home

McCain Criticizes Obama on Economy and Ayers

Sen. John McCain appeared this morning on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos. You can watch the video here. Some quotes (received by e-mail from ABC News):

On Sen. Obama’s approach to the economy:

“..He obviously doesn't understand the economy, because history shows every time you have cut capital gains taxes, revenues have increased, going back to Jack Kennedy. So out of touch? Yes, they are out of touch when they want to raise taxes at the worst possible time, when we're in a recession.”

On William Ayers:

“…his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question. …Because if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished bombed more -- and then, the worst thing of all, that, I think, really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr.Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life -- comparing those two -- I mean, that's not -- that's an attitude, frankly, that certainly isn't in keeping with the overall attitude.”

< How Much Does Organization Matter In PA? | A Return To The 1990s >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I agree with McCain about Ayers. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    Obama is constitutionally unable or unwilling to recognize trouble and walk away from it.


    So do I (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Grey on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    This is a trouble spot, and saying "Ayers teaches English at University!" like Obama did during the debate does nothing to either solve the problem or make Ayers more "palatable" to Americans.

    Parent
    Reminds me (none / 0) (#52)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    of the guys who were perfect targets for the 'flaming bag of poo' tricks on Halloween.

    "Oh Lordy, there's a fire outside. LET ME STAMP IT OUT!!"

    "Oh, darn it's full of dog feces! LET ME CONTINUE TO STAMP IT OUT!"

    Poor guy just can't stop stamping out the fire, minutes after it's gone out. And he's tracking the poo all over his house.

    Parent

    Rezko/Wright = More Bad Judgment From Obama (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    I heard McCain (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    talking about Obama's comparison and had flashbacks to Obama's grandmother.  Obama needs to work on his choices of people and situations for comparisons so he doesn't continue to add insult to injury.    

    Look (none / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    Obama is a neophyte.  This kind of stuff is going to happen over and over again to him.  He's going to be stamping out fires as long as he's in this campaign.

    That's why experience matters!

    Parent

    Goes back to judgement once again (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    On the Ayers item. You could write any sentence as "I did not know (insert name) that well. I was not present when (insert name)said those things. But she knows bad people too." The problem with trying to be liked with people of power or perceived importance is that by not scrutinizing them closely you let a lot of weasels in your lair.  

    BTW, you and BTD are going to town today (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    I will have enough reading until tomorrow. I just get through one diary's comments, and there are 3 more diaries. Love it. There is always time for catch up while you both are doing attorney things. Heh.Thanks a bunch.

    I know, me too (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    Take a weekend to do some houseold tasks, and end up way behind the discussion.  I'l have to catch up at work tomorrow /snark

    Parent
    For the life of me... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    I cannot understand why Democrats can't get their spine up and crush the meme that reducing capital gains actually increases revenues.  Any decent economist would tell you that initially, revenue goes up because investors have been holding on to securities until the rate changes, but soon after that, the revenues are reduced.  What is so darn hard about rejecting the premise that droping the rate increases revenue?  Does it require more than one sentence and therefore doesn't fit a nice soundbite?

    Republican economic theory , as practiced (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by alsace on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    be the present administration and taught to McCain by Phil Gramm, says that as taxes approach zero, revenues approach infinity.  That's why the dollar is so strong and the national debt is a mere ten trillion dollars.

    Parent
    It used to be (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    that reduction of the capital gains tax was an effective way of spurring economic growth by making increasing capital for reinvestment in the domestic economy, thus increasing employment and generally increasing revenues.

    But these days, the main beneficiaries of capital gains are stockholders, who re-invest the funds increase in their own stock portfolio.  It does very little to increase employment.  Investment tax credits for equipment and other jobs creating capital investment was utilized greatly by the Clinton Administration.  This is how he was able to add 20,000,000 jobs in the eight years of his adm., encouraging investments in cleaning up the toxic pollution in many areas, business zones in depressed areas, etc.

    McCain is mostly talking about capital gains pre-global economic era.  He will have a hard time synthesizing today's complex economic troubles.  But Hillary knows.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    But these days, the main beneficiaries of capital gains are stockholders, who re-invest the funds increase in their own stock portfolio.  It does very little to increase employment.

    If they are buying stocks that is good for the economy.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#64)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    Obama missed a chance to stomp on that during the debate. I'm going to be annoyed if he doesn't use McCain's remarks as an opportunity to do it now.

    Parent
    McCain vs Obama (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DEM on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    I wouldn't vote for McCain in a million years, but I think Obama could learn a thing or two about how one can express misgivings or disagreements with one's supporters/associates without throwing them under buses.

    Obama Mischaractorized Ayers Relationship (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    ...as "somebody I know" and compared his relationship to him as his relationship with Senator Coburn. It's already been thoroughly explored why the comparison to Senator Coburn is wrong on a number of levels, but its also wrong in the degree of closeness.  

    Just in the public record, we know:

    In 1996
    , Ayers kicked off Obama's Senate campaign in his house. The reason why it was Ayers house was because the two were friends and Ayers was introducing him to more of the Senate District's power structure.

    In 1997, Michelle Obama, in her capacity as Associate Dean at the University of Chicago, invited Ayers and Barack Obama to be on a panel at the university discussing juvenile crime.  This was problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the appropriateness of having a former college-age left wing radical that is unrepentant about setting off bombs, come talk to college students at a liberal university.

    Also in 1997, Ayers in his book, mentions that "writer Barack Obama" lived in his neighborhood and mentions Obama in the same breath of other famous people that live in his neighborhood, including Mohamed Ali. This  seems very strange to me. Yes, Obama had a book published, but it was certainly not a well known book and he certainly was not a well known author. It seems to me like something a friend might do to another friend to be nice-- perhaps a petty observation in isolation, but I include this as part of the larger picture of their relationship.

    1999-2002 Obama served on the board of a charity called the Woods Fund with Ayers during this time. It is important to note that Obama was on the board for six years prior to when Ayers started. This is important because as an incumbent board member, he had a role in approving Ayers--or any other new board member-- joining the board.

    In 2002, Ayers and Obama were scheduled to be on a panel at U or Illinois-Chicago called "Intellectuals in Times of Crises."

    In 2008, a mutual friend of both Obama and Ayers descrbed the relationship between Obama and Ayers as "friends" and Obama strategist Axelrod charactorized the relationship in a similary way.

    Also, in 2008, Obama said in the debate that he had not been endorsed by Ayers. This is a strange statement. It's not like Ayers is a famous enough person (like say, Bruce Springsteen) that anyone would know or care if he had endorsed anyone. Further, if Obama association with Ayers is so tangential and distant, then how does he know whether or not Ayers has endorsed him.

    Ayers is clearly not only friends with Obama, but someone Obama has, time and again, chose to associate with and promote in a very public way.

    wow - thanks! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    no wonder the rightwing is all over Obama-Ayers!
    Another Obama lie -shocking!

    And during the debate - Obama looked into the camera and claimed it wasn't his signature on that 1996 survey on guns.
    Media response? chirp, chirp

    Parent

    That's right! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    Whatever happened with that hand writing on the survey? I think David Brooks mentioned something about how that was a lie, but, you're right, I haven't heard anyone else mention it.

    Parent
    Reminds Me Of Obama's Response About Rezko (none / 0) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    "My only connection to Tony Rezko was 5 - 7 billable hours on a lawsuit", when in actuality they have been friends for almost 18 years.  I am assuming that lawsuit was the one where Rezko's firm was sued for withholding heat from his tenants and Obama successfully represented him, while Obama was in the IL State Senate.  Some of the losers in that lawsuit were Obama's very own constituents from his district.  With friends like that who....

    Parent
    That's true... or the way he parses... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    ...his words about his early life.

    Parent
    This... (none / 0) (#127)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    was one of the turning points for me.  I still can't believe he gets away with this kind of thing.  Aside from the fact that she got slammed for attacking him (which he did first), his explanation was extremely misleading, to characterize it generously.

    Parent
    P.S. Neither Obama (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    nor Hillary has a "Weather Underground Problem". The Republicans will make one, but the problem doesn't exists. It is unworthy to say, oh Hillary's husband freed an accomplice to murder after the fact, but Obama's guy said he isn't sorry.

    Do you think the families of The Brink's Guards will make that distinction?

    I live in New York State and I recall they were quite sympathetic in an advertisement that denounced the pardon and commutation.

    I happen to believe that America is and should be the land of second chances, so I think Clinton did the right thing. I don't have a problem with Obama and Ayres, even though the SDS and The Weather Underground assisted in the destruction of progressive politics much more than they were dangerous to the powerful; they hurt and killed, guards, Police officers, and regular people.

    I could tell that you believe... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    that America should be the land of second chances, because now that you have brought up the pardon/commutations of Rosenberg & Evans 3 times.

    Then you state that you don't have a problem with the pardon/commutations to completely discredit your own argument.

    You obviously don't have a problem with hypocrisy or the concept of using irrelevant justifications for what your candidate did.

    If you actually have a point to make on the topic of Obama and Ayers, you haven't been able to make it in 3 attempts.

    Parent

    I don't have a problem (none / 0) (#82)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    with Obama and Ayers, either.  But I am considerably to the left of the average American voter.  Maybe it shouldn't be a problem, but it will be - if not in the primary race, then surely in the GE.  

    The Ayers association, together with GD America Wright, Michelle feeling proud of this country for the first time, and the flag pin kerfluffle - all of these elements will be woven into a narrative by the Republicans.  It's naive to think otherwise.  Of course, Hillary has her own baggage, which has been examined ad nauseum by the press, but Obama's baggage is full of political dynamite.

    Parent

    Don't forget that Obama compared (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    Ayers to Coburn. That was not smart. I wonder why McCain did not mention it.

    Except that he did ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    Check the second quote above.

    Parent
    *blush* (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    I have never made such an embarrassing mistake---except for the last time.


    Parent
    Jeez... (none / 0) (#5)
    by VAOptimist on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    and I'm so glad HRC decided to do the grunt work and give mccain his talking points. (i've never posted here, but does being negative about her qualify me as a troll?  i notice the only comments here are anti obama

    being negative about Hillary... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    does not make you a troll...

    suggesting that she did grunt work for McCain does...

    You seem to be ignoring that she didn't ask the question about Ayers but ABC did.

    Is Hillary not supposed to have comments about someone who has confessed to being active and sorry he didn't do more activities that are considered by many to be terrorists?

    Parent

    Confused (none / 0) (#12)
    by VAOptimist on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:19:02 PM EST
    I guess I just stay perpetually confused by all of this anger.  I get mad at what obama does and mad at what clinton does and no one seems willing to call each of them on their stupid stuff.  i don't want them attacking each other at all (at least not on stupid stuff like this). I confess myself still not over the fact that we actually lost to bush in 2004 and I see all of this negativity as our road to destruction again.  Sorry I crashed into your website..I'll keep looking for one that doesn't cater to either and sticks to important subjects.  Again...sorry...just looking for a place to rant about what's bothering me about both of them.  This is just the first site I got brave enough to post to.

    Parent
    Lessee if I understand you... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jerry on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    You come here, and on your first post you basically say,

    "for what I said you're going to call me a troll."

    then people come back and say, no dissent is not being a troll, but your points are wrong.

    and then you say,

    "jeez, you guys are so angry, i'm out of here."

    um, okay.

    Parent

    and then claims (none / 0) (#23)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    not to know what a troll is two posts later.. just a hit and run post

    Parent
    Big Tent Democrat, aka BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    ...calls both of them on the BS and hypocrisy. Jeralyn favors Hillary, but is not a blind supporter and has been known to criticize the campaign when she disagrees with it. This isn't a fan site, but the moderators do a very good job of making sure that Hillary supporters are not run off and also delete our posts when we cross the line. Rules are pretty stricly adhered to, including the rule about staying on topic unless it is an open thread...and off topic posts have often been deleted.

    Parent
    Your 'grunt work' remark (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    gave you away.  You are not as neutral as you claim to be.  From what I've seen of this site, no one is characterized as 'crashing" a site as you called yourself.  Over here, the rules, simply and clearly stated, are applied to everyone.

    Parent
    Think Progress (none / 0) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    Crooks and Liars.....just to name a few who are staying above the fray.

    Parent
    Thanks for the advice (none / 0) (#17)
    by VAOptimist on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    Am totally new to the blogosphere (obviously! lol).. but I honestly still don't know what a troll is...can someone explain before i visit the other sites?

    Parent
    this is off topic (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    please read the comment rules. No responses please.

    Parent
    This should be pretty good (none / 0) (#26)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    Just checked out crooks & liars... (none / 0) (#18)
    by VAOptimist on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    Thanks for the info!

    Parent
    Think Progress (none / 0) (#59)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    yes, Crooks and Liars, not so much. IMO

    Parent
    Don't run away (none / 0) (#21)
    by themomcat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    You may actually find that this is a very comfortable place. Read the comment policy. Be able to back up your statements, arguments and defend your opinions civilly. And read everything with an open mind. You may actually like it here.

    Parent
    I really agree with you... (none / 0) (#128)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    This is one of my least favorite arguments from Obama supporters.  It blatantly states that she can not critize him.  I hear no such assertions the other way around.  Apparently attacking her is par for the course though.  The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

    Parent
    I Think That Obama Gave McCain His Talking Points (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    Clinton did not advise Obama to associate with Ayers, minimize his association or compare Colburn to Ayers in the debate. Obama made these choices all by himself. Blaming Clinton for all of Obama's poor choices is just standard operating procedure among Obama supporters to try and relieve him of responsibility for his actions.

    Parent
    Yup, like my grandmother used to say (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    "You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas." Obama should have been as careful in his associations as he was about leaving a paper trail that might define his positions or policies. He wasn't, and now he has to pay the price. I sure hope people realize that he can't get through the GE without imploding mostly due to his past associations. If we are lucky, he will defend Ayers in a speech, and then spend a while whining about the blowback. Heh.

    Parent
    I Hope He Does That Tomorrow...lol (none / 0) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    No. (none / 0) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    Jeralyn doesn't allow what goes on at Kos and Huffington to go on here.  We can respectfully agree to disagree.  But this is one of the few blogs that support Hillary.

    Do what I do.  I avoid the aforementioned blogs entirely.  If I don't like the content, I don't go to it...unless there's a REALLY good reason to.  

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#24)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    Unliked other websites this is not a cheering section for one candidate and try to destroy the other. A troll is someone who makes inflammatory comments just for the reason, ignores the responses. Things that generally are not appreciated (by either side) are repeating campaign lines, attacking or insulting the person, and chattering (saying the same thing over and over).

    I personally like healthy discussion (read heated debate, back and forth, etc) as long a its honest and focused on concrete points.

    Parent

    Say What? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    I'm a newb here too. I'm trying to figure out why a site with "left" in the title is touting the remarks of John McCain. Curious...

    Parent
    Not touting (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by curryorama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    but reporting what he said.  Seems like pertinent info to me.

    Parent
    If you'd been paying attention (none / 0) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    you'd know that the Ayers discussion showed up in the rightwingosphere before it showed up in the mainstream.

    Heck...Hannity was talking about it on his radio show at least a month ago.

    Parent

    Do You Think Repubs Haven't Been Watching Obama... (none / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    ...all along and couldn't figure this out?  That would be naive.  They are saving the really good stuff for later.  And I am not sure when they changed the rules and one candidate can't call out another candidate on relevant topics.

    The beauty of this site, is you can post a negative comment without being pounced on from 10 different posters, posting nasty comments.

    Parent

    On the flag pin issue (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    On the debate Obama said he never said he would not wear a flag pin yet on the radio the other day the played back a recoding where Obama actually is saying he would not wear a flag pin.  I could not get when it was recorded but does anyone have that recording link?

    The flag pin comment (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    isn't worth any energy. Who cares? His "Harry and Louise" approach to HRC's healthcare plans should trouble you more.  Taking a GOP tactic.  Not very "inspiring" to me.

    Parent
    The Flag Pin By Itself Is Down Right Silly (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    Yet it is a small part of the narrative that the Republicans have been developing to support their intended line of attack on Obama's patriotism, best case, or he supports radical militant groups that advocate the downfall of America, worse case .  The Republicans build story lines. They start out with small things and then build on them until they have presented enough evidence (??) to either create enough doubt or convince enough people that there is really something there. Remember they don't have to convince everyone. Just enough people to make a different on election day.

    Parent
    And then there is the meme that says (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    "He lied about the flag pin, so what else is he lying about?" And then it will go on from there, every thing Obama ever had recorded that he said he never said will be played over and over. Along with the "this man associates with terrorists, Iraqis and slum lords, do you want him, and them, in the White House? No, of course not, vote for our war hero!!"

    No way Obama can win the GE. No effing way. I hope the SDs are paying attention. Close attention!!

    Parent

    I THINK THE SD'S ARE PAYING ATTENTION.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    Found this today...they are not rolling over for anyone.  Correction, some already did...Obama has doled out $700,000 from his PAC to SD's.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_el_pr/undecided

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Saul on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    but the point I am making is he denied ever saying that he would not wear a flag pin yet there is a recording out here contradicting that blunt statement.  That's the issue.  It goes to his character of trustfulness and his whole campaign that he would be different and it would not be politics as usual.  Obama has already demonstrated on several occasions that he has gone back on his campaign theme.

    Parent
    his response at the last debate about this (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    was weak. Gee, for being the great orator his people suggest, he left us wondering and wondering. Still wondering.. I continue to be unimpressed, but his followeres have totally turned me off.          

    Especially since Hillary never came out and complained about the "activist base" that were bullying the rest of the caucus goers -- in the open.

    she could've,If she wanted to be negative, she could've whined about it, but didn't. Thats why I like her because she doesn't let a bump in the road throw her her path.

    Parent

    SEN. CLINTON KNOWS HOW TO GET AROUND A BUMP (none / 0) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    She is a great problem solver and obviously, not easily deterred.  That is a quality every leader has and she exudes it.  

    Parent
    Wait, Wait! (none / 0) (#51)
    by themomcat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    He "misspoke".

    Parent
    You could probably find it (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    on YouTube.  Or, if by a slim chance Obama gets the nom, you could just wait for the 527s to start running their commercials.

    Parent
    Ask and receive (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    Stephanopoulos (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    The Fanboys were all gonna watch how Stephanopoulos acted in this segment.  What do you guys think?  Was he tough on McCain?  I find McCain slippery and sort of like a little bulldog.  He pushes back on those questions and confuses the questioner.  I think he is a media darling cause they don't know how to attack him.  

    I wish someone (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    would challenge the assertion that revenues increase as a direct result of lowering capital gains tax, but it's repeated just becomes a given.  It happened in the debate the other night, that wingnut Gibson kept repeating it like an insane person.  Daily Howler had a good piece on it

    Parent
    This year (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    revenues will increase because people were force to take gains.  I wonder how they spin this one.  Gee the market tanked and we got more money.  

    Parent
    Please explain (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    I don't know what is meant by the Coburn comparison.  Can someone explain to me what Obama said about Coburn?

    Coburn (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:55:34 PM EST
    O said that Coburn, who believed that doctors who performed abortions should be put on death row, was a friend of his.

    I'm not sure how he meant to frame that as a defense of his choice of friends, but there you go.

    Parent

    I think it was a prepared line (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    To signal to Catholic voters that he is backed by a anti-choice senator. Nice, huh?

    Parent
    Here is the context ... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    he was asked a question about Ayers, and this how he responded:

    SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

    [Ayers] is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English 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.

    And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

    The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

    Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

    So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Steve M on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    If I were Coburn, I'm not sure I'd be thrilled that my "friend" was setting me up as the right-wing counterpart to Ayers.  Doesn't seem like that great a comparison.

    Parent
    W.O.R.M. (none / 0) (#60)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

    Ayers exchanges ideas with my staff, not me

    (or) Three or 4 times a year is not a "regular basis"

    (or) Ayers tells me his ideas, but I don't tell him mine.

    Parent

    can someone point me to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dave B on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    Where I can find the definition of W.O.R.M.?

    Please?

    Parent

    What Obama Really Meant ;) (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    Definition Of Worm (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    What Obama Really Meant

    Parent
    Obama Compared Knowing Ayers To Knowing Coburn n/t (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#30)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    that more hasn't been made of Bill Ayers as a domestic terrorist and the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Especially because McCain had such an easy opening given that Coburn is from Oklahoma. Someone's off their game.

    Not off their game (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    but if we can JUST stay FOCUSED on the issues Hillary easily wins everytime.  The distractions are at our expense.  When will we learn?

    Parent
    I think Ayers is comparable to (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    one of the abortion clinic bombers.
    Suppose someone like that hosted a fundraiser for a candidate? Trouble, right?

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    And in that comparison, the analogy of Ayers to Coburn makes a whole lot of sense.

    Parent
    LOL.. but Obama should not want to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    go there.

    Parent
    Clinton Pardoned Weathermen (none / 0) (#38)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    I know that Hillary supporters think any issue is a good issue against Obama, but this one takes the cake.

    President Clinton pardoned two "domestic terrorists". As Mother Jones puts it:

    "The two recipients of Clinton's munificence were Linda Evans, who was sentenced to five years in prison for her participation in a string of 1980s bombings, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with participating in a bank robbery that left one guard and two police officers dead."

    This is a silly issue on a Blog devoted to giving a chance for redemption to people who have committed crimes.

    If Hillary is the nominee, will this be your issue?

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    I am sorry but I don't see how this relates to the McCain criticizing Obama (assuming he is the nominee) and how it in any way negates Sen Obama's bad judgement (Bill Clinton did it, so Hillary Clinton is responsible, and that makes it ok for Sen Obama).

    Interesting logic.

    Parent

    In the same logic (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    does she get credit for the economy doing well during the Clinton years?  You guys are comic.  You want to attach bad Clinton stuff to her and take away the good stuff.  

    Parent
    sounds familiar (none / 0) (#53)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    don't I recall Gingrich and the boys doing the same thing back in the 90s?

    Parent
    First of all, Jeralyn is very clear (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    that she has no issue with Ayers at all.
    From my point of view, the key fact about  Ayers which makes him toxic is that he never expressed any remorse about his conduct---quite the contrary.
    Nor did he serve any time for his actions.
    BTW, I believe they did not get pardons----their sentences were commuted.
    Finally, it's a big strange to criticize a President for handing out pardons to people who have committed crimes, IMO. Who else would get them?

    Parent
    you can't even get your facts right (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    so why should we bother to correct you?

    Parent
    I believe that (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Clinton commuted their sentences, different from pardoning them. The other difference is that Ayers served no time for his crimes (no debt to society paid) and is completely unrepentant about his activities -- he wishes they'd set more bombs. There's a big, big difference between the two situations.  

    Parent
    Are you doing McCains work? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    Should Have Served Time Without a Conviction? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    I'm a newb, but this is apparently a progressive site about crime. Are you saying that Ayers should have served prison time for crimes for which he was not convicted? How is that a progressive position? In addition, Pres. Clinton did in fact release from prison Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, both of whom had been convicted of weapons and explosives charges related to domestic terrorism. The big, big difference I see between the two situations is that in once case a purported terrorist was never charged and in the other, convicted terrorists were released far in advance of serving their full sentences.

    Parent
    I got the impression... (none / 0) (#98)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    that Ayers was charged and the charges were dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutor error. I imagine that the specifics can be googled.

    I do think you have things a bit fuzzy in that Ayers actually wrote in his book that he wished he had done more bombings while the two who served time had expressed some remorse.

    Thus, I don't get your big, big difference.

    Since I do have recollection of that time period, I find myself sympathetic towards all 3 so I don't have an axe to grind on the matter personally.

    The thing that I find uninspiring is the parade of characters that are in Obama's life that he must disavow, one by one to achieve his aspirations with the expectation that these 'friends' (who I won't recount in order to foment argument) aren't supposed to actually matter but the cumulative effect does indeed take its toll.

    Parent

    Guilt by Association (none / 0) (#109)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    I recall the era well too. During the summer of '71 the FBI showed up at my place of employment. Speaking in hushed tones, the agent explained they wanted to use an upstairs office for a stakeout of Bill Ayers, who was rumored to be visiting a place across the street. The stakeout room was also the place I ate my bag lunch everyday. So on that particular day, I ate my PB&J while a GMan peered through the venetian blinds with binoculars. So for me, the question is this: am I guilty by association for the numerous atrocities of the Hoover Era FBI because I once ate lunch with one of their agents? I don't think so. And I don't think the American people will believe that
    Barack Obama should be held accountable for the actions 40 years ago by a neighborhood acquaintance.

    And for the record, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who participated in the Weather Underground. I opposed the war as much as they did but I chose to act by working for George McGovern.

    Parent

    acquaintance is a term of deliberate choice... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    but each mention the other in their books, Obama launched his campaign for the IL Senate in Ayers living room, they served together in various organizations together and the concept of friend vs. acquaintance becomes a bit fuzzier.

    It wouldn't seem like a big deal but he's got some other 'acquaintances' that are causing people to question what is going on.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:16:14 PM EST
    Regardless of whether there is a meaningful distinction here between "friend" and "acquaintance," what evidence do you have that Obama's relationship with Ayers demonstrates that they shared the objectives of the Weather Underground? Or are you implying that Ayers is guilty of more recent crimes against America during the time of his acquaintance with Obama? If so, what are they? Exactly what are we talking about here? How is this any different than the McCarthyism of the 50s that is now almost universally disdained?

    Parent
    So? sew buttons (none / 0) (#124)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    I offer no evidence of anything nor meant to infer anything beyond what I stated, I thought very clearly. Hardly McCarthyism in my mind at all.

    I pointed out - and will do so again since apparently the clarity was missed...

    It wouldn't seem like a big deal but he's got some other 'acquaintances' that are causing people to question what is going on.

    I think that ABC didn't miss it, Sean Hannity hasn't missed it and the questions come because of these 'friends' - sorry it upsets you so.

    Parent

    Spike, I think that is called REACHING.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    Commenters do not speak for this site (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    Only I speak for TalkLeft. You are new here, please read the mission statement. This site is unwavering in its support for the rights of those accused of crime and has been since it began six years ago.

    This is your third comment critcizing the progressiveness of the site in one day based on what you read in comments. Any more will be deleted.

    The front page clearly states:

    TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

    All points of view are welcome here provided they comply with the comment rules.

    Parent

    LCL/Have to check out your facts before commenting (none / 0) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM EST
    How did you find the time from your HuffPo duties to come over here?

    Parent
    I don't think it's a "good issue" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by badger on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    to use against Obama in the primary and in fact it dosn't have any influence on my opinion of Obama one way or the other. Overall, my opinion of Ayers is more positive than negative. I think Ayers is irrelevant to the substance of the campaign.

    But this issue, as demonstrated by McCain this morning and in the debate question, will be brought up, it will be incorporated into a larger narrative about Obama (with Rezko, Wright, and other things), and it will cost Obama votes in the general election if he's the nominee.

    Considering how well he polls against McCain in some large states Obama needs to win, it could very well cost him the election, where Obama won't be running against someone named Clinton.


    Parent

    You can't CHANGE the facts (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    1. President Clinton (not Hillary) commuted - not pardoned - the sentences.

    2. Susan Rosenberg was indicted but never tried for the bank robbery; the very reason President Clinton (not Hillary) commuted her sentence after serving 15 years.

    3. Bill Ayers hosted an event for him at his home in a political context

    4. Neither Rosenberg or Evans have held fund-raisers for Hillary.


    Parent
    Wrong issue, (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:25:43 PM EST
    Obama compared his relationship to Ayers with his relationship to a respected politician. Doesn't that raise any red flags to you?

    Parent
    The people pardoned had (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM EST
    served their time. The pardon merely removed it from their records. It's not like he let them out of prison.

    Parent
    You're Wrong (none / 0) (#95)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    The two domestic terrorists whose sentences were commuted by Pres. had not "served their time." One was in for 40 years and the other for 58 years. They had actually served a small fraction of their time when their sentences were commuted on 1/20/01.

    Parent
    small fraction? (none / 0) (#100)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    define your terms.

    Also, are you stating that you have a problem with the commutations in this case? Should Ayers and Rosenberg been required to serve out their sentences?

    Parent

    They Probably Wish Bush Had Been President (none / 0) (#114)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    With his pardon, Scooter Libby didn't even have to go to prison a day.

    Parent
    The Issue is Hillary (none / 0) (#66)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    also has a "Weather Underground" "problem" if that is what you call it.

    Clinton PARDONED one and commuted the sentence of the other.

    It is just the kind of stupid issue that Obama's relationship with Ayres is: there is no question that Hillary Clinton has no sympathy with terrorists.

    To claim, as many of you do here, that Obama can be linked to Ayres but Hillary isn't vulnerable to that same trumped up "Guilt by association" is ludicrous.

    Wrong Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    BILL Clinton pardoned those people. Hillary has not said that she supported everything her husband did while in office. She supported him, which was her "job".  People get that. She isn't claiming credit for things he did while he was in office - why should she get blamed for things he did while he was in office?

    If we're going to start holding our candidates responsible for things their spouses did, then we'd better start taking a long, hard look at Michelle Obama.

    Parent

    Repetitive (none / 0) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    But what the hey. You are CONFUSING two Clintons into ONE. Bill Clinton did the pardons. Sen Obama HIMSELF is associated with Ayers. Let's try again with visuals:

    Hillary Clinton->Bill Clinton->Someone else in the Weather Underground->Ayers

    Barack Obama->Ayers

    See?

    Parent

    It is a stupid issue. (none / 0) (#81)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    Hillary's vast experience as First Lady doesn't include Bill's pardons. But the key point is that Obama knows Ayres?

    Those are the kind of moral distinctions only The Clinton's understand

    Obama has no connection with domestic terrorism.

    Parent

    And Kerry Did Not Make Up His Military History (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    So I'm not sure that matters a whole lot.

    Parent
    Only in your opinion (none / 0) (#84)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM EST
    Which is confusing. You say its not an issue, and they you say Republicans will use it against either. Seriously, and I am not trying to be difficult, but which is it?

    It is an issue of judgment, also it is an issue because Sen Obama answered it so badly during the debate. "He is an english professor" will now become the standard defense in all court rooms for crimes....

    Parent

    Wonder why (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    Donna Brazille was not on the Stephanopoulos panel this week.  

    If The DNC Were Smart, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:12:59 PM EST
    they would send Brazile on a long, long trip out of the country where she cannot communicate with anyone in the media.

    Parent
    Because .... (none / 0) (#94)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    It is obvious, isn't it? Her absence tells us that she can no longer pretend to be 'fair and balanced' in her 'enlightened' political analysis.


    Parent
    Brazile Is Not On Every Week Maybe Every 2-3 Weeks (none / 0) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    But I believe she has a regular gig on CNN

    Parent
    It was youthful drug use (none / 0) (#87)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    It was sex scandal
    It was guilt by association

    We must put both candidates under the microscope because the policies are so alike. I guess this round we're stuck with it.

    But I have long decried eliminating someone from public office because of a youthful error. We would be left with candidates who had anticipated running for office and seeing her every move from a 'how will this hurt my campaign' point of view from the age of 10.

    Creative problem solvers take risks. When you take risks, sometimes you fail.  Our voters don't seem to get that very well. I am basing this conclusion on the fact we have so many risk adverse public servants.


    Issues, non issues (none / 0) (#90)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    Two last points:

    1. What the Republicans will make of a candidate is different than whether there is a real issue there.

    I do not believe President Clinton's pardon and commutation were wrong.

    In the election we will know about every left-wing person the candidate of the Democratic Party has ever brushed against.

    But it isn't an issue to ME. Whether I favor a return of The Clinton's or not, this is not any part if the reason. Unless you are telling me Obama favors domestic terrorism, and Ayres proves this, it is not an issue despite what the Republicans will do.

    2. As far as I can tell, Ayres is a rich kid with no actual arrest record. He was probably arrested for vandalism or rioting, but he looks clean.

    How is it that so many people are expert in Weather Underground Politics when it means a chit for their candidate? This guy didn't do anything.

    Again with complete contradictions (none / 0) (#93)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    We may not be experts, but at least we don't constantly post contradictory information. If it is not an issue why does it matter? If he didn't do anything why are you relating it to the Clintons.

    Parent
    That's oh-so-like an Obama dodge (none / 0) (#97)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    Obama supporters cannot stand on their own. Every issue must either be deflected right back at Clinton in whatever way they can. I wouldn't bother responding except to point out that the extreme right wing has been having a field day with the Ayers connection, but even they have recognized that Bill's actions are not relevant to Hillary's campaign.

    Just FYI, they have also bought up the commutation of sentences of several FALN members by Bill Clinton (I'm sure dem08 is going to post copiously about that now :-) alleging that there was somehow a tie to Hillary's Senate run and the hispanic vote. In response to which others brought up Obama's ties to FARC (google that and you'll see all of them), and the discussion usually shifts right back to Ayers. (BTW, isn't this the kind of tit-for-tat gotcha game that Obama, the candidate piously pronounces he is against?)

    It has struck a nerve here in Boston because the Weather Underground killed a cop after whom our police department headquarters plaza is named. Say what you will, but Obama's (and his supporters) dodging and weaving at such issues is getting a bit tiring.

    Parent

    at least Hillary supporters (1.00 / 2) (#120)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    are good for a laugh.

    According to BostonIndependent of the "extreme right wing" he notices:

    "but even they have recognized that Bill's actions are not relevant to Hillary's campaign."

    So true, Boston, so very true. If Hillary wins the nomination, that pardon and commutation will never come up. No American even thinks of Bill as having anything to do with Hillary.

    I know when she won her senate term in 2000 in my home state, we were surprised to discover that she had once been First Lady!

    She was so quiet during those eight years.

    Why don't you just say, "Any thing Hillary's supporters can fling against Obama you we willBy any means necessary, Hillary must win."

    So you are just weeping over Bill's commutation and pardon because if Hillary was president those people would still be in jail?

    Would Ayres be in jail, even though he apparently didn't do anything and was never indicted?

    I suppose the right wing will just go home if Hillary is the nominee, because after all, except for Impeaching her husband and destroying the Democratic Majority in Congress and many Governorships, they right wing was pretty impotent against The Clinton's.

    Parent

    Being rude (none / 0) (#123)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    And not making logical sense will win you many friends and converts!

    Parent
    I'm glad I amuse you (none / 0) (#132)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    I was reporting what happened on the talk shows here. I was not making any predictions about the future.

    Of course I expect the Republicans to try and use all means necessary including Bill, Chelsee and the action of Clinton's puppies to gain an edge should Hillary win the nomination -- which I think is extremely unlikely (I've thought that since oh.. Wisconsin).

    You say "Ayers never did anything". I guess you haven't read the other posts on this thread and followed up on the links. O' well. I guess we can't expect much from Obama supporters -- just as Clinton the candidate is much better than her campaign, your candidate (I'm assuming you are for Obama) is so much better than you. He has a real problem here, much more than Hillary has because of her husband's actions -- and if you can't see or admit it, that's ok.


    Parent

    Ayers is NOT an irrelevant issue ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    Read Lin Farley's note about the Weather Underground which I found powerful. This won't go away, because it raises a legitimate question that will continue to linger wrt. Obama. What kind of "change" is he about exactly, when his associates damn America, and think that killing cops and bombing government institutions is part of the process? Recently he has been talking about "declaring independence from politics as practiced in Washington" -- hmm.


    thanks for the walk down memory lane... (none / 0) (#104)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    Timothy Noah in Slate Aug22, 2001 wrote:

    "The weather underground was full of rich kids who thought they knew best. Who wanted to kill in order to stop killing. To many on the left they were heroes, I thought they were jackals. And William Ayers exemplified the worst when on 9/11, 2001, in an interview for his book " Fugitive" he said in the NY times:

    `I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.'

    ...Much of what Ayers self-interestedly leaves out of his book is more personally embarrassing than illegal. Ayers takes care not to dwell on his own Establishment credentials. (His father was chairman of the energy company Commonwealth Edison, a fact Ayers conveys only by writing, "My dad worked for Edison.") Ayers omits any discussion of his famous 1970 statement, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." He also omits any discussion of his wife Bernardine Dohrn's famous reaction to the Manson killings, as conveyed by journalist Peter Collier: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" (In a 1993 Chicago Magazine profile, Dohrn claimed, implausibly, that she'd been trying to convey that "Americans love to read about violence.") Nor does he address fellow radical Jane Alpert's charge that Ayers was "notorious for his callous treatment and abandonment of Diana Oughton before her death and for his generally fickle and high-handed treatment of women" (though Ayers does manage to get across the message, to those few who haven't heard it, that the late 1960s and early 1970s were a golden age for getting laid)."

    Helps give real context...

    Parent

    THANKS FOR THAT INFORMATION (none / 0) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    It was something I didn't know.  These are certainly not the type of people I would strike up friendships with.

    Parent
    please change the date (none / 0) (#134)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    If Noah knew about 9/11 in August, even knew that Ayres, who makes Hitler seem like Mother Teresa by the way, was going to say on the day of the bombings the very next month, he should have warned us.

    Great issue and makes me really think the only candidate I know who never made friends with former 60's radicals is John McCain.

    It is food for though when picking a president: some people really are guilty by innuendo.

    And, again, on a liberal blog devoted to attempting to change the massive assumption that a person is guilty until proven innocent, it really reflects well on the readers.

    Good work everybody!

    Parent

    so McCain admits not knowing much about (none / 0) (#102)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    the economy 3 weeks ago, now he's the emminent leader on the subject. After a crash course of course.

    If people don't realize after the GWB disaster presidency what McCain is SCREAMING, we don't deserve Hillary Clinton. He is the elephant in the room as far electability.

    Besides,MCCain is too old, too sick, too old, too sick. And he has been in the senate way too long, despite his service and ultimate heroism for the US. What he should do is sit back and bask in the lime light  as a respected POW hero, not as president, not at this time. The country needs a strong person, McCain is past that moment.

     if this gets deleted,oh well, but it had to be said.

    McCain is a very strong candidate (none / 0) (#103)
    by mexboy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    Stephanopoulos was tough on McCain, and McCain handled it very well. He didn't let a thing go unanswered and had detailed responses to his questions. That makes Obama look like a rookie.

    This is the first I've seen of McCain going after Obama. It was only the beginning and it was impressive. IMHO there is no way Obama can defeat McCain, no way!

    I think the more attention McCain gets the better Hillary looks. It's all about perspective!

    this is just what I'm talking about, (none / 0) (#125)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    he doesn't get it. Unless he knows something the rest of us don't, Obama is NOT nominee, YET!

    PA will tell the story. Hillary is the strongest candidate among the 3. Plus she's a fighter, a junk yard dog that won't give up.

    I wish the primary season wasn't this long, but look at what we know now about Obama.

    Parent

    this is just what I'm talking about, (none / 0) (#126)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    he doesn't get it. Unless he knows something the rest of us don't, Obama is NOT nominee, YET!

    PA will tell the story. Hillary is the strongest candidate among the 3. Plus she's a fighter, a junk yard dog that won't give up.

    I wish the primary season wasn't this long, but look at what we know now about Obama.

    Parent

    I'm still not comfortable (none / 0) (#117)
    by ChrisO on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    with Hillary pursuing the Ayers connection. I wasn't in the Weather Underground by a long shot, but I and a lot of other anti-war activists were romantic adventurers, to say the least, and our definition of crime certainly didn't meet society's standards. We were ridiculous in many ways, but the notion that we're now going to portray any association with people from that era as toxic doesn't feel right to me. When they asked Obama about Ayers during the debate, Hillary should have known that the issue was breaking, and she didn't have to throw in the Woods Foundation connection.

    I agree that Obama has to know how to deal with this stuff, but by Hillary puirsuing it I think she's burning more bridges thah she has to.

    Is She Really Pursuing It Or Is the Media (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    There is a difference; and some how your tepid outrage doesn't really ring true.  I am just speaking for myself.

    Parent
    The problem is that (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    in 2001 Ayers opined that he wished they had done more.

    That takes it out of the "youthful romantic adventure and keeps it squarely were it belongs. And that "terrorist activities."

    Obama is going to have to account for these associations with people who, at best, are way outside mainstream America.

    Parent

    Hillary is NOT pursuing this. (none / 0) (#131)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:40:31 PM EST
    It is a favorite tactic of Obama supporters to throw everything negative about their candidate back at Hillary. If ChrisO had any evidence perhaps he'd back up his accusation w/ a link. "Hillary pursuing the Ayers connection". Indeed.