Bill Ayers is now a professor of Education at the University of Illinois, an author of 15 books, and an advocate for educational reform.
The problem here is that Obama knows Bill Ayers. The acquaintance of the two is currently being touted by the McCain campaign as evidence that Barack Obama, at best, shows bad judgment in his choice of acquaintances and at worst, he sympathizes with terrorists and is not the type of American the rest of us are (Sarah Palin yesterday). Barack for his party has attempted to minimize the acquaintance by stating that Bill Ayers was "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "somebody who worked on education that I know." Republicans are currently claiming that Ayers was (is) Obama's mentor, that Obama consorted with Ayers.
These words are carefully chosen to establish and maximize guilt.
Here are some facts:
Obama was eight years old when Ayers set the bombs.
Obama met him for the first time 26 years later at a luncheon meeting about school reform.
Obama became chairman of a board that oversaw the distribution of educational funds coming from the Anneberg school initiatives. Bill Ayers happened to be on that board.
Obama was a guest in Ayers home. The occasion was a fund-raiser for Barack Obama for his first run to the Illinois Senate in 2001. The retiring senator whom Obama was to replace introduced Obama to donors. Ayers contributed $200 to the Obama campaign. Similar coffee table fund-raisers were held in the neighborhood.
Obama later also served on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity for two years only. Bills Ayers was on that board as well and continues to serve on it to this day.
The notion of Obama being 'mentored' by Ayers is a right wing distortion of the acquaintance these two men share. The use by Bill Krystal FOX News contributor of the word 'consort' is an semantical effort to smear.
Since 2002, there is little evidence of their relationship. No board members on either board the two men worked on together will back up the idea that they were close, that there was a relationship of the magnitude that right wingers would like to have us believe. They did work on projects together.
A quote from Bradford Berenson who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Obama and served as associated White House counsel for President Bush: "I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School." And "{Obama was} a pragmatic liberal whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much further to the left."
Judge for yourselves. Do some research if you want. But I believe that this is a ploy by a desperate campaign and uncontrolled bloggers trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
There just isn't enough there to warrant the charges. Anyone who serves on boards, and I have served on a bunch, you can't avoid working with people that are very different from you. And many of them were on the board when you were elected to it. And yet, you have to work with them on committees.
5 comments:
I applaud your thorough research. It is very helpful.
The relationship between Obama and Ayers does not appear to be a deep one. However, the fact that there is one and that it continued over a long period of time (boards, campaigns, etc.) would normally be deathly toxic for a politician, but not for Obama, who is given more leeway. If the situation were reversed, a Republican would be lambasted mercilessly.
Agreed that Obama was eight at the time of the bombings. An extreme example to counter that defense though is that in November of 1968, I was born in 1960, I was turning eight, Charles Manson orchestated Helter Skelter. Does this mean that 26 years later I should not have the common sense at age 34 not to associate with him? I assume he knew of his past. Extreme example but same time table and logic if you ask me.
Secondly, I would think this original posting blows the "where there is smoke there is fire" out of the water. On the other hand it could also reinforce Alan's smoke bomb theory. This reinforces my belief that each side can claim the smoke/fire theory as well at the smoke bomb theory.
If Obama had a list of such accusations levied against him like Rove does, I would buy Brian's agrument, but one single claim to bad association judgment does not a pattern make. My comments concerning Rove are indeed based on a long, established pattern.
Charles Manson and Bill Ayers. There are many differences. I agree with you regarding avoiding Charles Manson, but I don't think the comparison with Bill Ayers works.
I think Brian's comparison is valid (except for the severity of the crimes, of course). It is easy to say that a comparison does not apply when it is inconvenient.
I would ask those on the left, i.e. Doug, if any of our comparisons will ever apply. Here are a few that have been rejected.
Grades vs Wealth Redistribution
Rejected.
Rove alligations list vs. Obama alligations list
Rejected.
Ayers association vs Manson association
Rejected.
In each case it "does not apply".
Post a Comment