Is Obama the Anti-Christ?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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 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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[AGDee]

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/

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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/

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

See, I didn't get that at all.

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

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

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

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Hmm, turns out I was right. McCain got exactly what he wanted.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...eal_barack.php

The sad thing is that he would stoop so low. Maybe McCain's the one who's the anti-Christ.