The Obama-Ayers Connection
By 1995, Barack Obama had known Bill Ayers at least eight years since their shared involvement in the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, if not longer. Bernardine Dohrn, once labeled “the most dangerous woman in America” by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, was also well known as the inspiration for the 1988 movie Running on Empty. Subtle terrorists they were not.
As noted in the New York Times, Obama has tried to minimize his relationship with Ayers, dismissing him as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
Axelrod also tried to excuse the extent of Obama’s involvement with Ayers, stating,
“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”It’s an obvious fiction pitched by Axelrod, since the Obama children are presently in elementary school, while Ayers’ children are all grown adults, but the Ayers-Obama family connection doesn’t stop at the imaginary connections between the children.
Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’ wife, has largely escaped recent scrutiny, but that lack of attention doesn’t reduce her role as either a leader — and some may argue, the leader — of the Weathermen. Nor can it mask her ties to both Barack and Michelle Obama. It’s now a family affair.
The whole piece is worth reading as it goes into extensive detail about the Obama-Ayers alliance that has not been previously reported. Media apologists for Senator Obama have tried to downplay the connection but the fact remains that such friendships cast serious doubts on the Senator’s judgement. And Senator Obama is going to have a hard time convincing the public that he didn’t know Bill Ayers wasn’t a terrorist when Ayers has never hidden his past.
Tagged with: Barack Obama • Bill Ayers
Filed under: Democrats • Politics • Tom
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
1. Before all of this, I’d never heard of Ayers. I’m not sure that anyone has said what Obama knew of the guy.
2. Regardless, Obama has clearly repudiated his actions as horrible and wrong.
3. So, in summation, Obama knew this guy but he has not endorsed him, nor his actions. He has, in fact, rejected his actions in the WU as wrong.
4. What of it? Are we indicting people by association?
5. If that is the standard, shall we convict McCain for Oliver North’s actions (selling weapons illegally to Iran to raise money for terrorists in Nicaragua)? Unlike Obama, McCain has NOT repudiated North’s action nor rejected North’s endorsement. If you want to indict by association, there is clearly much more association there.
6. In short, while we must always keep a wary eye on all politicians, this issue has been raised and re-raised and there is simply nothing significant there, by most people’s standards (judging by poll numbers).
7. You all can keep raising the same red herring and we simply don’t think there’s anything there. You all would have more credibility if you similarly were outraged about McCain’s nutty and/or violent supporters (G Gordon Libby, anyone?).
I don’t think Senator McCain has the same relationship with Oliver North that Senator Obama has with Bill Ayers. The fact is that Senator Obama chose to become associated with someone who is an unrepentant terrorist. Senator Obama is guilty of association, nothing more. But it’s a pattern with him that is worth a closer look.
There’s a distinction to be drawn between “nutty supporters” you reference above (and there are plenty on both sides) and people that you have chosen to work alongside and become aligned with over the course of your career. The friends and associates you pick says a lot about a person’s judgement. That’s why it matters.
John McCain had a fundraiser at G Gordon Liddy’s house, not unlike Obama having a fundraiser at Ayers’ house.
“Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in “if necessary”; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a “gangland figure” to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap “leftist guerillas” at the 1972 Republican National Convention”
I fully agree we ought to pay some attention to who candidate’s associate with. But mere association is not enough to condemn.
And I’m saying that it would sound less hypocritical and purely political if McCain/Palin and their supporters would be just as outraged about McCain getting money, endorsements and support from Liddy and North – convicted felons and not good guys – as they are about Obama having known Ayers.
And I’ll say it again: At least Obama has clearly rejected Ayers’ crimes. There is no such rejection of the crimes of North/Liddy coming from McCain.
SO – I’ll say this again, too – YES, we ought to pay attention to a candidate’s associates, but mostly we need to pay attention to whether or not they agree with someone’s criminal ways.
Obama clearly doesn’t. McCain apparently does.
THAT’S a problem. And if the Right were being consistent and not merely looking desperately for anything they can find to stop Obama, they’d criticize both sides, and probably McCain more.
More on the problems with “Guilt by association” –
“John McCain sat on the board of…the U.S. Council for World Freedom,” said Begala, “The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League – the parent organization – which ADL said ‘has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.'”
If McCain wants to start the guilt-by-association game, he’s going to have a lot more to lose.
Much of what you’ve noted here are far, far looser connections than Obama’s. McCain didn’t sit under Hagee’s tutelage for 20 years. McCain didn’t launch his political career in the home of an unrepentant domestic terrorist and work with him to racialize students; instead he was on the board of an organization who’s parent has some ties to radicals. What did McCain do, that would be on par with the Obama/Ayers support, that helped the cause of neo-Nazis?
Yeah, with six degrees of separation you can tie people to some unsavory characters. But that’s not what we’re talking about with Obama’s long-time associations. He’s not guilty by association; he’s guilty by action with his associations.
McCain accepted an endorsement from a convicted felon (North) who supported terrorists in killing 30,000 people. IF a terrorist supporter offers you an endorsement, you reject it and condemn in no uncertain terms the acts of that terrorist supporter.
That is a much greater concern than the fact that Obama served on a board with a guy who committed horrible acts 30 years ago (acts that Obama has clearly condemned).
To me, there are MUCH worse connections for McCain if he plays this game and he would be ill-advised to pursue such actions. It’s beyond apples and oranges – more like apples and space-time continuums if you start comparing North and Ayers.
The people have read the Ayers information. By and large, we have yawned. We don’t think there’s anything there. McCain can bring it up but it’s not doing him any good and it only makes him look desperate and exposes his less than perfect allies.
he’s guilty by action with his associations.
Guilty of what? Guilty of knowing a guy whose horrible actions Obama has called horrible?
This is a losing proposition for the McCain supporters. There’s. Nothing. There.
You quoted a line from my reply, but I don’t think you read it.
“he’s guilty by action with his associations.”
No, not just “knowing a guy”. That’s not at all what I said.
Ayers used Obama to help radicalize Chicago schools. Far from rejecting him, Obama took Ayers’ money and did his bidding. Rejecting him now is convenient political posturing.
The people have not read much about the Ayers connection, because it’s been filtered by the media. The New York Times piece, published only recently, and on a Saturday when readership is lowest, is the classic whitewash, seeing only what it wanted to see. Those who still have faith in the NY Times may believe the word has come out and the public yawned, but they don’t have the whole story, and the MSM is loathe to report it.
I know that many on the Right want to characterize things like the Annenburg thing as “radicalizing” students, but, says who?
Where do you get your info? Who says what they did was “radicalizing” students and what does that mean? In short, why would I accept this “National Ledger” interpretation of things? Why don’t they just report the actual facts, if they have any? What credibility does this source have?
Says who?
Says Ayers. From Stanley Kurtz’s actual reporting on the story:
The whole article is worth reading. This is just the iceberg’s tip. And Kurtz says essentially what I said regarding this connection.
Emphasis mine.
yeah, opposing racism and oppression ARE radical ideas.
I’m not seeing much of substance in this article. I’m still not clear what specifically the CAC did. If that is a fair summation “provoking resistance to American racism and oppression,” that is a good thing.
I’m still not buying that there’s any thing of substance to report on this Obama/Ayers “relationship.” They both were concerned about education and believed in grass-roots, bottoms up democratic community organizing. This is a good thing in most people’s minds, I’d suggest.
Does any of this suggest that Obama was okay with Ayers’ terrorism in the 60s? Not that I see.
I don’t think the American people are buying it. If you find something more substantive, though, feel free to report on it.
We ought always keep an eye on politicians, whether or not we agree with them. Lord Acton was right.
Consider this from Victor Davis Hanson:
And all of this still fails to address that McCain has accepted the direct endorsement of a man responsible for the deaths of 30,000.
As I’ve already noted, if you all were more consistent in condemning associates of candidates, you’d have more credibility. As it is, you all sound like McCain: Just grasping at straws to condemn something – ANYTHING – about Obama.
Fellas, Dan is making you look foolish on a regular basis.