Fox, not so fair or balanced. But why Am I having to tell Clarkies this? I must be in the Twilight Zone! 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/obama_radical_fact_check;_ylt=At8RTp1_7CgDD6pKD4ZRRU9h24cA

THE FACTS:

Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, a radical group that claimed credit for explosions at the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and more. Originally known as the Weathermen, the group took its name from a Bob Dylan lyric: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

In 1970, a bomb the group was making — to use against an Army base — exploded at a New York town house, killing three members. Ayers fled and spent years as a fugitive. He met and married fellow fugitive Bernadine Dohrn during that period.

The two surfaced in 1980. Ayers had been charged with various offenses stemming from demonstrations in Chicago in 1969, but those charges had been dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. He never faced any charges related to the town house explosion. Dohrn pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated battery and two counts of bail-jumping in connection with a 1969 anti-war protest.

Ayers now teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Dohrn heads the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University. Ayers has advised Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on education issues.

Ayers and Obama both served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that focuses on developing community groups to assist the poor. A variety of business executives, journalists and academics serve on the board.

When Obama was organizing his first race for the state legislature, the incumbent lawmaker he hoped to replace introduced him to her supporters and urged them to back Obama. One introductory event took place at the home of Ayers and Dohrn.

Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's legislative campaign in 2001, but there is no other sign that he has actively aided Obama's political career.

During Wednesday's debate, Obama argued that if the candidates are to be held responsible for distant connections to the Weather Underground, then Clinton would fail, too. He pointed out that her husband, just before leaving the White House, commuted the sentences of two members of the group who had been convicted of weapons and explosives charges.

Ayers's interview with the New York Times about his book was published on September 11, 2001, and opens with his statement, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

Does it really matter whether or not actual criminal charges were brought against him? By your logic, it would seem to be OK for Obama associates to rape and murder people as long as they don't get caught and do good deeds afterwards.

As far as the commutation is concerned, Susan Rosenberg had served 16 years in prison. She had been sentenced to 58 years. I'll let the reader conclude whether or not she had been punished sufficiently for 'weapons possession' and whether she should have served her full sentence of 58 years which would have been worse than the majority of criminals who are convicted of murder.

Note: soon-to-be-official Obama backer Jimmy Carter commuted the sentence of Patti Hearst after she had only served 2 years for armed bank robbery.

Once all of the negative information about Clinton and Obama are put on the table, regardless of source, precision, fairness, who will be able to withstand intense media scrutiny, Republican propaganda, and swiftboating? And above all, who will have the personality and character to hold up to it and keep campaigning without getting defensive and destructive? You may think otherwise, but Hillary Clinton can handle it.

to that extent? Why really do you believe this? Because of the color of his skin? The fact that he understood what Iraq would be like, just like the General from the gate? Why underestimate someone who outsmarted and beat via strategy the household name of Clinton? You understand that what is happening now is that Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee, and if you read the WAPO polling data, you will see why. She has not weathered any storm, which is why she is not winning, why her unfavorable ratings are in the toilet, etc., etc.....

Doing the work "for" the opposing party is not Hillary Clinton's responsibility....because Barack's not going to respond in kind, because she is not the enemy. You saying to break someone leg on your own Hockey team, because the other team might do it if you don't. That's lousy logic, and makes no sense, unless you must make it make sense to rationalize what is happening here.

If tearing down her opponent is her only avenue, and she cannot win by simply being someone that people "want" to vote for, what is the point? Who wants that some more? Why can't she just win by having integrity and persuading voters that she is the most capable, without resorting to the stupid gutter stuff?

oh....and here's a bit of good news!

New one here! I feel some free concerts coming on in Steel town along with some Steelers or two or three. The whole team would be good!
http://brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

I did not make any of the statements in your first three paragraphs. I simply presented a scenario in the future, with the realities of the campaign. Clinton's record is what it is and Obama's record is what it is. In both cases, some of it is real, some is perceived, and some is unfairly used by opponents. The reality of politics.

Amazing how many Obamaphiles say Hillary has no chance when she is only trailing Obama by 94,000 popular votes and could very well be leading that vital measure after the Pennsylvania primary.

Not over yet.

I read the WAPO polling data lasyt night and it shows that Democrats believe by a margin of 67% vs 24% that Hillary has the superior experience to be President. As Bill Richardson once said (and then conveniently forgot), does experience matter any more?

If O! does win the nomination, watch how quickly the brilliant strategist goes down the tubes once the MSM turns against him.

By the way, if you've read the transcripts of msla, did you ever clear up your misunderstanding about Wes saying that O! was not qualified to be President which you helped spread across the blogsphere at DU - something Wes never said.

Beginning with a brief discussion of the Nick Juliano Raw Story mischaracterization of Wes’s words – (twisting them to infer that Wes had somehow stated that Obama was “unfit to be CIC”)— We breezed over how it had transpired, the Kos blowback, our attempts to correct the record, post the transcript, and defend the false accusations.

Wes raised his voice- emphatically interjecting: "—I NEVER said that!!"

"I know-- we’ve been copy-pasting the conference call transcript all over the place to prove it.” But there was, I explained, a stubborn refusal by many to even read or consider the actual words spoken-- in favor of looking instead for some cryptic, hidden meaning encoded between the lines, and inserting any context that best suited their own political agenda. So, in blogger logic—even if you never said it -- what translates a few hours later after a horde of angry bloggers have been chewing on it en masse is— You meant it! And in blogger court – popular opinion is both judge and jury. Evidence be damned!

Wes was clearly distressed about his comments being misconstrued, most likely because, learning the hard way, he is so cautious and specific about what he says and what he doesn’t say. Ghosts of Arianna Huffington and “New York money people” hover over us as we tread familiar ground...

not what Hillary does or doesn't do regarding any statements she or her campaign make or don't make regarding Barack Obama. I can see very clearly that the media selects it's darlings & protects them like a fatted calf, to be eaten at their leisure. This extends to issues & agendas, not just personalities- think of the run up to the war. Or how we can't seem to get public pressure up enough about health care. We are operating without a fourth estate in so many ways. 

I myself sincerely appreciate Barack's opposition to the the Iraq war, his stance, and the speech- the one that he had redone by an ad agency because it was kind of no big deal at the time & later scrubbed from his website while he ran for Senate.

Like millions of other Americans, people here in my house were also part of speaking in public at protests, etc. against the war. And like Barack, we also didn't have to represent New York as a former first lady after the Bush coup in Florida in 2000. The O! says he doesn't know how he would have voted had he had a vote on it. That's a matter of public record.

He seems to be a very gifted & talented person, but I don't think it is exactly he himself who is running his campaign, either, although the candidate sets the tone. Since he never ran a national campaign before that would be extraordinarily difficult, there are people who do that, the candidates really do not.

Voters do deserve not to be surprised by the likes of the material - a lot of it kind of lurid & certainly coming from an ill place with ill intent- that will be issued about Barack Obama by the serious rightwing come the fall if he is the nominee.

I myself reserve the right to not support someone who to me does not have the national security profile whatsoever or length & breadth of life experience that I feel would make a good post-Bush president. His resume is as thin as somw was at the time, except Barack was obviously better on the IWR.

I personally find plenty to admire about Hillary Clinton as do many of the national security folks I have high regard for- Joseph Wilson, Wes Clark, Joe Sestak & others.

Hillary "won't be the nominee" it's a little hard to understand what made you come here and go ballistic.

Mitch posts this kinda stuff here all the time from ALL the networks....about lots of stuff. But since you haven't been around for years but for a drive by shot....guess you wouldn't know that.

Clue in, Fenchie. Not everything is about Hillary...or the Clintons. You never debunked once here what Mitch was reporting about O!. Only turned it into an attack on the Clintons. It is hard to see when the hatred for the Clintons is so blind, I know. But, IF O! is the nominee...he and his supporters won't have Hillary's skirt to hide behind any longer when the sh*t comes down. Unless the media keeps kissing his a** for the duration....even then the sh*t will come down cuz the repug 527's will make sure of it. Hillary and her supporters don't have to feed the media or the right wing. O! does that brilliantly on his own. The gift that keeps on giving. Sooner or later...IF he's the nominee....and so be it.....those of you "clinging" to the facade will need to face it.

And by all means....keep shouting and accusing everyone who doesn't see your precious O! as you...or he...does as "racist. The people of this country are just gonna love that. Perhaps you could make it the central issue of his campaign. How bout signs that say "YES! YOU ARE A RACIST!!" with a great big accusatory finger pointing at us. Big crowd pleaser and vote getter.

I'm sick to death of being called a "racist"....so you and your ilk have lost me for the duration already.

fwiw, I don't believe Mitch is advocating this point of view or advocating a Fox approach, he's just conducting a listening post/ monitoring what they are saying. Whenever he posts something here from those sources, whether Drudge  or Limbaugh or others it remains controversial, as it always was when Wes appeared on Fox itself.

I doubt anyone here harbors any illusions about Fox.

But what we do remember, as some have apparently forgotten, is that not a single expression of the corporate media is trustworthy. They ALL seek to manipulate the election process, unfortunately with great success.

No, I see only one person here has changed.

Hi FrenchieCat:

Bill Clinton and other Presidents have pardoned many controversial people over the years. However there is a difference between Clinton pardoning Linda Evans and Obama personally associating himself with radical terrorist WIlliam Ayers within just the last 5 to 10 years. That is a bad reflection on Obama's judgment in my opinion!

In the general election, Bill Clinton pardoning Linda Evans will probably NOT come back to hurt Hillary while Obama associating himself with William Ayers WILL come back to hurt him along with Jeremiah Wright attacking the country and Michelle Obama's controversial comments about America!

As for FOX News, if they are right about something, then they are right. Unfortunately, they are about the only ones on cable TV who are doing any kind of a serious scrutiny of Obama's record right now as far as I can see.

MSNBC (especially Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) are just apologists for Obama who are cheering him on right now for the most part. CNN is overall better than MSNBC in my opinion but they are still not asking these kind of tough questions that FOX News is asking which will definitely come up in the general election IF Obama is the nominee. AT CNN, Jack Cafferty is an Obama apologist just like Olbermann and Matthews at MSNBC, Gloria Borger leans toward Obama when she gives political analysis, and Roland Martin is clearly biased toward Obama when he gives his commentary!

I will give credit to Lou Dobbs and Howard Kurtz at CNN and to Dan Abrams at MSNBC for asking some tough questions about Obama on their programs but they are in the minority on cable TV in my opinion. Obama getting a free ride from most of the mainstream media so far and their cheering him on is a big reason why serious issues like William Ayers have been ignored by nearly everyone except for FOX News so far and is also a huge reason why Obama is in the position that he is in right now!

Also, FOX News will NOT go away in the general election. If Obama cannot handle FOX News right now, then how will he handle it in the general election when they really turn up the scrutiny which is badly missing right now from most of the mainstream media?

Mitch Dworkin

When you get an absolute know-it-all like Frenchie, who has swallowed the O propaganda hook, line, and sinker, then you realize the disciples are desperate to change any and all minds to favor their "Savior." They're missionaries (paid or not) to obtain salvation for the rest of the world that doesn't have the enlighened vision they have. Especially this one, who changed her allegiance from Clark to O in the time it took to recognize O's skin was dark. She rips Clark for his decision, which was gained through 30 years of knowledge and personal interaction, then has the temerity to come here and insinuate Clarkies are a gang of racists. Jeez, she has balls, but not much sense or common courtesty, it seems.

Obama has one sick gang of disciples.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

n/t

of a troll? She is obviously an intelligent, talented writer, but to come here once in many, many, months to spout this stuff and attempt to disrupt the board surely must qualify?

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

to be allowed onto this site, now and then.

I come on to this board maybe once a month, just because it used to be my home, from the time it was put up on the web. It's kind of like someone driving by their former residence, just to see if the owners are taking care of the place that you have so many fond memories of.

The fact that I felt compeled to say something about this massive research post on RW smears of our future Democratic nominee is because I find it troubling. Not because of what the information reveals, as much as why, by any measure of partisan decency, is this being posted on this site, which is supposed to be progressive? It is clearly nothing but propaganda trash with the intent to link Obama to a someone called a terrorist. so yes, this is objectionable to me. Just like if I found "Wes Clark is a war criminal" research posted on another Democrat's website. If some obama supporters posted stories from RW sites about Hillary and Vince Foster on Bill Richardson's website, I'd be just as disgusted.

If you call my choice to post a rare communication here "disruptive" then so be it. Although I imagine that Mitch greatly appreciates my providing information to let folks know that the Clintons have their own Weathermen issues. Based on the logic so far dispensed here, just look at it as me simply "helping" Mitch out in performing his routine duties in the name of Wes Clark.

Beyond that, my views are just as valid as anyone here, and as Wes believes, Liberalism is not the idea that one was struck with a divine inspiration.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

no great service by posting your rose-colored view of Obama. Most of us here ditched those glasses a long time ago and it's amazing what can be seen through clean, untinted, spectacles. You're backing a guy who has NOT done a damn thing on his own; he's virtually been given every thing he's gotten through the hard work of others, and that ranges from his education, his senate seats, and his run for the nomination. But to examine his background and to mention these shortcomings apparently labels us all racists; what a helluva way to run a campaign - based on outright, blatant lies, insinuations, and insults to those who may disagree with him - or live in rural America. The republic swiftboaters won't be as kind to him as we are; he will be like the lamb being led to slaughter.

If that what you want in a candidate, so be it.

However, you're better than that. Most people are.

(P.S. Remember that for about 100% of the people who inhabit this space neither Hillary nor Obama was our first choice. We made decisions based on research, opinion, and first hand accounts. Some went one way; some went another. Count me as one of the former Hillary Haters, based primarly on the drivel and b.s. we've been fed by the right wing media the past 30 years. They have yet to start on Obama, although they're showing signs.)

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

Maybe its because this contest has gone on far too long but I think it sad that reasonable dialog seems impossible these days; on this blog and within the entire Democratic Party I'm afraid.

The post that started this thread did attempt to, once again, associate Obama with terror. Its unfair and in my opinion doesn't belong here. After all the anti-immigrant talk of the past few years we should be celebrating that the son of an immigrant is a leading candidate for president. That doesn't mean he's qualified, or not qualified, but the fact that an immigrant's son can gain wide support in this political climate is a positive sign for this country.

 Of course Clinton has been hit unfairly as well, and that's equally wrong. But two wrongs still don't make a right. Watching this campaign all we hear from both candidates, and their supporters, is what's wrong with the other candidate - rarely do we hear why we should vote for anyone. Its a sad state of affairs.

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

is the TRUTH.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

The truth includes the good and the bad about both candidates. More important it includes an examination of their positions on the issues. Going on and on for days about the word "bitter" or exaggerated sniper stories serves no useful purpose.

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

if that's what we actually got. You hit he nail on the head with that one.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

And notice that by having an honest exchange of views we arrived at a conclusion that we agree on the fundamental issue. An honest exchange won't always end with agreement but will result in better understanding.

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

I'm curious as to what you mean, it was given to him.

As a Black person with a child at Harvard who was a National Merit Scholar, I'm interested in how you, consider earning one's degrees a "given". Please explain yourself and at the same time please let me know if you are a progressive, or not really, just simply playing one on blogs when convenient.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

Obama and Hillary both earned their superior educations with hard work on their part (as did Wes)...unlike that given to the current President by connections of his daddy.

on Obama, not me. Why don't you tell us? I, frankly, don't care that much about him to look it up. All I expect from any candidate is basic honesty; he fails brilliantly in that regard.

All I know for sure is that I agree with this which was written by Gene Lyons, of Arkansas, no friend of Hillary's.

"Since 1968, when Richard Nixon put his famous “Southern strategy” into play, two big themes have kept the GOP in the White House most of the time: race along with class and regional resentment. In seeking to transcend the former, Obama has handed them the latter on a silver platter. Republicans won’t have to caricature him as a condescending snob who looks down on working stiffs. He’s already done it to himself. Sheltered, cosseted and treated as a wonder of nature most of his life, Obama’s never run against a tough opponent, and it’s showing."

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

Don, you made an assertion that Obama's education was "given" to him. Frenchie justifiably asked for evidence of your assertion. Now you refuse to do so. That's not playing fair. That seems to indicate that you want to level charges but dont' want any further discussion of them.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Please don't talk to me about being fair concerning Obama. He doesn't know what the word is and neither do many of his supporters. They can come here and post this crap, but have you bothered to ask them to back it up? Give me a break and while you at it, read my post again. I said he had been VIRTUALLY given everything. Makes a world of difference when you conveniently leave a word out to make a point.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

You still haven't answered Frenchie's question. That's what not fair.

By "virtually given" I guess you mean that it appeared to have been given, but wasn't given in reality. That kind of point is not a point at all.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

since you obviously haven't taken the time to read my blog:

There's more to getting an education than just going to Harvard; one has to be properly "prepared." Incidentally, there's no record of how his Harvard education was paid for and Obama, as usual, ain't talking.

"Even before moving to Hawaii, Obama's [white] grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was a Vice-President of a local Seattle bank. While her husband, Stanley Dunham managed a local furniture store, the couple Obama portrays as "typical white people" from Kansas who survived the Great Depression, actually lived in a gentrified suburb called Mercer Island, which has remained gentrified till this day (Bill Gates has built his modern sprawling estate).

When the couple suddenly took off for Hawaii, it wasn't to escape poverty, but for Madelyn to pursue her banking career. In Hawaii she found her chance to became a pioneer in the American banking world. While her grandson was only nine and living in Jakarta's walled compounds, she became the first female Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii. [source]

The bank was the top bank in the islands in terms of assets in the 1960s and 70s, making her ascent especially notable. [AP]

When Barry rejoined Madelyn a year later, he had behind him four years of elite schooling in Indonesia (attending the country's elite Catholic school and elite Public Schools for sons and daughters of dignitaries), and he would go on to study in one of elite America's best high-schools, and eventually, our country's most elite Universities.

With absolutely no material wants whatsoever, and zero hardship, a grandmother who was a top executive in America's banking world, a grandfather with extra time on his hands while running a local furniture store, Obama's self-obsessed mother had the luxury of pursuing her PhD with anthropological studies of Indonesia, while her parents bankrolled her son's $7,000 tuition in Hawaii's best private college preparatory school!

Historically one of America's most ethnically diverse but economically homogeneous schools, today's tuition in Punahao runs $16,675 a year per student. If billionaire alumni like Steve Case (AOL) and Pierre Omidyar (Ebay co-founder) don't impress you, maybe a more comprehensive read of alumni is worth it, if only to drive home the message that anyone going to Punahao -because his grandparents could pay for it- should not lie about a modest background.

Having graduated Punahao, Obama went to Occidental -- not cheap by any means -- then on to Columbia, and then Harvard. None of these schools are attended by average or middle class Americans. The income distribution for all three is skewed towards the top 10 % percent of the social ladder.

During his college years, nothing indicates any kind of full-time employment activity typical of middle-class or lower-income youth needed to sustain their education. In fact, while no details on his livelihood are available for this period, it is absolutely clear that were Obama ever to find himself in need, his grandparents would have taken care of him. Speculating that significant portions of his income, including for his marijuana and cocaine habit, may have come from his unwitting grandparents, is legitimate.

6) Obama may not have paid for Harvard out of his own pocket, or his grandparents' pocket, preferring to take out loans. If his Dreams From My Father (which Gregory went to pains to introduce our readers to, in post after post) Obama makes his racial animosity towards whites, a fait accompli during his college years.

One interesting question about Obama's admission to Harvard, is not only whether he benefited from Affirmative Action (which as is well known, benefits mostly upper class blacks, with negligible impact on lower-class), but also from his father's alumni status? Clearly, Obama did not make it to Harvard as a kid struggling against the odds. If anything, he eventually made it into Harvard as a result of schooling in our country's top preparatory college institution after years of being thoroughly spoiled by his well-off grandparents.

From age 0 to graduation from Harvard, regardless of whatever anecdotes of deprivation Obama comes up with, the reality of his privileged social and income status is indisputable. We are talking a minimum upper 10 % of our country's social structure, and most certainly higher. A review of his grandparents income, along with his work activity in Occidental, and Columbia, would clarify whether it is top 7, 5, or even 3 percent."

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

Affirmative Action.
And before you go ape-sh*t ove my statement, let me
say I know 2 people personally that were skipped over
for post-grad school to let a minority student with
a lower score in. That's fine up to a point, but how long
has affirmative action been in place? 20-30 years?
Also, I thought BO said he messed around in highschool
doing drugs instead of paying attention to school work.
So how did he earn a scholorship to Harvard and Columbia?
Just food for thought.

Student "scores" (whatever that means) aren't made public, so your example is nonsense, because students would not know the scores of others, only if they, themselves got in or not. Further, scores are not the only criteria utilized to determine who gets in and who doesn't. If you have ever applied to a university, then you would know this. Apart from test scores, there are essays, extracurricular participation, recommendation letters, interviews, legacy ties, financial assessment and a host of other factors taken into consideration when university admission staff members determine entrance qualifications and who will be granted acceptance of students into most higher education institutions.

by contrast you offer up a stereotypical argument void of facts in the same way that Reagan cited Welfare Queens as the cause and the reason to vilify social programs in the 1980 that helped the poor. In other words, your argument lacks substance and intellectual integrity. Among the Right Wingers, it is the typical talking points against affirmative action brought to us by Michelle Markin/Ann Coulter, et al.

Sad.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

but at this point, I realize that this is how it goes. Good luck with it. Hope it serves you well. Personally, I know what I need to do, and so I shall. Goodbye!

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

What is repulsive is the FACT that this stuff is being used by the GOP -- thru Fox for now but eventually it will be 527s advertising 24/7 -- to paint Obama in a way that most Americans will not support or vote for.

You'd rather pretend that only Hillary is vulnerable to it, and you are repulsed by anything that reminds you of the reality.

Just as you don't like to be reminded of what you used to know: that AP is all too frequently an unreliable source no better than Fox.

The AP.

With the appointment of Sam Zell (Tribune Co) and Rupert Murdoch to their board.

http://redwoodage.com/content/view/134080/45/

Zell - who in 2007- called Hillary Clinton the "c-word" in public.... is notoriously anti Clinton.

Murdoch who everyone at the Orange Place sees as a faithful Hillary supporter but whose papers have endorsed Barack Obama, as have Sam Zells papers.

Obama endorsed by Murdoch's NEW YORK POST

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm

Obama endorsed by Murdoch's Times of London

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3118539.ece

Murdoch's daughter holds Obama fundraiser

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/murdochs-daughter-hosts-obama-fund-raiser/

Should be an interesting time at the ole AP.

You should consider yourself lucky if you're only confused by one thing these days! :)

I think the problem is that this is just the latest in a long line of attempts to associate Obama with "terror". It started when he first looked like a serious candidate.

There was the "accidental" use of his middle name.

Then "confusion" between Obama and Osama.

And of course direct claims that he was or is Muslim, not that there's anything wrong with that anyway.

It just goes on and on...

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

He is NOT a Muslim

He is NOT Osama Bin Laden

So those "attempts to associate" were false and could readily be termed propaganda, or just flat out lies.

But my understanding (which could be off) is that he WAS associated with William Ayers? So then... how is Mitch - or anyone for that matter - "attempting to link" him with a terrorist - if that link was already established by Sen Obama himself years earlier? ... even before Mitch or Fox got to it?

So if we agree on that point... it has to be the discussion of the issue itself that's being opposed - not its accuracy.

Then we get back to relevance, tone, and dissent is the highest form of blah blah blah.

The only relevance I can see at this point is an anticipation of how the issue might play out in the general, how it might be used against him by McStraighTalker and the GOP (ie Rove), and how to best combat it. I don't think most of us here would consider that makes him a terrorist or having terror-like tendencies. I've certainly known a few radicals in my earlier days too and am hardly a threat to the nation... - :)

It's unfortunate that the word 'terrorist' has been used in an official capacity to denote Ayers... but that's hardly Mitch's fault or anyone else here. We could call him criminal-bomber-radical-type-guy instead and it might take the edge off of the residual fury?

There's nothing in Mitch's post to question the charges against Obama, they seem to be taken at face value. 

Just what does "associated" mean? I've attended meetings of the Latin Kings (at the request of a priest no less!) but I don't consider myself "associated" with the Latin Kings or priests. 

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©

See, now-- I would automatically think that was a Salsa band so.... I might infer from it that you were somewhat of a Salsa dancer yourself. And I may just be wrong... :)

See where inference gets you.

Again- if these are "charges" and not facts (they are different things) than yes- we all need to question them.

But they can't be called "charges" if Obama himself concurs that yes, they were/are friends. And 'associated' means above and beyond just happening to be in the same place at the same time with someone. You seek out their company, and they yours. You repeatedly (more than once or twice) communicate and get together for either business, pleasure or both. You have conversations and establish a relationship and I can't believe I'm sitting here typing what "associated" means! LOL! Was that a trick question? :)

I may have done some dancing around the Latin Kings but it sure wasn't Salsa! :)

The Latin Kings are a notorious gang in this part of the country. 

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©

What do I know? We just have ordinary Crips, Bloods and Mara Salvatrucha.