what? just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is out to get you. i don't know anything or care anything about this william ayers character, but what the op wrote is true...the whole scenerio would be played out entirely differently if it were on the other foot...trying to say dems are above that kind of politics is lame. obama is a grown man and he knows how the game of politics is played...good lord he is from chicago, i'm sure he can take it.

oops, not the op...the drinkthis guy with the mississippi scenario. sorry.

Milkshake:

Several Republicans have served on the board with Mr. Ayers, including Walter Annenberg, who was super chummy with Reagan and an appointee of Nixon.

Davelias12:

Milkshake:

Several Republicans have served on the board with Mr. Ayers, including Walter Annenberg, who was super chummy with Reagan and an appointee of Nixon.

Oh my god...Reagan was a terrorist?!!

Except we have seen how this plays "on the other foot". McCain actively courted Hagee despite Hagees ACTIVE anti-semitism that was open for everyone to view. And he dropped Hagee like a hot rock only after the media showed up. But Obama is not actively questioning McCain's support for Israel simply because McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

The closest actual equivilent is McCain's participation in the Keating Five. And the McCain campaign is calling FOUL for the invocation of that history. But the difference here is that McCain CHOSE to involve himself with Keating. Obama did not control who sat on that board - and many republicans sat on that board.

So actually the "Other foot" difference actually has favored McCain. How come? Is the media racist?

Of course not, but that would be the typical conservative response.

"I could see an Obama administration funneling money through organizations run by Ayers and his friends to promote leftist causes, notably the attempted indoctrination of schoolchildren with a certain political viewpoint."

Interesting choice of words "I could see." Do you actually have any proof of this? Or, is this speculation? And what, exactly, is a "certain political viewpoint?" Should we assume that because you use vague inuendo that you have no solid data?

Obama adviser Robert Gibbs took Hannity to task on this crap. He essentially said, if you wanna play the guilt by association game, you're an anti-semite for having Andy Martin on your show, etc. It was sweet; but of course Hannity was saying that it's different.

On this same note, McCain is friends with G. Gordon Liddy: a convicted criminal that has openly advocated that people take headshots at ATF agents, ergo...

And lets not forget how cozy the Palins are with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP). Todd Palin was a registered memeber for 7 years, a fact doccumented on the AIP website. This is an organization that currently advocates for the option of Alaska's succession from the US.

<link>

Given Sarah's recently taped speech for their organization, that is a CURRENT affiliation.

For those who have forgotten

<link>

Lets try the analogy game here. Imagine a candidate for high office had taped a welcoming message for a meeting of the KKK, or the Posse Comitatus? How about a candidate with a spouse that was a former member?

Whatever you think about Ayers, it has to be admitted that he and his views are controversial, so its not surprising that Obama's connection with him is controversial as well. That's just part of the give-and-take of hardball politics. Obama shouldn't get a pass.

Yes. But at what point do we get to say "asked and answered."

degsme:

Except we have seen how this plays "on the other foot". McCain actively courted Hagee despite Hagees ACTIVE anti-semitism that was open for everyone to view. And he dropped Hagee like a hot rock only after the media showed up. But Obama is not actively questioning McCain's support for Israel simply because McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

The closest actual equivilent is McCain's participation in the Keating Five. And the McCain campaign is calling FOUL for the invocation of that history. But the difference here is that McCain CHOSE to involve himself with Keating. Obama did not control who sat on that board - and many republicans sat on that board.

So actually the "Other foot" difference actually has favored McCain. How come? Is the media racist?

Of course not, but that would be the typical conservative response.

seeking an endorsement from hagee is an embarassment...but not quite the same as attending the man's church...having said that, i don't always agree with my priest and i still go to church, so i don't put much stock in the whole rev. wright affair, and i have members of my own family whom i love, but would be totally mortified if their drunken political rants were on national tv...but your analogy is off.

i am saying that one who is running for the highest office in the land can expect to play hardball...i think they both understand this, and really only fabricate outrage...just because they have to say something to the damn microphone constantly being shoved in their faces...24 hour news is horrible!!!

We can go back and forth -- whether McCain's sketchy ties to nefarious financial wheelers and dealer like Keating or whether Sarah Palin's association with secessionists who advocate possible terrorist activities against the federalist government -- are true or false.

My point was: if this really is so incredibly important and helpful in deciding the character and leadership potential of a president -- as Palin and McCain suggest when they talk about Obama has "palled around with terrorists, which in itself is ridiculous -- then WHY DIDN'T HE DEMAND that this be brought up during the debate? If it was important in helping the American public see the kind of president that Obama could be, why didn't he and Palin shout it from the rooftops from their campaign? Their hypocrisy is truly disgusting. They both know they're just trying to do anything -- ANYTHING -- possible to change the topic from the economy and from the Republican financial policies of the last eight years.

But the trouble with this particular smear is that we have been attacked by terrorists and that is fresh in our minds. A guy named hussein was a really bad dude and caused us some heartburn so we took the fight to him. Now we have a candidate who has a nebulous connection with a former domestic terrorist, and whose middle name is Hussein. This brings the fear to a boil and I guarantee you, there is some nut out there who thinks he would be doing the US a favor by killing him. this is not just politics, this is hate speech.