"My clarification of his comments should not be construed as a personal attempt to defend this guy.:)"

There is no excuse for this guy, and there is no excuse for Obama sitting at his table.

Mark 

Maybe Dreemer is right.  In the past, the libs have complain when Oama's full name "Barack Hussien Obama" is used.  Yet we have the leader of the DNC going on a leftist program and referring to McCain as McBush.

OK.  Then we should be referring to WrightousHussien. 

ABO

The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy.  The attempted connection between Obama and Ayers is based on an implied agreement in domestic terrorism.  The latter connection, however, is faulty insofar as there is no evidence that Obama supports domestic terrorism.

While it is certainly legitimate to look at the personal relationships of a political candidate, we should be very careful about guilt by association.  As Obama said, he is also very friendly with Tom Coburn, a very conservative U.S. senator.  In fact, Obama has worked much more closely with Coburn than Ayers.   So is Obama then responsible for all of Coburn's positions and choices in life as well?

If we truly care about this issue, then we ought to ask for Obama to provide his viewpoint on domestic terrorism and the cultural environment of the 1960's.  Unfortunately, in today's political environment, that is not likely because the truth is that is not why this issue is being brought up.  It is being brought up to tear down Obama on a personal basis--and any response he gives about the actual issues will only be used as a basis for personal attacks.   See Obama's speech on race as an example.

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

Mark49:

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

But, they don't agree on what you are trying to tie Obama to.  That is, bombing the American government.

McCain sought out the political support of Jerry Falwell before he ran for President.   Does that mean McCain agrees with Falwell that 9/11 was due to America's descent into homosexuality?

We should hold these people to their own positions and actions.  If it bothers you that Obama has a marginal relationship with a University of Illinois Chicago Professor who is a fixture in Chicago liberal politics and was involved in a radical group 40 years ago, then that is your perogative.

To me, this seems a very very small footnote in Obama's biography which is about a rather remarkable journey to come to terms with his multi-cultural identity, an impressive record of achievement, and a consistent record of public service.

For me, I prefer to have something to vote for.  But it seems others are fixated on finding something to vote against. 

oxymoron:

Mark49:

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

 

But, they don't agree on what you are trying to tie Obama to.  That is, bombing the American government.

McCain sought out the political support of Jerry Falwell before he ran for President.   Does that mean McCain agrees with Falwell that 9/11 was due to America's descent into homosexuality?

We should hold these people to their own positions and actions.  If it bothers you that Obama has a marginal relationship with a University of Illinois Chicago Professor who is a fixture in Chicago liberal politics and was involved in a radical group 40 years ago, then that is your perogative.

To me, this seems a very very small footnote in Obama's biography which is about a rather remarkable journey to come to terms with his multi-cultural identity, an impressive record of achievement, and a consistent record of public service.

For me, I prefer to have something to vote for.  But it seems others are fixated on finding something to vote against. 

 

 

If you wish to describe any relationship with an admitted, unrepentant terrorist as a very very small footnote, that is your prerogative. I have never heard anyone accuse Obama as being complicit in the bombings, and that is not the issue. The issue is Obama's relationship with this man. He sought this man out to get his approval and support. A footnote for you is a major issue for me.

Mark 

No one knows the inner workings of the relationship between Obama and Wright, Ayres or Rezko.  And that is part of the problem. 

The Dems would condemn him as a guilty liar, as they did with Rove and bush, with no proof.

Obama first said he didn't hear Wright, then said it was just a typical black preacher and then he denounced him.  Kind of like Peter in the square with Jesus.

Obama has had a tight relationship with socialist.  Why would he deny that, it he believes in Socialism?  Is it because he wants to get elected as a Dem and then announce that he is a Socialist?

Why can't Obama, just one time, be honest about his afilliations and he connections?

oxymoron:

The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy.  The attempted connection between Obama and Ayers is based on an implied agreement in domestic terrorism.  The latter connection, however, is faulty insofar as there is no evidence that Obama supports domestic terrorism.

While it is certainly legitimate to look at the personal relationships of a political candidate, we should be very careful about guilt by association.  As Obama said, he is also very friendly with Tom Coburn, a very conservative U.S. senator.  In fact, Obama has worked much more closely with Coburn than Ayers.   So is Obama then responsible for all of Coburn's positions and choices in life as well?

If we truly care about this issue, then we ought to ask for Obama to provide his viewpoint on domestic terrorism and the cultural environment of the 1960's.  Unfortunately, in today's political environment, that is not likely because the truth is that is not why this issue is being brought up.  It is being brought up to tear down Obama on a personal basis--and any response he gives about the actual issues will only be used as a basis for personal attacks.   See Obama's speech on race as an example.

 

Nice summation that gets to the heart of the matter.
 

pudman:

can someone find a photo of that notorious appeaser Dick Cheney smiling and shaking hands with Saddam?  jonmaxapple, does Saddam qualify as The Islamofascist?

Did Cheney go to Saddam to ask for his political and financial support to win his (Cheney's) next election?  I don't think Obama was on an official State visit to the terrorist's hou