I see a huge difference between Eric Rudolph and Ayers. However, if, 40 years from now, Rudolph shows that he has spent most of his life trying to improve society and helping others, became a well respected member his community, and demonstrated a significant change in his behavior, and someone associated with him at that time, I wouldn't hold it against that person.

No, I think your analysis is pretty solid on that topic, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

What was your point again? That some people would think Horowitz was okay just because he was conservative? As opposed to thinking he might be okay because he was never involved in the same level of stuff AND that he's disavowed the involvement he did have? I think I must have missed something here.

I think that the Ayers story has play beyond the far right, but maybe I'm wrong. The difference to me is that the media won't pick up the story the same way they would if it were about Palin or McCain. Case in point, most of the main stream coverage on the story focused on Palin's racism in making the connection, which I don't remember happening when Clinton brought it up.

See, I didn't get that at all.

This is what they said on Meet the Press about it this morning:

MR. BEGALA: Well, no. Obama was—he was asked about this in a debate in a primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there; George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it. He pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when, apparently, Barack Obama was eight years old. And, and I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back—I’ve written a book about McCain. I had a dozen researchers go through him. I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization. It was the U.S. Council for World Freedom. It was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultraconservative right-wing group. 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.” Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27034205/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_132008.html

While that's the Huff Post, the original article is AP.

Here it is in the Atlanta paper:http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sha..._Analysis.html

Oh, yeah, especially if you give people a forum just for that. Oh, wait, they weren't giving Begala a forum just to make that connection?

And while that group may have some super unsavory connections, I doubt they blew anyone up. ETA: I sardonically laugh to/at myself and add, in the US at least.

Uhhh, I was going by actual video tape of the rally. In the past year or so, I've learned just to go straight to the source instead of having sound bites digested for me.

Unfortunately, I've become quite familiar with finding racial subtext in the sneakiest of places, and I just didn't find it there. But if the Associated Press says I must find racial subtext, it must be OMGTEHTRUTH.

Well, after this election, I think the number of people who are willing to take the AP or any other MSM source at face value are diminishing. I think that was one of the most interesting aspects of Hillary's campaign.

But I think that some people on both ends of the spectrum do take a more passive attitude to the news and enjoy a pre-digested version.


ETA: since I'm posting in this thread in way critical of Obama, I feel like should go on record stating that I don't regard him as the anti-Christ. I just think he is much farther(further?) left than he's presently marketing himself.

I think Meet the Press does a good job of presenting both sides. Mike Murphy, who ran McCain's campaign in 2000 responded with this:
MR. BROKAW: Mr. Murphy, one of the defenders of William Ayers in Chicago is Rich Daley, the six-term mayor of the city, who has said that, in fact, Mr. Ayers has been very helpful on school issues. Isn’t that going to be an effective counterstrike against anything that the McCain people try to do here?

MR. MURPHY: Maybe. But Ayers has kind of gotten off a little easy in Chicago. A lot of people say what a good guy he is. The problem is the one person who hasn’t really condemned William Ayers enough is William Ayers, and I think that’s a real problem. And Obama, while, he’s clearly not the same. He still also has pulled his punches, I think, a little bit about it. And this will be a kerfuffle, it’ll do a little damage to Obama, but fundamentally this campaign’s going to be about the economy.

MR. BROKAW: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: So Obama will take some damage on this, but then it’s going to pivot back to real life, and that’s where I think McCain has to connect.

Brokaw especially seems more mindful about balance. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/ar...nk&oref=slogin

I agree. Tim Russert was also, which is one of the reasons that I like Meet the Press.

I do try very hard to avoid op-ed type pieces (like the ones that are implying racism in Palin's comments). I don't see the comments as racist. I mean, Hilary brought up the same issue during the primaries. It didn't make a difference. Interestingly, Hilary did that when it was becoming clear that Obama was going to win the nomination and it seemed like a desperate attempt to turn things around when she did it.

What's interesting to me is that the article I linked is not a op/ed piece at least in name and placement in most newspapers. It's presented as a AP news story, which used to be an area in which people at least pretended to be objective.

Sure the AP can carry columnists and opinion pieces, but if you look for that article in your local paper, I don't think that's how it will be presented.

ETA: well, the headline does start with "Analysis" which I suppose to most readers should trigger a recognition of bias.

You're right, it's not clearly marked and I think we're seeing more and more of that lately.

No he's not. Hitler was the antichrist.

Obama may not be my preferred candidate, but I do not think he is the antichrist.

Many people I know are saying that. It's like they either want him to win or think he is pure evil. He simply is not the one I want at the helm- but I have nothing against him, I just won't be voting for him.

While I don't agree that Hitler was the antichrist, I certainly don't think Obama is, either. He doesn't meet all of the criteria set in Revelation.