Will Obama's Association with Bill Ayers Scuttle his Candidacy?

[Brainster]

It's the Clintons? Really?

This from your earlier post:
All that is because of the Clintons?

She's blaming the last eight years on the Clintons?

I bet she isn't.

I have watched several of her speeches and the "they" is somewhat amorphous. This part is clearly referring to the Clintons:

They — she doesn’t mention anyone in particular but does refer to one “brand name politician” — are trying to win this election for themselves and thereby deny Obama the opportunity to move America to the mountaintop of hope. And they must be stopped.

As I said to Pookster, given that she's made this speech for months now, the they who are trying to win this election for themselves are clearly the Clintons.

Now, at other times, she's referring to the media/pundits/Clinton surrogates. When she talks about how "they" kept raising the bar for Barack--first it was organization, then it was money, then it was winning in Iowa, then it was New Hampshire, she appears to be talking about the media/pundits. She doubles back to the Clintons when she talks about South Carolina (they said Jesse Jackson won South Carolina). And at times she seems to be going with the conspiracy theorist version of "they":

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?”

“They raise the bar!”

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.”

There it's that amorphous, conspiratorial "they". I don't think that it's the Republicans per se, it's "the man", the people with the power. Rush Limbaugh used to talk about how nobody could get really rich in this country until they were at least 35 because "they" wouldn't let you; clearly Rush was not talking about the Republicans.

 

[Pookster]

I have watched several of her speeches and the "they" is somewhat amorphous. This part is clearly referring to the Clintons:

I suspect this type of speech will morph into being McCain and the RNC soon enough as well, likely even the pundits/media/etc again too.

 

[BPSCG]

Duplicate post. Me stoopid.

 

[BPSCG]

I suspect this type of speech will morph into being McCain and the RNC soon enough as well, likely even the pundits/media/etc again too.

I think Brainster summed it up very well.

[derail]
Brainster... Pookster... are you two related...?
[/derail]

Anyway, yeah, now that Hillary's campaign is getting measured for a pine box, it makes sense to turn fire on McCain. And there's every reason to expect more of the same from Michelle Obama about the sinister "they" who are making your life miserable. While her husband talks about uniting us and healing the rifts and all that feel-good stuff.

Many of you are too young to remember, but one of Nixon's campaign themes in 1968 - the year of assassinations and riots and Vietnam - was "Bring Us Together."

And he sent Spiro Agnew out to do the dirty work.

If Obama's serious about uniting us and healing the rifts, he'll tell his wife to knock off the populist we-against-they BS.

 

[Pookster]

[derail]
Brainster/Pookster... are you two related...?
[/derail]

Not that I'm aware of. Anything's possible, I suppose.

 

[T.A.M.]

Archdevil? No. I was hoping that he would not get the nomination, that the Democrats would show some common sense for once. Ayers is a very evil person (and Dohrn, his wife, is even worse). It would be very difficult to come up with a pair that would bother me more. Charlie Manson and Susan Atkins, I guess. But that's about it.

You really think this man has been of any influence on Obama? Do you have any proof he has influenced who Obama is or what he stands for?

Seems a little out there to say the DEMs lack common sense to nominate Obama because you think Ayers has some sort of influence on him. If not, then why would his association, as weak as it is, have any bearing on how Obama will run the country.

You ask me, if you think Obama will be such a horrible president, with evil malicious men telling him what to do, then you should consider coming up north to live.

TAM

 

[BPSCG]

You really think this man has been of any influence on Obama? Do you have any proof he has influenced who Obama is or what he stands for?

If Obama has nothing in common with them, why does he hang out with them? Would you have anything to do with Ayers?

I used to have a friend who was too fond of "the n word" for my tastes. When I realized we didn't see eye to eye on what I considered an important value, I stopped seeing him.

And he never bombed a building.

Seems a little out there to say the DEMs lack common sense to nominate Obama because you think Ayers has some sort of influence on him.

Do you think Ayers has more influence, less influence, or the same amount of influence on Obama as, oh, let's say, you? If Ayers has no influence on him, if they share no values, why does Obama hang with him?

Frankly, I wouldn't have anything to do with someone who bombed U.S. government buildings even if he also had a cure for cancer. Of course, I'm biased; I work in a government building. So does Obama, for that matter.

Hmmmm.. Ayers actually bombed the building Obama works in. And he's not sorry he did it. If I were the Secret Service, I wouldn't let Ayers get within 500 feet of Obama.

 

[Brainster]

You really think this man has been of any influence on Obama? Do you have any proof he has influenced who Obama is or what he stands for?

No, and once again you're missing the point. It is not that Ayers has any influence on him. It's that Obama is (as he himself has pointed out) a blank slate on which people are projecting their own desires. Hillary we know; McCain we know; we've seen them on a regular basis for years.
Obama we don't know and so we now have six months to try and size him up. We cannot judge him by his speeches; lots of great orators have been lousy leaders. So we have to look to other indicators, and associates, like it or not are among those.

Seems a little out there to say the DEMs lack common sense to nominate Obama because you think Ayers has some sort of influence on him. If not, then why would his association, as weak as it is, have any bearing on how Obama will run the country.

You ask me, if you think Obama will be such a horrible president, with evil malicious men telling him what to do, then you should consider coming up north to live.

It's not that I'm worried that Ayers is advising him (although that would indeed petrify me if true). It's that I'm worried that the association with Ayers means that Obama's concealing his true nature under this mask of moderation.

I'd rather work on making sure that McCain becomes President. Besides, I can't stand the cold weather, which is why I live in Arizona.

 

[chipmunk stew]

It's not that I'm worried that Ayers is advising him (although that would indeed petrify me if true). It's that I'm worried that the association with Ayers means that Obama's concealing his true nature under this mask of moderation.

You're being irrational. Obama is a DEMOCRAT from CHICAGO. Ayers is far more well-known in Chicago (or was, before this year) for the work he's doing there today. He's been associating with Chicago politicians out in the open and uncontroversially for years. Perhaps this association refutes the claim that Obama's had his eye on the White House since entering politics.

I'd rather work on making sure that McCain becomes President. Besides, I can't stand the cold weather, which is why I live in Arizona.

McCain embraces and praises a Hitler admirer who plots murders and publicly advocates killing federal agents who are carrying out their duties.

McCain embraces and praises a preacher who preaches that America was founded, in part, to destroy the Muslim faith.

McCain embraces and praises a preacher who preaches that the Catholic Church is a Great Whore that drinks the blood of the Jews.

McCain employs a man who is (or was) the president of a magazine that celebrates the good old slave-owning days, who considers Nelson Mandela a terrorist, and who thought it would be a nice good poke in the eye if that "maverick" David Duke had been elected.

I'm worried that these associations mean that he's concealing his true nature under this mask of "maverickiness".

 

[Brainster]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, Bob Novak:

The test of Obama's strategy may be his friendship with and support from William Ayers, an unrepentant member of the Weatherman terrorist underground of the 1960s. Instead of totally disavowing Ayers as he belatedly did his former pastor Wright, Obama potentially deepened his problem by referring to Ayers as just a college professor -- "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He then compared their relationship with his friendship with conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, as he had compared Wright's racism with his white grandmother's.

Democrats abhor bringing up what Obama calls Ayers' "detestable acts 40 years ago," but it will be brought into the public arena even if it is not McCain's style of politics. A photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag in 2001 has been all over the Internet this week. That was the year Obama accepted a $200 political contribution from Ayers and the year in which the former Weatherman said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

While McCain will demand no response from Obama, others will. How the prospective nominee handles this in the future will help define whether he is seen as flawed or fantastic in the long campaign ahead.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, Bob Novak:

Every time this is brought up, so will Watergate, assassinating journalists, murdering ATF agents, and Hitler worship.

 

[Brainster]

Every time this is brought up, so will Watergate, assassinating journalists, murdering ATF agents, and Hitler worship.

Deal!

 

[Pookster]

So far, it hasn't scuttled his candidacy. It's hardly even been a blip on the radar. In Obama's words that you even posted ...

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English [actually Education] in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

Sure, some will try to make a big deal of it, but so far those attempts have fallen flat. Unless someone comes up with something else of real substance, then it'll continue to be barely a blip on the radar. I doubt the average citizen has a clue who the guy is or what he did years ago, nor will they care that he lives down the street from Obama and has crossed paths at times.

 

[Brainster]

Time Magazine tries a new twist: The Weather Underground wanted the war to continue and thus they were the enemies of liberals who opposed the war:

For strategic and psychological reasons, the Underground wanted the Vietnam War to go on. They wanted the killing and dying to continue and spread, along with anarchy, dope and free sex.

I'm pretty sure they were into the latter bits spreading, but it's a stretch to say they wanted the war to continue. They may have misjudged what would happen as a result of the end of the war (effectively the end of their relevance).

Then the article morphs into "Well, if Obama's guilty of associating with Ayers and Dohrn, so is Northwestern University and others who have embraced them."

If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues. Northwestern created a "family justice" center for Dohrn to run. Ayers is a "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois. They write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as "activists" who have never abandoned their noble ideals.

I'm willing to say that yes, those people who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn are people with terrible judgment, just like Obama.

Oh, and BPSCG might like this part of the article:

Years later, Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama.

Bolding added for emphasis.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Time Magazine tries a new twist: <snip>

:sigh:

I think you should try a new twist.

Oh, and BPSCG might like this part of the article:

Bolding added for emphasis.

Still strangely lacking in details.

 

[Pookster]

Oh, and BPSCG might like this part of the article:



Bolding added for emphasis.

I sorta doubt it. But here's a helpful link for him. He seems to have lost his way to it ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113164&page=3

 

[daredelvis]

Oh, and BPSCG might like this part of the article:

[q]Years later[b/], Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama.[/q]

Bolding added for emphasis.

Re-bolded to highlight significant part of the quote. Are we to the point where each candidate's character is defined by each and every person who ever holds a fund raiser for them? Nonsense, and petty at that.

Daredelvis