Scott, some people just won't accept the truth because it came from a reporter that they don't like for some reason.  If only reporting about Obama and his relationship with Aryes came from another news organization, like CNN instead of the WSJ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvROBLortBQ

Scott, some people just won't accept the truth because it came from a reporter that they don't like for some reason.  If only reporting about Obama and his relationship with Aryes came from another news organization, like CNN instead of the WSJ...

*******

No one here denies Obama had a relationship with Ayres. It just wasn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Oh, I forgot he never went to a meeting so it doesn't count.

Well, at least you realized the exaggeration in it.

*************

What exaggeration? She addressed the convention, he was a member. Somehow not going to any meetings of the group makes that OK? If that's even the case. Or is Palin the only one who get's the benefit of the doubt in yours and Jeff's worlds?

Jeff, it's not that it's the WSJ, it's that the op-ed piece lacked any facts.  It was just vague inuendo and name calling.

The CNN piece got into more details  - but again, they proved nothing, other than Obama chaired an organization that gave money to schools and promoted apparently evil things like african-american studies (can't believe Cooper let that stinky bit of racism on his show), and that, years before Obama knew him, Ayers was a violent war protestor.  And they even clarify at the end that Obama has made it clear that he did not support the guy's activities when it comes to how he protested.  He worked with him, 30 years later, in a nationally recognized and widely applauded program, to help the Chicago school system.

Jeff - you seem like a smart guy - you have to understand that this whole thing is just grasping at smoke. 

My take on Palin: At this time, she is wholly unqualified to be president of the United States. Could she learn on the job?  Yes, I believe she probably could* -- but I think by choosing her, John McCain made a political decision to shore up his base.  The problem with that is it makes me question his judgment if he chose her for political reasons (as I believe he did) it makes me question who else he would appoint for political reasons.**  Not the kind of questions he wants going into the election.

*Thats not to say that I would then agree with her on certain policy issues.  I don't think from a policy standpoint she is ready for primetime.  In the interviews I've seen and the debate I've yet to see anything that makes me confident that she has expertise in anything -- other than cramming for a debate.  When she has deviated from prepared statements she has appeared very, very over her head.

**Edited to add: I have similar concerns with Obama but he has not appointed (or annointed to use Sean Hannity's messianic term) anyone as deficient as Ms. Palin. 

QUOTE: These traders live in a high-tech version of Plato’s cave. They do not see reality directly. Instead they see the shadow of reality as it dances around in numbers on their computer screens.

I love that bit from the article by David Brooks that Geoff linked to.

Adam:

I enjoyed that too! I like Brooks very much.

Mike, I appreciate the compliment.  Seriously.  But as the saying goes, where there's smoke, there's fire.

The point to posting those links was to show that Obama is not being truthful about his past relationships.  Obama has claimed that he barely knew Aryes.  He was just a guy in the neighborhood.  Yeah, they served on a couple of boards together.  I don't know if anyone here has every worked on a non-profit organization board before, but the Chairman of the Board (Aryes) doesn't just hand out hundreds of thousand of dollars to somoene to redistribute (Obama) if they don't know each other very well.  Obama either had to know about Ayres past bombings, or didn't know about it even though it was big news even years later.  Especially after Aryes 2001 column about "not doing enough" when talking about the bombings.

Either way, it brings some people to question Obama's judgement.

Yesterday I was driving home and for some reason I put Hannity on the radio, and the poor man was just about pissing himself about this Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist and questioning Obama's judgment, etc.So I stopped to think and i came up with some things:

Ayers was in fact a 60's radical. Having been born in 1968 I can't be certain, but I tend to think there are a lot of 60s radicals still out there.

Ayers turned himself into the authorities. He became a teacher, and then professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

So by my reckoning, he's not under indictment or investigation, and he teaches college, which makes him ok in the eyes of the Justice Department, the state of Illinois, the Illinois Board of regents (or whatever governing body Illinois has in its university system) and the administration of the U of I itself, But I can see how Hannity can be smarter than all those people and declare this man a terrorist.

But more, he's an unrepentant terrorist. Would that make a difference if he had said sorry? This is, in Hannity's words, kool-aid drinking. To make this little distinctions the basis to excoriate somebody. Like the sitting down with Iran without preconditions. (Personally I'm all for sitting down with Iran, looking them in the eye and saying "We have xxxx Cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, so knock it off, jerks.") So Ayers is unrepentant about not killing anyone? And being a radical? Somehow this doesn't make sense to me. But I'm an Obama kool aid drinker and a far left loon so what do I know?

Lastly, I had an uncle who died a few years back. He was as good a guy as you could ever meet, but his take on Irish Nationalism was a bit extreme, for a guy who lived in Kansas. Anyway, turns out the FBI had a file on him and his activities, which were nothing more than some protests and several trips to Northern Ireland, And perhaps some affiliations with less than benevolent groups dedicated ot Northern Irish 'freedom.' If I understand them correctly, under today's  government standards my uncle would be considered a terrorist. He never ran guns, he never killed anybody, except perhaps when he was inthe Marines in Korea, he never plantd bombs. So I tend to think that word might be thrown around a little carelessly at times.

And I agree with the Palin dichotomy. Her husband was a member of a group that advocated secession from the US, and that's not of any interest? Hmmm... 

What exaggeration? She addressed the convention, he was a member. Somehow not going to any meetings of the group makes that OK? If that's even the case. Or is Palin the only one who get's the benefit of the doubt in yours and Jeff's worlds?

Twist and turn.  I've said the terrorist ties were exaggerated with Obama.  It seems that you are the one who only gives one side the benefit of the doubt.