Yesterday I played the tape of Barack Obama telling a crowd that he was being accused of being a Muslim, and of associating with radicals. This was a weak attempt to asssociate the disreputable and unfair charge concerning Obama’s faith —never made by any responsible journalist much less the McCain campaign– with the very real concern that Obama’s friendship and close partnership on the Annenberg Challenge with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Obviously Obama is hoping to persuade the public and journalists that the story of Obama’s association with Ayers is as irresponsible as nutter claims that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has used this tactic before, and we can expect to hear it again and again.
The most important thing we know for sure about Obama’s relationship with Ayers is that Obama mischaracterized it when asked about it in a nationally televised debate. That alone should be a red flag for journalists. Here’s his response to the Stephanopoulos question about Ayers:
GS: Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.
The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.
So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.
Called on this by Hillary, Obama acknowledged that he served on a board with Ayers, then the subject was dropped.
Through the work of Stanley Kurtz, whom Obama’s Chicago gang has unsuccessfully tried to intimidate, we already know that Obama and Ayers served not just on the Woods Foundation together but in a close partnership on the controversial Annenberg Challenge. Kurtz is continuing his researches, but MSM –so quick to invent stories about Sarah Palin such as the New York Times’ fiction on the vetting process which launched a thousand smears– doesn’t have to wait for Kurtz’s to wrap up his researches to ask obvious questions and press for detailed answers on how closely and how often Obama worked with Ayers on Woods and Annenberg and whether or not Obama ever represented Ayers or any of Ayers’ projects as a lawyer.
When Obama yesterday in effect asserted that the charge of his association with radicals was as false as the charge that he was a Muslim, he was renewing his attempt to lay a defense he must realize he will soon need. We know this a dodge, an attempt to categorize the Ayers connection as as far-fetched as the misinformation about Obama’s faith. We know after last week that MSM is in the tank for Obama, but are there any MSMers left with any standards who will ask the obvious questions: How often did Obama meet with Ayers? Why did Ayers recruit Obama to the Annenberg Foundation? Has Obama or his firm ever represented Ayers? If so, on what matters? Was Obama unaware of Ayers’ current political views which are indeed radical? Did they never talk politics or theory?
The voters would like to know, even if the MSM arm of the Obama campaign doesn’t.