I will share with you an email I sent to a conservative friend. After much thought, this confirmed my vote for 2008. I have dressed it up some...
Sean Hannity and others have thoroughly exposed William Ayers. According to Hannity et al, Ayers is a domestic terrorist. In the 1970s, Ayers plotted to kill Americans and lead a campaign to overthrow the US government by bombing the Pentagon and other federal buildings. Ayers (currently a free man) even stated, "He wished he would have done more!" And according to Hannity, OBAMA is his BFF!! HOLY COW!
One of the facts Hannity uses to prove Obama and Ayers are BFF is that Ayers launched Hannity's political career. OMG - HOW DOES THIS NOT GET REPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?! Obama cannot be allowed to ascend to the presidency, he's basically a terrorist himself!
Hannity also proves Obama's ties to this terrorist mastermind by stating Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Again - HOLY MOO MOO MILKY COW!! They might as well sleep together!
And lastly, Hannity claims they serve together on various boards and collaborate on special interest projects (LIKE KILLING BABIES PROBABLY!)
I was so sick of the liberal bias in the media, I decided to research the issue. I mean, how can a guy possibly become president when he's got a terrorist in his top-8 friends of MySpace? That's whacked.
Of course, it is the NY Times and they are completely biased, so we have to understand they are telling nothing but lies to prop up Democrats.
Anyway, if you believe this newspaper, in 1995 there were several neighborhood events to introduce Obama to Chicago power players, such as one of the state senators. The first was hosted at Ayers’ house. AHA - even the NY Times admits it.
Reading the article, we see that Ayers' group admits to being involved in deaths. "The Weathermen" did kill 1 police officer and hurt another. 3 members of the group died making a bomb. By the accounts in the paper, all human injury was accidental.
In the book where Ayers says “he doesn’t regret setting the bombs”, he discusses terrorism against people, where he condemns it. Hmm.
As for Obama's other connection to Ayer's, it seems they served on one charity board for an extended time and had limited contact after 2000. Hmm.
Now, we have Palin saying "Obama is palling around with terrorists."
This is when I stopped and really thought about this whole situation.
1. The year is 1995, a fledgling politician (Obama) is invited to meet powerful Democrats. 2. First gathering is at a guy’s house who 25 years ago was involved in illegal acts which may have lead to the accidental deaths of 4 people. His wife served time, and he was acquitted, although he did admit to the crimes. 3. Since then, Obama and Ayers have had only incidental contact, which virtually no notable contact after 2002.
This translates now to "palling around with terrorists?"
This is why the Republicans have lost me. To all this, I say SO WHAT. Yes, Ayers may not be the best person to associate with, but 1995 was 25+ years removed from an incident in which there was no outstanding legal action. To somehow say this completely disqualifies Obama from ever have any leadership position is, to me, completely ludicrous.
Which is worse – Bush being arrested for DUI or Obama’s very limited interaction with Ayers?
When people attack this minutia, it tells me they don’t have the ideas to win.
Not the best written post... but it's too late to clean up.
I wouldn't mind a source on that, either. After googling for a bit, I can find a few bits and pieces about part of the weatherman group bombing a judge's house(with no casualties) from various conservative blogs, but I can't seem to find a reliable source on it other than more links to conservative blogs.
Regardless, the real question is whether or not "palling around with terrorists(PLURAL!)" is accurate at all. Did Obama fully KNOW about Ayers' history when he went to his house among, undoubtedly, a billion and a half other campaign fundraisers and events? Did he know to what extent his involvement was? Does interacting with him for a few hours over the course of 13 years qualify it as "palling around with terrorists"?
This, more than likely, is what more voters are asking. We already know he did some crazy stupid shit.
The event pre-dates personal computers, so google will have editorials and that's about it. Use wikipedia. Or google Ayers "fire in the night".
They didn't use a nail bomb at the house, that comment was directed a the premise that they did not intend harm. What they used were firebombs in an attempt to burn down the house with his family inside it. In my opinion, the fact that there were no casualties is not meaningful when one douses an occupied house in burning gasoline. The intent is pretty clear.
It's an issue, but not a huge issue. It's mostly an issue because Obama has lied and obfuscated about it. And it's really only an important issue when you look at this and his other associations and contrast it with his message.
If your vote is decided based on political rhetoric as opposed to what will actually happen when they are in office... just go in blindfolded.
While I agree with your point about rhetoric, what the fuck do YOU think will happen when either candidate is in office?
You think Obama is going to do half the stuff he says he is? With a 700 billion dollar new expenditure that came up AFTER he set his policies, and with a potential recession looming? You think McCain could do half the shit he says he will?
Obama's already admitted that he will have to change his plans based on the bailout - he just hasn't said which ones. One of the few things I respect about him - that he admitted he can't do everything based on this new development. He just needs to say WHAT he won't be able to do.
Um, something pre-dating personal computers doesn't mean there won't be information about it on the internet from reliable sources.
Google bases its searches on web presence. Without that traffic, you're unlikely to see a microfiche scan of a 1970 newspaper within its searches. Hence my comment being directed to google searches, and my advice pointing to other sources.
The event pre-dates personal computers, so google will have editorials and that's about it. Use wikipedia. Or google Ayers "fire in the night".
They didn't use a nail bomb at the house, that comment was directed a the premise that they did not intend harm. What they used were firebombs in an attempt to burn down the house with his family inside it. In my opinion, the fact that there were no casualties is not meaningful when one douses an occupied house in burning gasoline. The intent is pretty clear.
Sarissa Candyangel
In essence, you got nothing to back it up.
The Weathermen have a large list of bombings without casualties. There are two incidents in which there were casualties, one which has been attributed to the Weathermen but they did not take credit for which is unusual because they always liked to issue statements about why they set off the bomb. The other casualties occurred near the tail end of their bullshit, a year after Ayers surrendered.
The Judge (Murtogh) we are talking about was trying the "Panther 21," who were "members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores." But it couldn't have been the Black Panthers. It must have been the Weathermen, because they blew themselves up a few weeks later in the same city.
And even with all the bullshit the Weathermen pulled, no charges were filed against Ayers (admittedly due to prosecutorial misconduct).
But Obama should be damned for his association with Ayers. The most prominent association spouted is that they sat on the same board together, the Woods Fund of Chicago.
Woods Fund of Chicago is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.
Damn that terrorist organization!
So, because Obama sat on a charity board with a former "domestic terrorist" turned "distinguished professor," he should be condemned, even though Obama denounced the violent actions of the Weathermen (and other acts of violence.)
So what about the connections to Domestic Terrorism with both McCain and Palin?
Palin and her husband's connection to Joe Vogler and the AIP? I'm sure I don't need to go into details here, it's been talked about quite a bit. But her husband was a registered member until 2002. Palin recorded a speech for them just last March. That's a lot more current than 40 years ago. Or Bishop Thomas Muthee, who started off his career (in Kenya) by branding a woman a witch and having her run out of town. That was only sometime after 1988.
And McCain? He's got bad ties of his own. He was admonished for misconduct during the Keating 5. He's voted to protect abortion clinic bombers (voted against making bombings and shootings of nurses and doctors performing abortions a federal crime, voted to allow perpetrators of such acts to avoid paying fines by declaring bankruptcy.) He's best pals with G. Gordon Liddy.
Oooh, there's a lot of commonalities there. Liddy Hosted a fund-raiser for McCain in his home in 1998. Here's a snippet I found on Huffington Post (America's own Al Jazeera)
Quote:
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Now who is Liddy? He's an ex-con. Remember Watergate? He helped plan the break in. He was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, wiretapping, contempt of court and contempt of Congress and served 4.5 out of 20 years sentenced. His own autobiography details how he plotted to kidnap, firebomb, and kill people.
When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body." He describes seeing the Nazis' doomed technological marvel the Hindenberg flying over New Jersey as an almost religious experience. "Ecstatic, I drank in its colossal power and felt myself grow. Fear evaporated and in its place came a sense of personal might and power."
Hell, even after he turned into a conservative talk show host, he advised Branch Dividians to shoot the fucking ATF agents in the head.
And this is the guy McCain is proud to call his friend.
I'd like to wrap this long ass post only people who agree with me will bother reading with an Olbermann clip (because nothing shuts off the brain of a right-wing zealot faster than Olbermann's pretentiousness.)
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:09 PM Posts: 417 Location: Mpls, Mn
Quote:
Bzalthek
Very good post, one of the best I have seen about politics in a long time. In politics everyone is around sleazy people. It makes me want to expound at length, but intead I will just say well done.
I'm not going to go xerox a newspaper to scan and post if that's what you're asking. Go to the library and look it up if you have the interest.
There was also a letter posted taking responsibility for a number of the bombings, but I wasn't able to locate it in print. It should be declassified by now. The statements regarding not wanting to cause casualties from Weather Underground members since then were made in the 1990s. Given that they were at least terribly bad at bombing you could take the statement either way.
Google bases its searches on web presence. Without that traffic, you're unlikely to see a microfiche scan of a 1970 newspaper within its searches. Hence my comment being directed to google searches, and my advice pointing to other sources.
You don't exactly find active blogs by Abraham Lincoln either, and yet a google search mysteriously reveals a slew of results.
The point being, trying to say that the reason there's no info to be found is because it happened SO LONG AGO (1970?) is silly.
I thought the two most interesting things in this were:
Quote:
The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.
Which is basically the same thing as what Ayers had done for Obama, so according to McCain/Palin's logic, they should be labeled anti-american....and yet....
Quote:
Aides to the Senator did not return request for comment, though they have repeatedly argued that the campaign does not have direct connections to companies represented by such fundraisers or advisers and, as such, should not be held accountable for their actions or presumed to be persuaded by their interests.
Really.
Oh, and "oops"
Quote:
However, in the past, McCain has done favors on Lindner's behalf. Last May, the Washington Post reported that in the late 1990s, McCain "promoted a deal in Arizona's Tonto National Forest involving property part-owned by Great American Life Insurance, a company run by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., a prolific contributor to national political parties and presidential candidates."
Moreover, McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black, lobbied for Chiquita on two separate occasions in 2001. According to records, Black was paid $80,000 to work on foreign trade issues.
Black, as the Huffington Post reported on Tuesday, has represented other controversial clients with operations in Colombia. From 2001 through 2007, his work brought his firm more than $1.6 million in lobbying fees from Occidental Petroleum, a company whose security arm was accused of bombing a Colombian village and killing 17 civilians in 1998.
While I think that Obama is exactly what America needs, my mission lately has shifted from helping him get into office, to making sure that I keep McCain/Palin out, Palin especially.
I find it sad that people cannot analyze and submit to a certain level of intellectual honesty.
Where I think the Republicans (and yourself) fail is that the best the Republicans can do is find a distant aquantaince 10 years+ ago.
If you say "McCain has better polcies", I respect your position. If your platform is "Obama is BFF with terrorists", it shows you have no platform upon which to stand.
Intellectual honesty does not include attempts to downplay the group's (and not his specific) actions. It gives further creedence to the opposition and is thus not a good argument to play.
I'm not looking for some acquantaince to pin to him, and it is not the best I can or have come up with. Unfortunately when one does not have a platform, it is easier to argue for it than against. I think they are both shitty empty suit candidates. Even their debates lack to be mildly entertaining except to lampoon.
All you've got are talking points spoon fed to you. I don't have any problem if you are concerned about the (tenuous in my opinion) connection between Ayers and Obama.
However, I do take umbrage that you are willing to harp about that, and yet not word one about the numerous connections McCain and Palin have, some of which I listed above. It's disingenuous at best. If such things were really a concern, why is it only Obama's that you discuss in detail?
Really? Talking points? I haven't brought up word one about Obama in this thread. Unless this is some trancendental harping we're talking about.
Again, to break out the crayons, I'm not commenting on Obama's connection if any to Ayers. I'm commenting on minimalizing the Weather Underground's activities in a "well even if he knows them, they weren't that bad" argument. However you seem intent to bring it up along with something about checking McCain's closet. There's your talking point chief.
P.S. It's much less entertaining to discuss McCain on this board.
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM Posts: 1859 Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
Both of these men are greatly flawed. Vote Libertarian/Green/Constitution party this time.
Nope. Not for me.
You are entitled to your beliefs and feelings on the matter, but there has been absolutely zero success at changing FOR ME the fact that this is the first vote I have ever cast that I actually believe in the candidate.
Is he the messiah? Nope. Will he snap his fingers and unicorns and rainbows will shower down upon the US? Nope. But anyone with realistic expectations of who the man is and what he is capable of? I don't think they will be disappointed.
Really? Talking points? I haven't brought up word one about Obama in this thread. Unless this is some trancendental harping we're talking about.
Again, to break out the crayons, I'm not commenting on Obama's connection if any to Ayers. I'm commenting on minimalizing the Weather Underground's activities in a "well even if he knows them, they weren't that bad" argument. However you seem intent to bring it up along with something about checking McCain's closet. There's your talking point chief.
P.S. It's much less entertaining to discuss McCain on this board.
Sarissa Candyangel
Damn right it's a talking point. The only people who give a fuck about the Weathermen today are History fanatics and people who are looking for a reason, ANY reason, to not vote for Obama.
Given Orme's initial post having a political theme, your popping out of nowhere providing bullshit information you can't back up (and I did search myself). At no point in Orme's post did he even allude to saying "well they weren't that bad." So why did you respond again, "chief"? The most likely reason is to regurgitate and reinforce crap that's been spewed to you like a fucking parrot.
Again, to break out the crayons, I'm not commenting on Obama's connection if any to Ayers. I'm commenting on minimalizing the Weather Underground's activities in a "well even if he knows them, they weren't that bad" argument. However you seem intent to bring it up along with something about checking McCain's closet. There's your talking point chief.
Look, intellectual honesty is about drawing fair comparisons and understanding why you're arguing what you're arguing, and doing it with legitimate analysis.
Let's assume Ayers personally killed 5000 people in 1969, showed no remorse, and was legally free in 1995.
Even if that was the fact, it does not change the follow: 1. Obama had relatively incidental contact with him 2. When Obama met with him, it was 25+ years after his crimes and he had either been acquitted or paid his debt
So, even if Ayers had murdered 5000 people, I can easily forgive the minor, distant relationship they had, just like I can forgive McCain for the various shady characters he has interacted with.
If Ayers was Obama's campaign manager or best buddy or chief fund raiser, it woudl be different. But, the fact is they had limited interaction over the course of 5 years... and that was several years ago.
Again - if this is all McCain's campaign has to attack, it is sad, and speaks volumes about his utter lack of a viable platform. That ultimately is the final decision maker for me, and a lot of voters.
I am not arguing the connection. I do not know how I can possibly make that any more clear than I have. I find the evasiveness and equivocation hilarious. Granted it's part and parcel of American politics, but politicians tend to do more damage to themselves in the act of damage control.
I am speaking to minimizing the actions of the group and saying that that little tidbit is a) unsubstantiated 'bullshit', and b) counterproductive to the campaign.
I also don't see how a search could be unfruitful. The wackos on youtube have managed to dig up news footage taken shortly after the event showing the guy's burned out house. The videos they're spliced in to are heavily anti-Obama so be forewarned before you watch them. So beyond newspaper coverage apparently there's archived video footage. Both should be available in any reasonably equipped public library.
How's that corrupt running mate lookin now? Lol this is toooooooo good! He could have said "He's not an arab." but he just said "he's not" but that's ok. McCain started this shit and tried to make Obama look scary.
I also don't see how a search could be unfruitful. The wackos on youtube have managed to dig up news footage taken shortly after the event showing the guy's burned out house. The videos they're spliced in to are heavily anti-Obama so be forewarned before you watch them. So beyond newspaper coverage apparently there's archived video footage. Both should be available in any reasonably equipped public library.
Sarissa Candyangel
Jesus Fuck.
I'm not doubting his house got burned. There was two gas cans at his door, and a gas can under the car. But you claimed it was the Weathermen that did it. And I say bullshit. And I covered why in my post above. I know it has lots of words, so you are forgiven for being confused. Do I need to "break out the crayons"?
Not me. It's his campaign and attack dog cronies and far-right supporters that are starting those smears and lies. They don't appear out of thin air. They play on perceived stereotypes and hate.
It's not my opinion, it's the FBI's and the dude who wrote a documentary on the group. Read Ron Jacob's book, watch the video, read the newspaper. I have the FISA'd FBI report if you want it (~50mb) but large sections relating to the bombings are still classified.
I am not arguing the connection. I do not know how I can possibly make that any more clear than I have. I find the evasiveness and equivocation hilarious. Granted it's part and parcel of American politics, but politicians tend to do more damage to themselves in the act of damage control.
I am speaking to minimizing the actions of the group and saying that that little tidbit is a) unsubstantiated 'bullshit', and b) counterproductive to the campaign.
I also don't see how a search could be unfruitful. The wackos on youtube have managed to dig up news footage taken shortly after the event showing the guy's burned out house. The videos they're spliced in to are heavily anti-Obama so be forewarned before you watch them. So beyond newspaper coverage apparently there's archived video footage. Both should be available in any reasonably equipped public library.
Alrighty then... what is your point?
Let's assume for the sake of discussin Ayers killed 5000 people.
SO WHAT? Make a point. Seriously, help me understand why you think Ayers is important - even if he killed 5000 people in 1969, what does it matter? Why should anyone care?
Read the middle paragraph of that quote. My point is that part of that email is fallacious. Whether I do or do not think Ayers is important is an assumption on your part. I don't understand why folks are trying to pull it into some political discussion. I don't care who you're voting for, and my vote is already cast.
It's not my opinion, it's the FBI's and the dude who wrote a documentary on the group. Read Ron Jacob's book, watch the video, read the newspaper. I have the FISA'd FBI report if you want it (~50mb) but large sections relating to the bombings are still classified.
Sarissa Candyangel
And yet, you still haven't managed to provide a single source for anything.
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:58 PM Posts: 612 Location: USA
EQ1: Caladaar
WoW: Dirka
Sarissa wrote:
Read the middle paragraph of that quote. My point is that part of that email is fallacious. Whether I do or do not think Ayers is important is an assumption on your part. I don't understand why folks are trying to pull it into some political discussion. I don't care who you're voting for, and my vote is already cast.
Sarissa Candyangel
Noone cares about what the Weathermen did or did not do 30+ years ago except for people looking to find a reason to not vote for Obama.
My respect level for McCain really flew up after watching those videos.
Sure, he might still encourage the negative ads and gossip behind the scenes, but he got up in front of that crowd (Especially that lady) and just said, "No." to that nonsensical gossip mongering.
What's really disturbing is that he got booed by the crowd. Really. Is it even about politics or respect or what's good for the nation anymore? Because it just seems like a stupid kids popularity contest when people boo a man for stanidng up and demanding some basic respect for his opponent.
....I guess that's probably what it's always been, though.
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM Posts: 1859 Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
What's really disturbing is that he got booed by the crowd. Really. Is it even about politics or respect or what's good for the nation anymore? Because it just seems like a stupid kids popularity contest when people boo a man for stanidng up and demanding some basic respect for his opponent.
He's finding out the hard way that what you want and what you intend are no longer in your control once you've set the ball rolling in a situation like this. I can almost guarantee that even having him say "No, he's not a muslim and/or terrorist" will be received as "He just has to say that because of X,Y, and Z. But we know what he really means!" by a certain segment of the population hanging out in his camp.
He should have put a lot more thought into it before he sent his campaign down that trail. I don't have a whole lot of hope for him diffusing what he and Palin have started. Any more than Hilary convinced a certain segment of her voters that if they'd vote for McCain, they were never really following/supporting her at all. Perhaps I'll be wrong. We'll see.
It is nice he is trying. It doesn't change that he should have known better than to go there at all.
I kinda blame the people more than I blame McCain though.
Sure, say Obama has poor judgement. Say he's an outsider with little experience. Say he associated with some guy that was a domestic terrorist and that it calls his judgement into question.
But where do these nutjobs get, "ZOMG HE'S A MUSLIM! HIS NAME IS HUSSIEN, HE MUST BE A TERRORIST! HE'S GONNA EAT OUR BABIES TO GET SUPERPOWERS LIKE GENE HACKMAN!!!"??
It figures that you guys would give him kudos for that, but it's his and his campaign's fault entirely that Obama is viewed like that. They've been playing on racism in America and the hate that exists. Fuck McCain.
I dunno, I don't think that McCain has as much control over his campaign as we might think. Granted, I'm not painting him as blameless here, but I'm also not entirely sure that he *wanted* his campaign to go down a road that's full of nothing but hate and fearmongering.
But it doesn't matter. Honestly, even if he was 100% behind the ads and attacks and gossip and controlled what came out of that idiot Palin's mouth, I still give him a LOT of credit for saying what he said when it was his face, his mouth, his words, live and in front of a crowd and cameras.
I still won't vote for him. But I'm not so blind and hateful to refuse to give him some credit.
McCain's campaign has been entirely based on fear and hate... I appreciate the remarks that he's trying to shut up the ignorant fuckheads that follow him blindly, but he's the reason that it's gotten to that point. McCain and the GOP have painted Obama to be that way.
I have NEVER heard at a democratic event Obama called "Barack, HUSSEIN, Obama." It's always at the GOP events. ALWAYS.
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM Posts: 1859 Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
I'm also not entirely sure that he *wanted* his campaign to go down a road that's full of nothing but hate and fearmongering.
I'll disagree with sky and agree with you. The difference in your stance and in mine is that he should have realized, or at least considered, where it could possibly go if he went down that road. There are consequences for actions, words, and deeds and the fact that he is having to tell his own followers to not go the route they are starting to, when his campaign put the seeds of it in their minds (or watered it in some cases)? It just speaks to how little he thought about the possible consequences to me.
So without looking at any outside source, who offhand knows Joe Biden's middle name? Sarah Palin's? John McCain's?
I know McCain's is Sidney (not sure on the spelling), but it is one of those random things I know, like the capital of Maine, that don't have any real context. I have no idea what the other two are. But I sure as hell know that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Their middle name isn't something any of the four of them have chosen to use as part of their political identities. So if suddenly the Obama camp and various surrogates started referring to John SYDNEY McCain, a) people would notice and b) they would wonder why it was getting played up.
It figures that you guys would give him kudos for that, but it's his and his campaign's fault entirely that Obama is viewed like that. They've been playing on racism in America and the hate that exists. Fuck McCain.
You're just wrong. McCain has little to do with the fear and hate surrounding Obama. The various right wing talk shows who play up his middle name and make all the innuendo is where that comes from.
McCain's campaign was being ran masterfully in the beginning, but the debates, Palin, and economy crash has shown how weak he really is, and has ultimately ended his run.
McCain's campaign was being ran masterfully in the beginning, but the debates, Palin, and economy crash has shown how weak he really is, and has ultimately ended his run.
Call me cynical, but there's still three weeks left, plenty of time for McCain's attacks to sew doubt in just enough people.
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:27 AM Posts: 2318 Location: KC, MO
Quote:
One night, Ayers recalled, he and Dohrn were watching Bill O’Reilly, who was going on about “discovering” Ayers’s 1974 manifesto, “Prairie Fire.” “I had to laugh,” Ayers said. “No one read it when it was first issued!” He said that he laughed, too, when he listened to Sarah Palin’s descriptions of Obama “palling around with terrorists.” In fact, Ayers said that he knew Obama only slightly: “I think my relationship with Obama was probably like that of thousands of others in Chicago and, like millions and millions of others, I wished I knew him better.”
Quote:
“It’s all guilt by association,” Ayers said. “They made me into a cartoon character—they threw me up onstage just to pummel me. I felt from the beginning that the Obama campaign had to run the Obama campaign and I have to run my life.” Ayers said that once his name became part of the campaign maelstrom he never had any contact with the Obama circle. “That’s not my world,” he said.
Quote:
Ayers said he felt “a lot of sympathy” for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “who was treated grotesquely and unfairly” by the media. He said that Martin Luther King Jr. was, in his time, far more radical than Wright: “Wright’s a wimp compared to Martin Luther King—he had a fiercer tone.” Ayers was referring to the speeches King gave late in his life in opposition to the Vietnam War and on the subject of economic equality. “Martin Luther King was not a saint,” Ayers said. “He was an angry pilgrim.” Ayers said that he had commiserated recently with yet another former Hyde Park neighbor (and fellow Little League coach), the Palestinian-American scholar Rashid Khalidi, now at Columbia University, who has also been a punching bag of the right wing in recent weeks.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
