Right on. This is big problem.

Sent by buzz | 6:49 PM ET | 04-18-2008

I hope so, too, because Obama is all we've got. Our good candidate Hillary... is... no... good. At all.

Unlike a disappointingly large number of her supporters, I don't go around making threats to vote for John McCain. In a race between the two of them, however, I can't envision myself voting for either one. Because I honestly, swear on my father's grave, cannot think of any way in which nominating Hillary Clinton would, over the long term, be any better at all than electing John McCain. If nominated, I believe she will be far more vulnerable to, not to mention a magnet for, right-wing attacks. If McCain implodes, and Hillary is elected, what is there to prevent a repeat of 1994 in 2010?

None of this, however, is as important as the real deal-breaker: all of the potential drawbacks of a Hillary candidacy and/or Presidency would be for absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing, because Hillary Clinton IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE. She is, at best, a center-right candidate. If Hillary were, in fact, anything like the radical ultra-liberal extremist that reactionaries seem convinced she is, I would be right beside her. I would be ready to man the barricades, to give those reactionaries exactly what they want most, and to make them regret it once their wishes come true. As is, however, Hillary Clinton is the worst of all possible worlds: she will unite and energize the reactionaries while selling out progressives to advance her only real agenda, i.e. empowering Hillary Clinton.

With or without skeletons, Barack Obama is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, probably the worst of all the major candidates... except for all of the others.

Sent by MJ Kuhns | 10:26 PM ET | 04-18-2008

I wondered if Bill Ayers said anything on his blog that rebuts the "unrepentant terrorist" label which stems from the NYT article in September 2001. So, I slogged through and found that he did the opposite in the entry about the Weathermen dated April 20, 2006:

"In my case, my actions are all well-known, I've resolved the legal charges, and I've faced the consequences. Yet a central moral question remains -- the question of individual responsibility and of the nature of judgment. But I still refuse to grow up if the price is to falsely confess a sin I don't take to be a sin."
***
"I feel most regret for the intense sectarianism and then splitism that I participated in. The dogmatism, the prison of a strict set of rigid ideas, the isolation -- I regret it all. I don't regret escalating the fight against racism, white supremacy, and U.S. imperialism -- still the biggest threat to a world at peace and in balance. I'm sorry we weren't as effective as we might have been, and sorry we didn't do more to stop the murder."

Maybe "unreconstructed" would fit him, too; and that isn't something the leader of our nation should be associated with.

Sent by BobM | 11:08 PM ET | 04-18-2008

You are surely correct that the Republicans will exploit this story, but let us not write about it without taking care to debunk the supposed connection to 9/11. In the debate, Senator Clinton implied that Ayres said things that were hurtful to New Yorkers after 9/11.

The fact is the New York Times story about Ayres' book was published on 9/11, which means it came out before the attacks that morning. Even then, Ayres claims the Times greatly distorted his views, and he wrote a letter to the Times to that effect several days later (see Tom Regan's NPR blog today). In that letter he said, "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy."

The story gets its power from the supposed connection to 9/11, but we now know the timing was sheer coincidence. Whether Clinton knew it or not, the implication ought to be exposed as the smear it is.

Sent by Stephen Anderson | 11:34 PM ET | 04-19-2008

is it only paternalistic because he's white? because sans the race thing there is no inherent paternalism in what he did or what he said.
I dont think it was so much that "blacks are incompetent/weak and so need help from whites" but that one cannot in good conscience recognize institutionalized disparities in power and then do anything other than attempt to "even the score" in one way or another. Helping or merely conducting one's own struggle in a parallell fashion =/= head-patting, hand-holding condescention and paternalism!
Or, on a purely gut level, how can one see injustices being done, MURDERS being done, and then just sit by and trust the structures which allowed those murders to take place to "do justice"?
If any human endures needless injustice and suffering, regardless of race-- yours or theirs--, one ought to step up...no?

Also, one ought not to confuse property destruction and violence. Bombs do not violence make. Killing or injuring living things is violent. Disassembling inanimate objects is not violent, even if it is done in a loud, bright, and dramatic way. It is important to keep our language perspicacious these days, especially in matters of "terrorism," "violence," etc.
&-- as a side point-- for the record, there were no casualties from WU bombings. The only people who died from WU bombs were their own people (in the accident) and other than that the only people to die as a result of WU activity did so in the absence of explosives, and not in planned actions.

Sent by lucy | 6:48 AM ET | 04-20-2008

Ridley has it wrong. Obama's connection with this person is quite remote both in terms of his closeness and ideology.

Reverend Wright is another matter. Obama described Wright as his "spiritual mentor," and "sounding board." He chose to be in his church for twenty years, gave tens of thousands of dollars, was married there, and somehow saw it a fitting place for his daughters to receive their moral education. This is what everyone will be reminded of in the fall.

There is little difference between Hillary Clinton and Obama on policy matters, but considerable difference between both of them and McCain. The difference is so large that it wouldn't warrant commenting except for the remarks above by MJ.

Sent by David | 3:59 PM ET | 04-20-2008

What's really interesting are John McCain's actions (more than one vote) against honoring Martin Luther King Jr. in Arizona, and his views on the confederate flag. These are not the views of his "pastor" or the actions of a person he "sits on a board with." These are the actions and views of John McCain personally. Lucy makes a very interesting arguement. Institutionalized and overt racism are acts of violence against all Americans. There should be no directional distinction (White-to-Black, Black-to-White, White-to-Latino, etc.) Racism is despicable in any form. But, I do not believe violence should be met with violence. However, I in no way attribute the acts of the WU to Obama. They are not his acts, nor are they his views. This is not the case for McCain. They were his acts and his views, and he wasn't 8 years old when it happened. For this, there should be accountability.

Sent by Psmith | 6:25 PM ET | 04-20-2008

Ayers seems to be another self-fulfilling issue in Obama's campaign. This or that can potentially, someday, maybe if Hillary or the GOP push it enough could become an issue.....

And next thing you know, it's an issue.

Sent by Herb | 9:31 PM ET | 04-20-2008

Good grief! Is Obama going to have to account for the beliefs/actions of every human being he's ever met?
What utter idiocy! Listen to what HE says and does and judge on that basis.
McCain wants us to widen the war in the middle east and is comfortable with us staying for a hundred years!
Hilary is using major smear tactics and obfuscatory, underhanded lying to try to win a contest she's already lost. To the detriment of her own cause. That kind of thinking already disqualifies her from leading.
Obama is daring to accept responsibility for his actions and trying to inspire us to hope for a better world.

Sent by Larry Jones | 10:09 PM ET | 04-20-2008

More sick liberal hypocrisy. Democrats and the News Media support terrorism and terrorists. They just don't have the guts to murder people themselves. Instead they spread terrorist propaganda and do everything they can to undermine our foreign policy. 4,000 American troops are dead in a "war" (THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ) that would never have begun if the terrorists didn't know they had allies among us. The real enemy is here.

Sent by Neo Politicus | 9:46 PM ET | 04-21-2008

Following my previous post, guess who's on a "civil rights" tour:

"In Selma, McCain Praises Civil Rights Pioneers" - NPR main page

Let's see if Fox runs McCain's anti-MLK voting record and pro-Confederate flag comments on a continuous loop.

Sent by Psmith | 10:37 PM ET | 04-21-2008

Ayers has nothing to repent for and owes 'society' nothing.

Sent by Doug Brown | 5:55 AM ET | 04-22-2008

John Ridley forgot to mention one of the reasons that Ayers is regarded with particular antipathy by sophisticated conservatives, and why the friendship feeds into Obama's weaknesses. Ayers' father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison; he grew up in unusually privileged circumstances, and his current 'respectability' is a function of his family connections. One of the subtexts of American politics is the skepticism and amused contempt felt for these upper-class leftists among swing voters. Many Malibu/Martha's Vineyard Democrats remain in denial about apparently having 'issues' when it comes to the discrepancy between their own styles of living on one hand, and the policies they wish to impose through regulation and taxation on middle-class upward strivers on the other. John Kerry's inability to explain the contradictions probably cost him the presidency.

If it is relevant for Obama (channeling Thomas Frank) to ask why lower-income people seem to vote against their own economic interests in favor of supporting their cultural values, it is also fair to question the opposing tendency. The Democratic Party repeatedly has nominated privileged northern liberals who appear to patronizing the importance of the cultural values of lower-income voters who opt for the GOP, while excusing the apparent hypocrisy of rich liberals as putting their 'values' above personal economic gain. John Edwards, anyone?

Obama's association with the rather fetid Ayers reinforces this perception. A rule by a very self-consciously 'evolved' and enlightened urban elite that is certain it has earned its status, as opposed to those dreary, SUV-driving, McMansion-owning, blurry suburbanites who run insurance offices or sell ball-bearings or own pizza parlors. Obama has built his campaign on his projected image as a 'uniter' who transcends race, while a disportionate number of people around him seem to be divisive figures obsessed with race. It is legitmate to explore the contradictions. What kind of people would a President Obama appoint to the courts and to the bureaucracy?

Sent by Mark Richard | 12:26 PM ET | 04-22-2008

I'm wondering how many of you have really listened to what Obama says or have read his books. He never answers a question... he speaks in the third-person and avoids clear articulation of his positions. In "The Audacity of Hope" he says we need to pour more money into our public education systems and everyone needs to go to college. He says more people would go to college if it weren't so expensive. He'd prevent colleges from continuing to raise their tuition rates... So his position is that public education is broken due to a lack of funding, but he advocates destroying our universities by financially breaking them. He fails to recognize the value of trades-people and craftsmen if he thinks everyone must have a college degree to give them value. Isn't this the same "establishmentarian mindset" that the Wethermen fought to destroy. He says he believes in capitalism, but then says the government should force GM to build hybrid cars instead of SUV. Why is GM building SUVs? Because that's what people are buying. In his books, his solution for everything is government intervention - government money. Again, he represents big brother's involvement in our lives. When I read through the above comments, I don't see a lot of independant thought... I see brainwashed intellectuals (so called) falling in line. The next few years are important ones for America... think and cast your votes wisely.

Sent by Tom McNear | 1:08 PM ET | 04-22-2008

The reason Bill Clinton commuted the sentences (NOT pardoned) of Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg was that they had served six years in prison and had expressed repentance. I don't see that as parallel to Obama's relationship with Ayers. And of course there's also the original statement by David Axelrod that "Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."

Ayers/Dohrn's children are in their late twenties.

Sent by Pieter B | 7:07 PM ET | 04-22-2008

Obama sure is attracting the support of a lot of people whose views I find repugnant. Wright, Farakahan, Meeks, Ayers, Dohrn, the radical Islamist in Kenya who claims to be a cousin of Obama, etc etc..

What is it about Obama that these vile people like? Whatever is, it sure isn't pretty.

Sent by Vince P | 2:49 PM ET | 04-23-2008

Bill Ayers? Republicans invite a convicted murderer (Don King) to their convention and to campaign with Bush and nobody notices. Bush then invites the terrorist backing King of Saudi Arabia to his ranch for a hand-holding session and nobody questions his relationship with somebody who holds telethons for suicide bombers. Ayers was not convicted of any crime and is a "distinguished professor of English" at the U. of Illinois.

Sent by Carlos | 9:03 AM ET | 04-25-2008

hi, i just wonder your opinion about how people of the world view americans. connected to that; what do blacks and native americans think of the gov't. keeping those two things in mind is it possible to understand the mentality of of the radical isamic groups?

Sent by bernard spiegel | 12:23 PM ET | 04-25-2008

This article was brought to you by Carl Rove & Company. Eat that cattle & thanks for listening.

Sent by Rudy Adams, Hou, TX | 10:08 AM ET | 04-28-2008