"And in what world does that not equate to a terrorist?"

In a world where the word "terrorist" means someone who seeks to affect change through violence (or threats of violence) committed against people, not property. 

No matter how varied and contradictory the multitude of defintions of the word "terrorist" may be, the respectable ones generally include deliberate injury or threat of injury to persons as a criterion.

You could with as much justification call a man a terrorist for deliberately throwing a rock through a window in a public building.  The use of explosives is a matter of scale.

It has not been proven that Ayers set off bombs with the intent to injure anybody, and he specifically asserts that was not the case.

The claim that he was  a terrorist is a claim that he intended to injure people or intended to threaten people with injury, he just was so very shy about it that he never told anyone and he was not very good at it, so his bombs never injured anybody, no matter how much he tried.

Sort of like the Wile E. Coyote or Elmer Fudd of terrorists, then, eh?

To me, here's why the Ayers issue is important.  When first asked about his association with Ayers, Obama said something along the lines of "he's just a guy in the neighborhood".  OK, good enough.

---

From the April 16th Democratic Primary debate:

QUOTE: Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English 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.

Totally different tone from the "just a guy in my neighborhood" line that the McCain campaign keeps trotting out.

"George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English 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. "

Who said anything about exchanging ideas with Ayres?  Answering an unasked question is pretty strange in itself.

Then why not mention all the good works he and Ayres did on the Annenberg Project?  This was a key to his work as a Community Organizer.  Why not bring it up, and bring it up often?  He totally dismissed that work with his answer.  To me it still says that Obama is trying to hide something.  Was he trying to hide that he (Obama) knew about Ayres past at the time he was working with him, so he was trying to put some distance between the two of them?

"Not defending the obfuscation, but you're in the minority in your party if you think most Republicans, especially those ready to skewer, twist, and distort any association no matter how small, would have just said "OK fine"."

Come on Matt.  I know you know better than to think that the majority of Republicans (or even Democrats and Independents) that don't suppprt Obama aren't the loudest and most obnoxious.  You can't judge everybody by what the Hannitys, Savages or Limbaughs of the world think or say.

QUOTE: STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly." Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

In a world where the word "terrorist" means someone who seeks to affect change through violence (or threats of violence) committed against people, not property. 

***

That might be your definition of the word, but that is not the definition of terrorism.  No where is "terrorism" defined as being limited to acts commited against people:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
bartleby.com

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
merriam-webster.com

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
dictionary.reference.com

The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or—equally important—the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals—that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state.
encarta.msn.com

ok, but the 'pals around with' bit? Did Barack and Ayers go fishing? Skateboarding? Did they attend barn raisings? Yes, definitely smoke and mirrors.

As to the way people react to Obama (as in that video at the Palin rally), would we have the same reaction if the first African American Presdiential candidate was named Tyrell Washington?  If Mr. Washington had also known Ayers, would they still be trying to paint the terrorist word in? I wonder if it's not a subliminal thing. Keep using the word terrorist with someone with an exotic name like Barack Hussein Obama and let peoples' imaginations do the rest.

Jeff Gillmer wrote: You can't judge everybody by what the Hannitys, Savages or Limbaughs of the world think or say.

I'm not, Jeff.  Didn't even mention those guys since, well, I don't read or listen to them.  Off my radar.  I'm judging by the reaction of people at McCain rallies calling Obama a terrorist or, at the very least, someone of "questionable moral character" as has been evidenced on this very board and by people in positions of power at McCain rallies using Obama's middle name to not-so-subtly tie him to terrorism.

(Edit, accidentally posted this while I was cutting and pasting. )

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The above is an FBI definittion. Not a legal definition given by a legislature, but a definition used by law enforcement. And everyone knows that FBI has been criticized for interpreting "terrorism" too broadly in the past. And with the incentive of reduced restrictions in "terrorist" cases given by the Patriot Act, I'm sure the FBI interprets "terrorist" as broadly as humanly possible. But they're not a legislature and have no other authority to legally define "terrorism. "

The United States Law Code, however, defines "terrorism" thus:

"2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

Which is an even more favorable definition for Ayres, as his group targeted property associated with the military and the police, not civilians.