It's interesting that all the people clamoring about Ron Paul's "connections" to various unsavory types, or John McCain's "ties" to a female lobbyist (don't you love those ambiguous weasel words), haven't said a peep about Barack Obama's friendship with the two most notorious and unrepentant terrorists of the '60s and '70s. Bernardine Dohrn praised the Manson Family in 1969. Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon the next year. A generation later, they're intimates of the man who would be president. "In 1997, Obama cited Ayers' critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading," writer Ben Smith notes. "He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama’s state senate reelection campaign." To judge by the piece, the former Weathermen gave Obama a political coming out party of sorts to local donors. If these were, say, neo-Nazis instead of bomb-touting communists, if his name were John McCain instead of Barack Obama, this would derail his candidacy. But it's the Weathermen and he's Barack Obama, and being a leftist means never having to account for the past.

if they bombed an abortion clinic you would probably say 'I'm voting Democrat'

and for 'not having to account for the past', please, lets see how well you remember your campaign for the Morally Superior George W. Bush who led us to be internationally deemed a State that sponsors torture. What a high horse he fell off of, along with the GOP.

If this empty suit gets the Democrat nomination, McCain needs to get down and dirty to expose him and hammer him every chance he gets. To his punch drunk true believer followers, it won't make any difference. But moderates and independents may see the light and understand that this guy is probably more dangerous than the others.

More of Obama's friends.....

The Real Barack Obama

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:06 AM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size

Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.

To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.

Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

There's no double standard here. It's corruption that concerns people. The McCain story has that; it claims that the woman can influence McCain so he'll act in her interest instead of the public's. That's a big deal. What you linked to is merely guilt by association.

It's terrible judgment to be associated with people who bombed the U.S. capitol, and are unrepentant, nay, proud about it, when you want to preside over that government. It's a far worse scandal than what McCain is merely accused of. What's important to note is that it's not merely that these crackpots supported Obama. He supported them by quoting them approvingly and cultivating a friendship with them.

John McCain was endorsed by and introduced by George Allen at CPAC, and Allen has ties to the CCC. Didn't see any media attention of that or calls for McCain to disassociate from Allen.

Does it matter that the McCain story is not true? That's its based on hearsay and conjecture?

Even if it were true, are you saying that most of our elites are not frequently subject to and operate within the guidelines of influence peddlers?

It's more concerning to me that we may be on the cusp of electing our first Marxist and demonstratively racist President.

keep up the good work Dan. They'll have you back on fox news before you can say 'hannitize the vote".

Dan, do you have a source for your claim of Obama "quoting them approvingly"? Are you referring to the following?

"In 1997, Obama cited Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading."

Does just telling a newspaper that you read something count as approval? And even if we assume Obama approves of the critique, how does that hurt Obama's credibility? Isn't the content of the critique important? What if it's spot-on and contains the recipe for a much needed reform? Should it be thrown out because of the source?

Also, I remind you, associating with "unsavory types" is part of the job of president, specifically, dealing with foreign leaders. Are you saying that a president shouldn't do that?

ASDF:

I don't believe the McCain story is true, and was only speaking about the seriousness of the allegations. But hypothetically, I would prefer a slightly corrupt candidate that preaches against corruption over a more corrupt candidate who says nothing on the subject, all other things being equal. But the public despises hypocrisy so much I think they'd prefer the more corrupt candidate. That's why the McCain story is getting a lot of attention.

"I would prefer a slightly corrupt candidate that preaches against corruption over a more corrupt candidate who says nothing on the subject, all other things being equal".

Well, that's what you've got in Obama: a slightly corrupt candidate. And one that will likely become more corrupt given the time and environment. But I'm not sure when he's ever preached (perfect use of word) against corruption because he knows if he does, current events would be brought up showing him to be less than squeaky clean.

And all other things are not equal. I'm no fan of McCain (believe me) but he hasn't been linked to Marxists, terrorists, doesn't attend a church that preaches anti-American, racist ideas and hasn't stated that he will sit down with every variety of Third World despot and dictator.

I was referring to that, Brian, but I've since found more info that I may use for a later post or article. Not every scandal is about corruption. This one is about judgment. Specifically, why would someone who wants to be president of the United States buddy up with someone who tried to violently overthrow the government of the United States? Why would someone praise the work on juvenile justice of a guy who previously gained infamy for telling Life magazine that children should kill their parents? Why would someone who wants to be commander in chief associate with people who were involved in a conspiracy to kill American soldiers at a servicemen's dance?

This isn't about crazies supporting Obama. This is about Obama supporting crazies.

DF, you are out of control with your assumptions and implications. Why can't you look in the GOP mirror?

and asdf, you are an a$$ hole SOB. grow up!

Does none of this bother you angry? Or would you prefer chaos to rule the day? As we get closer to electing a new leader of the free world it seems only right that we know more about someone in line for that position and I don't think it makes any sense that we take a chance on a candidate who might not have the best interests of the United States in mind.

"To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

Vote "None of the Above!"

Bernadette Dorn and Bill Ayers were "bomb toting Communists" two generations ago, not one. Peoples' attitudes change over time.

If you can show that Bill Ayers espoused violence at the time that he made a donation to Obama, do so. Otherwise your post as written is nothing but slander.

fdsa: Obviously you don't really care if he has repented or not. If you cared, then you would have looked this up yourself. Wikipedia quotes a NYT interview (published 9/1/01): "I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough." He has never been punished and never apologized. This guy was a TERRORIST against the US government. That is a big deal.

Tell me, fdsa, I'm really curious, why do leftists shrug off issues like this?

fdsa: Ayers' memoir, which I have read, is unrepentant. He even states that he couldn't discount the possibility of bombing again. The memoir came out the same year he made the donation to Obama. The story here, at least from my perspective, is not so much Ayers's support for Obama, but Obama's support for Ayers.

But Dan, you haven't yet shown an instance of Obama supporting Ayers. Not that the phrase "Obama supports Ayers" particularly means much. It's lacking context. If I say "I support Obama", it refers to the election. I leave that detail out because other people will already know that's what I mean.

Ayers isn't in an election. When you say that Obama supports Ayers, specifically what radical position are you accusing Obama of holding?

Praising Ayers's book in the Chicago Tribune is an example of Obama supporting Ayers. Sharing the same stage with him at two conferences, including one that Obama's wife helped organize, is another example, as is serving on the same board of trustees. Allowing Ayers and Dohrn to host a fundraiser at their home would be another example. It's unwise to give support, and accept support, from people who bombed U.S. government targets when you seek to lead the U.S. government. When in a war on terror, don't cavort with terrorists.

I can see the commercials now...

Obama in his skivvies...

"Fruit Of The Loom....

The Underwear of Change."

Why do you keep insisting that Obama praised the book? The article you gave doesn't say that, and continuing to repeat it just makes me suspicious of your other claims. And even if it's true, it still doesn't help your case.

For all we know, the book has merit. Are you saying merit should be ignored when we have a chance to judge by association instead? We've had nearly eight years with a decision maker that judges by association and it has been disastrous. I think it's about time for a president that judges by merit.

Brian: I keep saying that Obama praised the book because Obama praised the book. I retrieved the original article--who cares what an article years later says, the original piece is what matters--and here is what Obama said: "A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair." I think you have a tendency to cynically doubt whatever bristles your ideology and gullibly believe whatever massages it.

I'm just being skeptical of all claims until I see reasonable evidence. A standard of proof should not be so low that evidence can prove both a claim and that same claim's negation. But this is just the standard of proof that you're using. This standard allows you to choose your belief and still think your belief is justified by evidence.

For example, Obama praising the book shows bad judgment if the book is without merit, but conversely, praising the book shows good judgment if the book is insightful. Without more information on the book, this "evidence" requires an assumption, which means it's not evidence at all.

There's plenty more evidence than this kind of straw bending to indicate that Obama would make a weak and dangerous President.

There are many more reasons than this straw bending to be concerned that Obama would make a weak and dangerous President.