David Thompson


Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Shakerboys »

October 06, 2008



But, but… Obama said Ayers was just "some guy in the neighbourhood."

And Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.


Here's some of Ayers handiwork - http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

"I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother's pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS."



Thanks for that. I doubt extreme rightwing fire-bombers who openly called for murder and sedition would, like Ayers, subsequently find themselves welcome in academia. And I suspect that tells us something.

I doubt it’s possible to have a career in politics without accumulating a number of unsavoury associates, but Obama has had several extremists as mentors of one kind or another and there is a pattern in their general outlook. Obama’s career began in Ayers’ home and he happily endorsed and promoted Ayers’ educational ideology. Only later, during the Democratic primary, did Obama denounce Ayers’ terrorism. Thus, it raises questions. No-one can seriously claim that Obama is in some way responsible for the past actions of his friends and supporters, but, as argued in the link above, his association with such people – whose past actions were known to him – suggests an extraordinary lack of judgment and, perhaps, some level of sympathy with their ambitions if not their methods. One has to wonder, then, what kind of “change” Obama has in mind.

carbon based lifeform

If Ayers worked at my kids' school I'd be tempted to take him outside and give him a good kicking.


Well, there might, I think, be a temptation to do to Ayers what he and his associates did to others and then see if he still has no regrets. Or at least give him the distinct impression that something like that could happen. That wouldn’t be an entirely improper way to feel. I do wonder what it must be like to work alongside such a man, knowing what he did and how pleased he is about it.


"... his association with such people – whose past actions were known to him – suggests an extraordinary lack of judgment and, perhaps, some level of sympathy with their ambitions if not their methods. One has to wonder, then, what kind of 'change' Obama has in mind."

This is an irresponsible statement. Someone is going to have to provide me with evidence that Ayers's extremism appears in Obama's policy before I begin to worry about this.

The irony of the Goldstein piece is that you could plug in "right" for "left," "sexism" for "racism," and "Palin" for "Obama" and get an even more cogent statement about who is hijacking what words for their allegedly nefarious ends. The Republican party conveniently became concerned about sexism roughly two minutes after McCain's VP selection, a woman whom George Will described as "obviously not ready" to be president, not that it requires someone with Will's judgment to make that determination.

I'm a libertarian, and I'm not pleased with my choice between a nanny-state liberal on one side, and a police-the-world neocon and his Christianist running mate on the other. There are legitimate charges against Obama - many of which one could also make against McCain - but this Ayers thing is pretty trifling stuff. From the age of 12 until three months ago, Palin attended a church whose pastor claims, among other charming notions, that critics of George Bush are destined for an eternity of damnation in hell. This is what we have to worry about becoming public policy in this country.



“This is an irresponsible statement.”

In what way, exactly? Are we to suppose that Obama was oblivious to Ayers’ criminal history and ideological views, and remained so until fairly recently? Is that likely?

“Someone is going to have to provide me with evidence that Ayers's extremism appears in Obama’s policy before I begin to worry about this.”

I didn’t suggest that Obama’s stated policy incorporates Ayer’s extremism – beyond, that is, some rather bizarre and tendentious ideas about education and “social justice”. And I’m not asking you to “worry” about it. But it seems to me some media curiosity wouldn’t be amiss.

“Palin attended a church whose pastor claims, among other charming notions, that critics of George Bush are destined for an eternity of damnation in hell.”

You’re missing my point. This isn’t (for me) a tribal issue and I’m not defending Palin. (Though there is an obvious moral difference between unhinged pastors who bark about damnation and people who actually assemble explosives and then try to kill people, not entirely without success.) It’s quite proper that candidates’ histories and associations are scrutinised and fact sifted from suspicion, or from lurid imaginings. And given there are reporters who’ve being paid to rummage through dumpsters in Alaska hoping to unearth dirt on Palin, it’s odd that the media have been so incurious with regard to Obama’s non-trivial association with an unrepentant former terrorist who retains extremist views. I’d have thought that Obama’s subsequent efforts to discourage investigation of that relationship would, if anything, be a temptation. But apparently not. Though we are treated to Andrew Sullivan’s relentless fascination with Palin’s uterus and the parentage of her children - a fascination that has become rather creepy and surreal.


Many say that Obama’s relationship with Ayers is not relevant since what Ayers did happened a long time ago. Would they have the same view if McCain was friendly with an unrepentant bomber of an abortion clinic who bombed a clinic a long time ago?



There is, I think, a disparity in how violent radicalism is dealt with in this respect. And it’s more than incuriosity regarding Obama’s association with Ayers. There’s a broader amnesia regarding Ayers and, among parts of the media, a tendency to minimise his actions and those of his wife and associates. The BBC website, for instance, referred to Ayers, fleetingly, in remarkably innocuous terms. Again, I doubt that a comparable figure with a comparable history and comparably extreme *rightwing* politics would receive such a gentle profile as those given by the New York Times or Chicago magazine, or be photographed in a similar, vaguely salacious, way.


Would Chicago magazine opt to photograph, say, a former pro-life fire-bomber as he held a match outside a modern abortion clinic? Or would that be regarded as being in poor taste?


David & Franklin,

"Are we to suppose that Obama was oblivious to Ayers’ criminal history and ideological views, and remained so until fairly recently? Is that likely?"


"The Obamas had a long association lasting several years with Ayers and Dohrn, serving on two boards together and working for Ayers for several years at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Does Axelrod now want to argue that Obama never learned about Ayers’ radical politics and track record as a Weather Underground terrorist? How clueless would Obama have to be to miss that?"

"Ayers was hardly quiet about his life and his aspirations. He wrote a book about it in 2001. Chicago Magazine did a lengthy profile of him at the time, complete with pictures of Ayers standing on an American flag thrown on the ground in an alley. Nevertheless, Obama continued to work with Ayers at the Woods Fund and work together on public events. Either Obama liked what Ayers did, or he’s the most clueless politician to have ever reached the US Senate, and neither commends itself as a recommendation for a presidential candidate."


Info on Ayers, Dohrn and the Weather Underground: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79fC0jAi2gc


Thanks for those. It’s interesting how these people still *smile* when recollecting their egomaniacal declarations of “war” and the “violent overthrow of the government of the United States.” And, of course, the nail bombings. After all, you can’t indulge those fantasies of sedition and enormous self-importance without arbitrarily rending flesh.


David, Well you are right. I have been fascinated with the fact that Obama has belonged to his church for 20 years and claims never to have heard the commentary for which Wright gained fame nor really appreciated Black Liberation Theology.. The press accepts that. I find that only one of two conclusions are credible: a) he is a liar or b) too stupid to be president



I don’t have a firm view on Obama’s motives or general veracity, but the media probing of the candidates’ respective dirty laundry seems to me… selective. I’d have thought a candidate’s formative association with Ayers and Dohrn would be worthy of investigation. What with nail-bombings and attempted sedition being a little more dramatic than yet another unhinged preacher.

I suppose what’s interesting is the mismatch between Obama’s current “post-racial-post-culture-wars” persona and his earlier politics and associations (from around 1995 to 2004). Figures such as Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, etc are so vehemently antithetical to that new persona it doesn’t quite convince. One would have to assume there’s been a radical near-inversion of those earlier beliefs - or a realisation of how unpalatable they are among much of the electorate.


More on the "I didn't know" line:


I have a lot of sympathy for John McCain. I remember the whispering campaign in 2000, that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was really his illegitimate black child, and that he was also - somehow - gay. Teams were apparently paid and organized to spread these rumors in order to benefit one of his rivals. Before this smear campaign McCain was the Republican front runner. The smear lost him the South Carolina primary, and then the Republican nomination, to George W. Bush. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Okay?

As McCain said at the time:

"There were some pretty vile and hurtful things said during the South Carolina primary. It's a really nasty side of politics. We tried to ignore it and I think we shielded [our daughter] from it. It's just unfortunate that that sort of thing still exists. As you know she's Bengali, and very dark skinned. A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin. Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying, 'You know, the McCains have a black baby.' I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."



The more I think about it, the less convincing the claims of ignorance seem. It’s scarcely credible that Obama could have for so long remained unaware of the most notable biographical fact of a benefactor and long-term associate, especially a minor celebrity whose past is often spoken of, not least by Ayers himself. It seems quite possible that whatever political influence Ayers had to offer Obama in Chicago’s leftist circles was as much *because* of his extremism as despite it. Or are we supposed to believe that Ayers’ notoriety had somehow escaped the attention not only of Obama and his advisors, but most of Ayers’ political associates too?


These people have no real ambitions except spouting the leftist dogma that serves their purposes, which is why they went into education. But it's irresponsible to assert that Obama sympathizes with their vaunted ambitions to the point that they are the kind of change that he is campaigning on. The change theme is simply capitalizing on our deservedly unpopular president. It is working so well that the Republicans have attempted to co-opt it.

This is tribal for me. My tribe is the rational electorate, and this besieged minority is about to get it in the head with a pry bar as McCain's numbers slip coming into the final stretch. So again, what is the probability that puerile leftist demagoguery that Obama does not appear to embrace is going to transform into policy under an Obama presidency? Zero. So how much media scrutiny does it deserve? Not much. Meanwhile, the ethos surrounding the activities of Palin's uterus have lead directly to policies like abstinence-only education, criminalized abortion, bans on same-sex unions, and other acts of aggression against secular civil society. And since these things are present dangers, and left-wing nail-bombings are not, the media attention they merit ought to suit them accordingly, don't you agree?

Besides, I don't know how it went down in England, but stateside, Ayers went into the 24-hour news cycle for two weeks. I am very suspect about claims of bias in the media. If anything they are biased towards laziness. The consequent effects appear evenly distributed.



“But it’s irresponsible to assert that Obama sympathizes with their vaunted ambitions to the point that they are the kind of change that he is campaigning on… [W]hat is the probability that puerile leftist demagoguery that Obama does not appear to embrace is going to transform into policy under an Obama presidency?”

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I didn’t “assert” that Obama is campaigning on Ayers’ revolutionary ideology or that he has sympathy with acts of terrorism. I said his association “suggests an extraordinary lack of judgment and, perhaps, some level of sympathy with their ambitions if not their methods.”

Perhaps I should have been clearer and specified cultural and educational ideology rather than violence; but it doesn’t seem “irresponsible” to wonder to what extent Obama shares, or has shared, some of the (non-violent) political views of Ayers and his associates. Ayers is now very big on educational indoctrination and the politics of grievance as an alternative to direct confrontation, and while one might well regard them as “puerile leftist demagoguery,” these things are hardly without consequence or irrelevant to the current political landscape*. (Obama’s wife springs to mind.) If you follow the links regarding Ayers’ views on politicised education and identity politics, you’ll see the kind of thing I mean as areas of possible mutual interest.

Again, I’m not “asserting” what you seem to think I am. But questions are, I think, in order.




Further to the above:

Ayers blathers at length about the “being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom.” Of course Ayers thinks mainstream bourgeois society is at fault, indeed invalid, for being insufficiently in tune with how *he* thinks children should be groomed politically, by him and others like him. (One might, however, wonder if Ayers is hoping to indoctrinate children with values that are “the exact opposite” of – oh, let’s say - their parents.)

If you read Ayers’ interviews and writing, it’s pretty clear that he regards education as a Gramscian political project, one with connotations you might find rather dubious, even sinister. “Critical thinking” is a favoured euphemism and is used by any number of hardline leftist educators, including Wahneema Lubiano and Rhonda Garelick, both of whom see no distinction between education and radical activism. The classroom is their pulpit. But what “critical thinking” actually means is tendentiously politicised syllabi and reflexive hostility towards capitalism, bourgeois values and mainstream society. While being utterly accepting – uncritical - of Ayers’ own leftwing ideology, in which schools are designated as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive hegemony.

This is called “dissent” (with all its connotations of persecution and martyrdom) and it’s something Ayers believes should be in every classroom. These are among the ideas that Obama has apparently chosen to endorse (in Ayers’ book) and fund (via the CAC). Hence, questions arise.



Cue Guardian drone dismissing Obama's "irrelevant" links to "controversial 1960s left-wing activist" Bill Ayers -

She gives the impression Ayers organized sit-ins or something. No bombs get mentioned. No attempts at mass murder. And the Guardianistas lap it up.



Like so many of her colleagues, Lola Adesioye isn’t likely to let research get in the way of the narrative. And, as you say, Ayers and his associates are treated to a sanitised alternative history in which no-one was killed, wounded or terrified. It’s the Guardian way: incurious.


Well, it appears that wearing an Obama t-shirt can get you assaulted by racist (but keenly politically aware!) thugs in London now:


Must have been the t-shirt, right? Can't think why a moronic racist thug would have assaulted Mr Egwuatu otherwise...


From the Guardian comments:

"At least the Weather Underground never killed anybody with their bombs… What about McCain? What was he doing in that airplane over North Vietnam, anyway?"

"The biggest terrorist on the planet happens to be a resident of the White House, so what's the problem?"

It's a zoo over there.


Here's the Obama education page:


Mentoring, tax credits for college, math and science declared a "national priority." I detect no trace of Ayers or his poison ilk.



“I detect no trace of Ayers or his poison ilk.”

Thanks. Some comfort, then. Though I’m not sure how this sits with his previous choices in funding and endorsement. A change of heart, expedience, or a dawning of realism?


Franklin- it isn't about Obama's education policy. It's about his character and his lies. What kind of guy uses someone like Ayers to start his career then does business with him for years, then channels money into his pet projects, then boosts his book, then lies about it, then claims he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist who's still proud of what he did? That's what its about.


Franklin -

There is no statue of limitations for murder. You are free to be friends with a murder, per your 14th amendment rights. I am free to avoid both you and your murdering friend, per my 14th amendment rights.

There is no evidence that after spending $160 million dollars from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge on Chicago Schools, the children in those schools were any better educated than before. If past is prologue, why should I believe that Sen. Obama's educational proposals as the US President would be any more successful then his stint as CAC President?

Ayres & Obama funneled the educational moneys to a network of so-called "external partners," such as the Small Schools Network run by Ayers' comrade from the 60s, ex-Maoist Mike Klonsky. Originally there was a 10% restriction on the persons receiving the money; but Ayres convinced the CAC to remove the restriction and groups were free to spend all the money on overhead and none on the children/school in that External Partners network.

The pattern of nepotism and graft continues in other aspects of Sen. Obama's political life. Sen. Obama also funneled moneys to his wife's hospital, his wife's cousin's self-esteem program, and the Trinity Church. I do not wish a person of these habits to become the US President.

Further reading, Stanley Kurtz on the CAC's push for Radicalism in Schools:


The other issue at hand here is the office that Obama seeks. The presidency of the U.S. We're not just talking about Obama as a "good guy" or even a "good citizen" The president of the United States cannot have such close association, especially friendship, with those guilty of treason. THAT'S the issue at hand.
It's the presidency that is at stake, not Obama's personal reputation.
After 2 years of this gawdawful campaign, people lose sight of that.


Gaffee, Bush lied about his longtime friendship with Kenneth Lay of Enron. By that measure, Obama's a presidential kind of guy.

Adrine, you should not believe in the efficacy of Obama's proposals because there are fundamental flaws in the way that education is administered in this country, and they make Ayers's pedagogical shenanigans look like shoplifting in comparison. And while I would prefer to have a candidate to vote for of unimpeachable probity, I unfortunately have to choose between someone who has disowned his friendship with Ayers and someone who has disowned his friendship with Charles Keating. Ayers made his schools worse. Keating's fraud cost taxpayers two billion dollars. This absolutely unconstitutional bailout that just passed demonstrates that we are the heirs of Keating's legacy, not Ayers's.

Rick, the very continuation of this country as a place that would be recognizable to its founders is at stake, and I believe that neither of these candidates have the wherewithal to re-establish Constitutional, limited, unindebted, transparent, secular government. So I voted for Ron Paul, and am now considering the best way to frame a protest vote. Voting the Republican party out of the executive is looking attractive in some respects.


Franklin -

Kenneth Lay blew up how many San Fransisco policemen? Charles Keating shot to death how many Brinks guards robbing an armored car?

I jaywalked across Main Street once. Thank God Sen. McCain have never been seen with me.


"Bush lied about his longtime friendship with Kenneth Lay of Enron. By that measure, Obama's a presidential kind of guy."

It's not about Bush or Kenneth Lay. It's about a choice between McCain (who fought FOR his country) and a guy who spent years supporting a terrorist who waged war (his words) AGAINST his country -with bombs- and still thinks he was right. Is that a guy fit to be commander in chief?


Gaffee: "it isn't about Obama's education policy. It's about his character and his lies." Then later: "It's not about Bush or Kenneth Lay. It's about a choice between McCain... (etc.)"

If this is how you insist on thinking about matters, then it's about the probability that a person's misjudgments will turn into bad government. Speaking of character and lies, Bush led one of the most mendacious administrations in American history and McCain voted in accordance with him 90% of the time. I do not expect that we will see Ayers's thinking become policy under an Obama presidency. I would expect to see Bush's thinking persist as policy under a McCain presidency.

Yes, Adriane, murder is worse than stealing. But the Weathermen haven't been active for 35 years, while economic malfeasance seems to be a rather pressing problem these days. Again, it's not the finest choice. Good luck with yours.


"Mentoring, tax credits for college, math and science declared a "national priority." I detect no trace of Ayers or his poison ilk."

Okay, that's what Obama calls it on his web page, but in fact Obama worked hard to help Ayers and other radicals to implement school "reform" programs that were not about teaching math, reading, etc, but instead were about injecting leftist politics into the curriculum.


For decades Obama has, by preference, worked with and socialized with radical leftists--sixties communist terrorists, black nationalist fascists, and so on. And we are supposed to think that this does not tell us anything about his intentions?


I'm really tired of hearing about "Bush's Lies" and "The Failed Policies of the Bush Administration." These phrases are uttered with no explanation, no elaboration of what exactly those lies and failed policies might be. I'd like to see a list. In my mind, it seems Bush's Presidency has been very good. He delivered on most of his campaign promises. No Child Left Behind, attempting Social Security reform, attempting to deal with illegal immigration, faith-based initiatives, etc. Not that I agree with many of those, but he *did* deliver on his promises.

Then we have the big one, 9/11. In response we liberated two countries and stopped any further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. That's pretty effective.

I wish I could vote for Bush again. I don't see the failures that are so apparent that they don't need to be enumerated.


"I'd like to see a list."

Here you are.




From your link:

"LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act [and] ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”

FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)"

Ah, yes. He lied about *important* things like this. But this isn't even a lie. Presidents can't increase funding for programs since they don't make budgetary decisions. Congress does.

Your link is too long to read. Especially considering that it contains crap like this. If it convinces you that Bush and his administration is a den of lies, then so be it. I remain skeptical.


"If you’re a Communist who's declared war on the US government, if you've set off bombs all over the country and spent years on the run, there's always one place where you will be welcomed with opened arms. Academia."

How the hell do these people get jobs as professors at respectable universities? Am I the only one who thinks Dohrn and Ayers should be pumping gas or sweeping the streets?


I seem to remember that Ayers had family connections in the trade, as it were. But it does tell us quite a lot about what passes for acceptable at a number of academic institutions, and what will be excused. As I said earlier, I wonder what it must be like to spend every day working alongside Ayers or Dohrn, aware of their past and how they feel about it. There would, I think, be a distinct urge to slap them unconscious with a suitably heavy object.

From Communist terrorist to “Distinguished Professor of Education” (with tenure) - and all achieved with only a change of method rather than a change of core ideology. Violent revolution has basically been swapped for coercive indoctrination. In ideological terms, Ayers is scarcely less incoherent and extreme than when he was making bombs and urging students to kill the bourgeoisie. That he finds academia so congenial, and so obliging, probably tells us something.

Though I do think pumping gas is a much too lofty position. I’d be quite happy for them to be reduced to beggary and destitution, surviving, if they can, on the goodwill of the people they so righteously despise.


Candice, first you complained that you had no list, then you complained that the list was too long. Skepticism that extends only to counterarguments of the position you already agree with is not skepticism, but credulity.

Anna, my theory is that Marxism and postmodernism hold on in fields where they cannot be shown to fail. Genuinely critical thinking is crucial to education, of course, but it's not easily measurable, so ersatz critical thinking directed at bogeymen (hegemonic assumptions, etc.) can take its place more or less unnoticed. They also hold on in the arts, especially visual art, where expectations of achievement scale to the heights of the average curbside. As the consequences of failure approach observable breakage (as in engineering) or provable falsity (as in mathematics), Marxism and postmodernism have decreasing influence on the pursuit, and it's not for want of people trying to apply them.



“…my theory is that Marxism and postmodernism hold on in fields where they cannot be shown to fail.”

Exactly. It’s hilarious/dismaying just how readily enthusiasts of the above can still be found laying their eggs in academia, where the young and impressionable punters won’t laugh quite so much. The people I’ve encountered who still fondle their Foucault and Marx remind me of how a middle-aged person might feel about the hideously naff music they listened to as a teenager and defined themselves with. There’s something about the dynamic that’s very similar. Like trying to recover a misspent youth. It might almost be charming if not for the creeping perversion of basic terms – “critical thinking” being one example among many.

“…especially visual art, where expectations of achievement scale to the heights of the average curbside.”

I may have to borrow that one.


Here is Ayers being interviewed by Reggie Dylan in the house organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. The October 2006 issue.


--- begin excerpt ---

Bill Ayers: [I think what] leftists are continually doing with the Ward Churchill case is missing this larger context you and I are talking about and instead kind of parsing, “Well, what did he say and do I agree with it.” What the hell do I care? First of all, there was a thorough study done by a university committee that never should have been set up, and they found a few, a tiny, a handful of instances where he might have borrowed a phrase, but nothing like Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, nothing like, you know, the big academics at Harvard have done, like Dershowitz. And yet somehow he’s held to the standard. And then people on the left again feel like they have to say, well this is part of what Ward says I don’t agree with. What has that got to do with it? He’s being pilloried for his politics, for being a leftist, for being a critic of U.S. imperialism as it relates to Native Americans. How can we as socialists or as communists or as leftists, how can we leave him in the cold and say, well I’m a good leftist because I don’t talk the way Ward talks. I find that appalling. And I would hope that when they come to get Ward, we all link arms and don’t allow it.

--- end excerpt ---

Less recent and less noxious statements have gotten others disavowed by The One. Fortunately, Distinguished University Professor of Unrepentant Domestic Terrorism Bill Ayers is bus-proof.


Ayers: “I find that appalling.”

I’m not convinced Ayers is in much of a position to be appalled, or even indignant. I suspect that particular right is forfeit, all things considered. Though it’s interesting to note the orientation of Mr Ayers’ ersatz moral compass.

Commuting Distance

A couple points.

1) Obama at 8 years was still two years away from attending his first classes in an American school of any kind, when he would start the fifth grade in Hawaii. So, one could probably stump him by asking, "Who chopped down the cherry tree?" In Obama world, what has passed for reflexive patrotism doesn't exist at all and is dismissed as indoctrination. Don't question him about his patrotism, asserts Michelle. But what did he miss? What does any American fourth grader know? And in context, what did a fourth grader in the US know in 1969? Subtract it all, and add what? His mother's idiosyncratic view of the world? His father's communist economism? His stepfather's Islamism?

2) What Obama did with Ayers is more germane. Which was to get control over 10's of millions and squirrel those lumps of cash away into the hands of radicals. How does that 8 year old Indonesian schoolboy get to do that?

So back up, look at the arc of Obama's life, picking up after he's finished drinking and drugging his way through high school:

Mentored by Commie poet, so-so student at Occidental, transfers to Columbia, graduates, goes to Pakistan with friends on his Indonesian passport, works in NYC two years, drops out to Chicago to organize, then magically Harvard law school, then back to Chicago to become a lawyer shilling for public housing scammers and Chicago pols. Insert Ayers here and learn what? Do what? Launch Obama's political career from Ayers living room?

Later, he gets a mansion with a sideyard, wins an uncontested Illinois senate seat (because he disqualified his competition; it's good to be a lawyer), helps out a down and out 29 year old bank owner's son become Illinois treasurer. Then his competition for US Senate falls out of that race. Gee, who could have known?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon Link