Looking at the committee and its work over time, I'm pretty sure I would have declined for a lot of different reasons. I think it would have been reasonable for Obama to decline as well, simply based on Ayers participation.

I don't think that doing good work in Chicago required working on committees with Ayers or allowing him to host fundraisers for you or donate to your campaign.

Ayers and Dohrn are not mainstream figures. Comfortably working with them says something about Obama.

I'm not sure there is a right wing equivalent, maybe Eric Robert Rudolph? 40 years from now, would you be on committees with him?

Instead of taking wild guesses about how comfortable Obama was, how much Ayers has changed, how bad someone has to be to refuse to be on a committee with them, or any kind of right wing comparison, how about looking at what's actually being said.

McCain's camp, via Palin, is suggesting that Obama supports domestic terrorism. Do you actually think that's true?

No, they're suggesting that he is friends with a domestic terrorist and that seems to be true. Just because liberal community organizations in Chicago think that Ayers is back to being a mainstream figure doesn't mean that Americans have to agree with them.

Obama has chosen to make a big deal about how inspiring his story is (he wrote two books about it after all) and the big question about that story is that Obama has chosen to associate himself with some pretty radical people and it would be irresponsible politically for McCain to not raise the issue of what that says about Obama's judgement.

Where are you getting this?

I think you are the one making the leap from "comfortable working with unrepentant domestic terrorist" to "supporting domestic terrorism." How far a leap it is is probably better for you to judge.

I'm sure he knew everything about Bill Ayers. Hell, I'm 27, never been to Chicago in my life, and yet I'm quite familiar with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While he and his wife may not be in the "mainstream," if you're involved in any left-wing politics at all, let alone in Chicago, you've definitely heard of them. If you're active in community organization as far as education goes, you've heard of Bill Ayers. The man has written several books, so it's not as if he's in a bunker biting his toenails and planning the New World Order. In fact, he and his wife were featured in that bastion of the Radical Left, the AARP Quarterly, in November 2001.

Obama, as long as I can remember, has separated himself from association with Bill Ayers's activities in the Weather Underground. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't David Horowitz an "associate" of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers during those days? Is it okay to listen to and associate with him now that he's a conservative?

I suppose what would matter most to me in associating with people in the present is how earnestly they seems to have repudiated their violent pasts.

And that's what makes Ayers and Dohrn, maybe especially, so complicated.

ETA: It looks like Horowitz's connections were Black Panther, just glancing at Wikipedia.

One a different note, if we wanted a really excellent study in "white privilege" maybe contrasting what happened to most figures involved with the Black Panthers and MOVE with the current status of the former Weathermen would prove illustrative. (Or maybe it would just show the benefits of privilege generally.) I wonder why we don't hear more about that.

I've read a lot about William Ayers and have read quotes of his talking about how he has regrets and remorse for HOW they did things. I think a lot of young people did a lot of things the wrong way during those very turbulent times when our leaders were being assassinated and anger about Vietnam was rampant. Since he turned himself in (1980), he has done a lot of good for society, especially in the area of education reform. Personally, I believe that many people did things in the late 60's and early 70's that were very wrong, out of anger toward what was happening in our world. Our country was very angry then. I also believe that age brings wisdom and the ability to turn that anger into doing good. I think William Ayers has made that change as evidenced by the good works he does now for education reform and the community. In all honesty, I fear that the anger felt during those times is rekindling, but that's another thread altogether. I don't think, however, that accepting campaign contributions for a state senate seat or sitting on a common board of directors this many years after the fact should mean anything.

She said today: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10...y4502414.shtml

Palin on Saturday painted Obama as someone who “is not a man who sees America as you and I see America,” and on Sunday, Palin did not back down an inch in hammering the Democratic nominee.

“And he, of course, having been associated with that group, a known domestic terrorist group, it's important for Americans to know,” she told CBS News. “It’s really important for Americans to start knowing who the real Barack Obama is."

That clearly implies that he was associated with a group that was active when he was 8 years old.

Well, except if the "he" I've bolded refers to Ayers, which I suspect it does.

Ayers is the domestic terrorist, and Obama is the guy associating with him.
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...defends-a.html if you want to see more context)

Ayers, here in 2001, himself makes clear he doesn't have regrets.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...01/No-Regrets/

Here's wiki too:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ay...sed_since_2001



ETA: I think this is just going to be one of those divides. Some of us are bothered by Ayers and Dohrn and are disgusted by them having positions of authority at mainstream institutions and others are not. Those of us who are disturbed will hold this association against Obama and those who aren't won't.

Ayres explains those comments in his blog here:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/...t-and-fantasy/

and here:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/...sorry-i-think/

You see apology (well maybe I should say regret and remorse) and I see self-justification without authentic remorse. Oh, well.

I don't see apology. I see a very long explanation about why he won't use the word apology. However, I also see regret and remorse.

I see rationalization and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the horror of what they visited on their victims, but I've amended my comment above.

ETA:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...enemy_too.html

I go back to my Eric Robert Rudolph example and ask if you'd be satisfied with a similar comment from him?

His connections were primarily with the Black Panthers, but they definitely ran in the same circles, and had similar aims. In his book (gasp! I've read it!), he mentions being in the same room with Dohrn when she allegedly praised Manson and the Family. Other Weathermen come up as well; based on that, I'm going to call him an "associate."

The former Weathermen were, without a doubt, beneficiaries of class and race privilege. Ayers's father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison, and it was his connections with Trustees of Northwestern that got his daughter-in-law a job at a law school, despite the fact that her status as a convict prevented her from joining the bar. All of the major players--including Kathy Boudin--came from wealthy families, who put up their bail, provided hiding places, and homes upon their release. It's easier to rehabilitate yourself when you already have a cushy place in society. Also, you can't forget that while the Weathermen were all college educated, many of the Panthers weren't. Most of the Panthers who actually survived haven't done too badly for themselves once they got out of jail.

You can call Horowitz whatever you want, but I think you have to admit that his culpability with the Weathermen is much less than Dohrn or Ayers. And his repudiation of radical violent action much clearer.

So, privileged is privilege? My point is just that the illustrations people use to make their points are often really convenient. Palin's kids are presented as an example and leftist radicals not discussed as much.

I never said otherwise, did I? No, I didn't. Clearly, since I've read several of Horowitz's books written since his conversion, I am quite aware of his "repudiation of radical action." Also, since my college campus was impacted in 2001 because of his actions, I think I'm pretty familiar with his MO.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. I actually think the extreme right, in a period of weakness and desperation, is grabbing at whatever will shock Middle America. Like it did 6 or so months ago when Hillary's camp brought it up, this revival of the Ayers story isn't going to last long.