Douglass K. Daniel of the Associate Press has written an Obama lovefest article. It should be be an interesting week for the press. They’re going to pull out all the stops to defend Obama and his connection to William Ayers. Just imagine if Senator McCain worked on a committee and attended a fundraiser with an abortion clinic bomber. Not only would the press never let us forget it (Tom Harkin), there’s no way McCain would get the nomination. When it’s the other way around the press dismisses it and doesn’t even take the time to look at the connection. Citing Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times as sources for debunking the relationship is as good as citing the Obama campaign. Daniel goes even further and blames racism, no really!
By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.
Racially tinged? Can anyone see where this is going? If Obama is elected in a month is this going to be the standard defense for Obama? The opposition is just racist? How does Daniel come up with this racist charge?
Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Obama is still a relative unknown! It’s a month before election day and the press hasn’t objectively looked into the Senator’s history in Chicago, his connection to ACORN, his work with Ayers, his ties to Tony Rezko, and his crazy pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s campaign doesn’t even have to release talking points, the press writes them.
Her [Palin] reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.
Why did Ayers host a fundraiser for Obama if they weren’t close? Why isn’t Ayers’ wife mentioned? It’s amazing to me that the press continues to hang charges of racism and divisiveness on McCain when Obama talks about “typical white people” and refers to rural Americans as bitter, clinging to guns, and religion or antipathy. I’m not sure how Obama expects to bring people together, but it’s obvious the press is doing all they can to tear people apart.
Obama is neither unknown nor lacking in scrutiny. I understand that a campaign with neither vision nor message must resort to negative campaigning (Hey, I remember John McCain saying that…weird.
In Chicago you deal with who you must. Just like in all politics? Why did Bush hang with the Bin Laden Group? Why did Abramoff have photos of himself with Bush if they weren’t close? Why did Aquiles Suarez (economic advisor – J. McCain) oversee Freddie Mac’s lobbying from 2003-2006 if they were so broken? Why did John McCain decide to write letters on behalf of Mr. Keating in an attempt to stem an investigation?
Wait, Bin Laden + Bush + Abramoff + Freddie Mac + Keating = McCain!
I could bring up some of Abramoff’s views on race, but that makes it way too easy.
2000 – Slate
I shouldn’t even waste my time addressing this issue because it has nothing to do with being friends with a known terrorist. Keating is strawman argument when it come to Ayers.
Well thank goodness you wasted your time. McCain declaring himself exonerated certainly puts my mind at ease.
Ayers=non-issue.
Hey, if you’re cool with politicians that are cozy with bombers that’s your prerogative. I guess that means abortion clinic bombers associated with politicians are a non-issue as well.
While hyperbole is an interesting if typical response, it really doesn’t count here. I have no use for either bomber (though there are times when a little armed revolution makes sense) nor do I assume guilt by association.
The outrage here is fake. No one really believes that Obama supports bombing the Pentagon. Most educated and thoughtful people understand the motives behind the black “liberation theology” that Wright preached, but no one really believes that Obama wants to sock it to the “man”. Unless some public figure is stupid enough to say it, no one really believes that all anti-choicers support bombing clinics.
If you don’t want to vote Obama that is fine, but this outrage based on past associations is just stupid. I betcha you know a felon, a homosexual, a sprinter and a woman…I don’t think that anyone really believes that you are by association pro-speedy lesbian burglers.
Or are you?
or a hamburglar?
[...] to do with media bias. From the very beginning any criticism of Obama and the Democrats has be equated with racism. It’s such a shallow argument from a ideology that takes great pride in [...]
[...] current political climate isn’t extreme. I touched on what would be the liberal blueprint for the Obama administration back in October 2008. Can anyone see where this is going? If Obama is [...]