Biden / Palin VP Debate, Oct 2nd @ 9PM EST

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I saw that on CNN last night, and yes, I continue to believe that it does not support saying Ayers was "a very influential figure in Obama's political life." That different from saying, say, that they had many political connections.

Again, I'll admit that "very influential" is a very subjective term. My interpretation of the information I have has led me to believe that Ayers was an influential, if not very influential person on Obama's political career.

As to whether Ayers shaped Obamas views, I doubt that, but perhaps the adage about birds of a feather flocking together might at least be a reasonable interpretation on what's going on. At no point in Obama's career that any of us are aware of (the Presidential race excepted), has Obama repudiated any of Ayers [alleged] domestic terrorist history. Obama didn't seemed the least bit bothered that he was meeting his ends as a community organizer by conspiring with a known domestic terrorist.

Perhaps that doesn't bother you, but it bothers me.

On a side note, one of my father's high school/college/law school friends was an FBI agent who went undercover with the Weather Underground. Those were some crazy mother-effers.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, I'll admit that "very influential" is a very subjective term. My interpretation of the information I have has led me to believe that Ayers was an influential, if not very influential person on Obama's political career.

As to whether Ayers shaped Obamas views, I doubt that. . . .

See, this is where you're losing me. How can he be influential (very or just plain influential) without shaping Obama's views (i.e., exerting influence)?

Obama didn't seemed the least bit bothered that he was meeting his ends as a community organizer by conspiring with a known domestic terrorist.

Apparently, neither were the Annenbergs or others associated with the Annenberg Foundation. Neither was former Illinois State Diana Nelson (R), who said "It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that [Ayers] had led a fugitive life years earlier." (She added that fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life . . . but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought.")

Indeed, based on what I've seen and what Sen. Nelson says, no one was bothered about it before Hillary Clinton's campaign.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

See, this is where you're losing me. How can he be influential (very or just plain influential) without shaping Obama's views (i.e., exerting influence)?

I think we're both thinking of influence in different terms. Perhaps that's my fault for imprecise wording?

At any rate, to influence Obama's political career, to my mind doesn't mean that someone has to shape his world view, just that he has to have a substantial effect.

Using the more precise "substantial effect" language understanding, I don't think there's any way around concluding that Ayers had a substantial effect (had influence) on Obama's political career. That we can know. As to what effect Ayers had on shaping Obama's world views? No one, outside of Ayers and Obama knows that. I think it's possible though, that both sorts of influence existed, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Apparently, neither were the Annenbergs or others associated with the Annenberg Foundation. Neither was former Illinois State Diana Nelson (R), who said "It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that [Ayers] had led a fugitive life years earlier." (She added that fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life . . . but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought.")

Indeed, based on what I've seen and what Sen. Nelson says, no one was bothered about it before Hillary Clinton's campaign.

If associating with a domestic terrorist doesn't bother those folks, fantastic. It bothers me quite a bit.

As for what Nelson said, politicians say the craziest things and for the craziest reasons. An Illinois Republican state elected official saying very nice things about the probable future president which might substantially improve his standing in the eyes of the doubting public might possibly have motives beyond giving the public a truthful account about how everyone feels about former domestic terrorists.