As I said in a different thread, if some nutjob shot Obama and quoted Palin verbatim as his defense, ...the ramifications in our society would have been horrendous. This on top of a very tenuous economic situation. Sarah Palin, simply put, is excrement.  It speaks volumes that I can't imagine even a Dan Quayle speaking such words and somewhere Dan Quayle must be silently thankful that the Republicans have managed to nominate for VP someone much stupider, and in addition dangerous. (ok, if Quayle had become Pres. he would have been dangerous but only because of his bumbling, the idea of Palin as President, unimaginable)

Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Gov. Crist, Pawlenty, even a Christie Todd Whitman, none of them would have gone anywhere near this road as a campaign device. Huckabee made one dark and illtimed joke, realized how wrong he was and fell all over himself apologizing. McCain chose this creature, she of the husband who belongs to a secessionist party, and as such McCain has to shoulder the blame.

Obama chose Biden, a man who is a close personal friend of John McCain, which in a way shows respect to McCain he doesn't deserve anymore. McCain had to know if he lost, he still had access to the Presidents ear through Biden. The McCain who would have talked to Dems, he is gone, subsumed in ambition.

The woman has zero future outside of Alaska and the rubber chicken circuit. Thank God for that.

....and even more importantly, nobody gives a rat's ass what happened in the Sixties. At least, not in my generation. I'm just waiting patiently for all the Boomers to die off, so we can all forget the ridiculousness they instilled in American politics.

They used to say, "Don't trust anyone over 30." The saying still holds true.

guyminuslife: The 60's are interesting and important, even if they should not be endlessly "relitigated," to use Obama's word.  And you're certainly right that they don't have anything to do with this election.  But still, we will never have another draft if the cause isn't clear and widely supported.  Women's equality and rights are now legally and culturally recognized, and women are much freer to live the lives of their choosing.  Minorities' civil rights are observed and protected just about everywhere in this country.  18-year-olds can vote.  And a giant stick was removed from our collective ass on numerous important cultural fronts.  None of that's ridiculous.  Culturally and politically, there's B.6 (before the 60's) and A.6.  B.6 is portrayed pretty well in the show Mad Men.  A.6 is the world we know and grew up in.  They're very different worlds.  For one thing, an excellent person like Barack Obama would never get the shots he got B.6, much less be the favorite to win the presidency.  People under 30 today, I think, largely take all that for granted and view the 60's narrowly as a time of embarrassingly bad hair and poor hygiene and glib sanctimony and naivete -- in other words, as the era of off-putting hippies.

I suppose it's inevitable that kids will turn on their parents.  That certainly happened in the 60's, big time.  It's part of growing up.  There's a great line in Don DeLillo's White Noise, in which the characters are giving each other playful quizzes about their lives.  One of the questions was, "When did you first realize that your father was an asshole?"  That experience may not sound universal until you replace "asshole" with its synonym, "human."

But we shouldn't indulge in general contempt.  It bespeaks the same self-importance and ignorance that some accuse our parents of demonstrating.  There's a revealing disconnect between young and old on the momentousness of Obama's candidacy (and Hillary's too).  Young people don't quite get what all the fuss is about.  For that, they can thank visionary leaders of the past, a lot of young fashion victims, and their parents too (maybe former hippies, maybe not) who taught them not to hate.  So thoroughly have we learned the lessons of the 60's, so unimaginable is the world B.6 to us, that we don't even perceive the shift.  But that's when we got to know equality and war much better, and we're a much better country for it.

What pisses me off about Ayers is that *his* 60's was pathetic garbage, and yet it's taken by some as representative of the era.  My mom's 60's was about peace and social justice.  My aunt's was about love and harmony.  Ayers's was about blowing things up and tearing things down.

Well said, Jhidner.  It is sometimes tiresome to read posts here, and I realize it is because some of the younger crowd do not have your perspective of history.  Guyminuslife, go read a few history books.  Realize what happened during the 1960s.  That kind of generational transformation rarely happens (it truly is the biggest generational change in US history).  It wasn't always pretty, and the press liked to accentuate the worst of it, but I can guarantee that you have benefitted from that politics in ways you will never full appreciate.

Black,

It's sad, but you're only right about Huckabee, Christie Whitman and probably Gov. Crist - albeit for glass houses reasons just about everyone in Florida is familiar with.  The truth is no one knows enough about Pawlenty to say and most of the other "names" in the GOP have demonstrated a willingness to say and or claim anything that suits them. You can't have forgotten "Harold, call me," or the black hands threatening a blond "crime" fliers Deval Patrick had to contend with or those morphin into Osama ads they ran against Max Cleland.  

I don't think it's fair to say Crist, Pawlenty, and the other shoulda-beens woulda been appreciably more civil than Palin. They would have been different, but the GOP has now so baked-in class warfare into their ideology that anyone on the ticket would have been steered this way.

Pawlenty off-camera can be just as obnoxious as Palin. David Brooks and John Lewis are on the same page. It's just that David Brooks sees it his way and knows how to serve it up to readers of the New York Times. He has the chardonnay version.

John Lewis gives us bourbon. Poltical philosophers use words like atavistic and nativism. But on the ground, looking it in the face, it's just old-fashioned white trash populism.

Whether it's Lee Atwater, Rush Limbaugh, Fr. Charles Coughlin, George Wallace or Sean Hannity, it's all the same.

George Allen got tossed out for his "macaca" gaffe. And it was just that, a gaffe. Now listen to what comes out of Palin's mouth - and it's no gaffe. How far we've descended, truly remarkable. And dangerous.

The main difference between then and now was the amount of violence. The Obama of 1968 was assassinated after winning the California primary, following MLK, Malcom X, Medgar Evers, and a significant number of others. The war in Vietnam was rapidly approaching it's final toll of about 4 million lives lost, and there was fighting in the streets of most American cities.

I agreed with Bill Ayers in 1968. The result of our efforts was Nixon/Kissinger.

Cass Sunstein is a caricature of the academic-as-moral-idiot.  If you put him in a novel, critics would say his character was too unbelievable.

The reason Bill Ayers is not in prison right now for conspiracy to murder is not because of the insufficiency of the evidence.  It's because of the Exclusionary Rule, i.e., because of police misconduct in the course of the investigation, the evidence produced against him was excluded by the court.

Ayers is a murderer, and he has actually bragged about his killing on several occasions.

Because his killing was done for political reasons, he is justly called a terrorist.

Richard Epstein believes that property rights should be considered on a par with other personal liberties, and should receive the same robust legal protection under our Constitution.

Cass Sunstein - the moral idiot - thinks that Bill Ayers and Richard Epstein are moral equivalents.

"The main difference between then and now was the amount of violence."

RP, I like the understatement: "The main difference between the sun and a lightbulb is the amount of light." :-)

jhildner: my life got turned upside down by a revolution led partly by students of the 60s.  When it comes to social activism and methodology of protest/reform, I am about as conservative and anti-radical as it is possible to get, even as my politics/principles are quite progressive/liberal.  Part of it is the simple personal fear of yet again losing my hard-won stability to revolutionary/protest fervour (and in this sense, angry mobs such as we see in McCain/Palin rallies are giving me sleepless night - I have seen this future and it is ugly).  And part of it is what RP mentions: the reaction ends up being far uglier than the thing to which one protests.  I fear, that is, both the passion and the reaction to it. (And "fear" is not an exaggeration.)

I don't think the 60s should be forgotten or denigrated; but for me, for all the good they did for the social psyche and for the political realm, this period of revolutionary fervour - not matter how noble the cause - is the place on older maps that used to indicate "there be dragons": to be charted and understood, of course, but ultimately avoided.  

Odd discussion on "This Week" where George Will, Dan Balz, and Cokie seem to see some moral equivalency between the dirty politics of both campaigns, that Obama gets away with stuff McCain can't.

Here's what John Lewis and millions of other Americans are seeing: A scary, snarling, right wing populism that has existed for years on Talk Radio now coming into the sunlight.

It's ugly, dangerous, and a lot of us don't like it because we know Travis Bickle wasn't just a character in "Taxi Driver", Travis is alive and well and mad as hell, and he doesn't need egging on.

Let's hear more about the economy, less about abortion, guns, and a black man who pals around with terrorists.

Not so sure you have the whole story here Cass.

Obama & Ayers were flunding Boaard Members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) reform project to improve the Chicago Schools.  As such they meet monthly for for 6 months and quarterly for the next 4 1/2 years.  They spent $ 100 million trying to reform schools.

This is two members of an 8 member Board that met for 5 years.

Now either these guys know each other and worked hard to improve chicago schools, and spent a mountain of money doing it, or these were ghost jobs where they never saw each other.

Which is it?

McCain confronted the reality of divisive politics at the end of the week. The town hall reached the kindling point when the most innocent but ill informed voiced their fears about Barack. McCain didn't have a good answer for them. He was lucky they didn't demand a follow-up or include a quote from his ad-campaign.

McCain never weighed the risks of dividing, he was face to face with the remainder and they were spouting the very emotions he intended to generate. He knew they were wrong but they might as well have added, "But that's what you told us."

A John McCain with a winning hand might have been less defensive but he knew what remained after he split the voters was insignificant to a victory and may still define his effort. He approved ads to gin up the fear and he is aware of the underground campaign of ignorance and hate.His margin dwindled and he was standing alone as the shameful followers testified. History was being written.

Duty, honor and love of country were slogans he could claim and do so with a record of sacrifice. But he seemed to be aware that a defeat would include a chapter that was unnecessary. He could defend his temper because he usually exploded at his intended victim. By using a group of scared and misguided voters to take down his opponent he was a coward. He could claim politics is tough but it doesn't require any courage to stand behind an angry mob. A strategy that relies on sending the weak and fearful into the breach is not heroic and he knows it.

OK-

Arguing that merely having Ayers as part of your community is a valid and good response--no one chooses who lives in their neighborhood.

Arguing that Richard Epstein and Reagan Republicans are just as "controversial" is a bad argument on the merits and also politically very stupid.  Ayers tried to kill a lot of innocent people and has been notoriously unrepentant about it.  That is not the equivalent of having an expansive view of property rights.

I think one of the reasons this Ayers thing isn't sticking like the Republicans want it to is partially the name William Ayers.  If his name has been Muhammed Al Hussein or something like that, it would sound more "terroristy" and be an easy link back to Obama himself. (That's the whole idea behind the constant repeating and emphasis of Obama's middle name- someone with the name Hussein has to be a terrorist).

The fact that most people under 50 don't know who Ayers is and the fact that his name doesn't sound sinister combined with all the other factors (economic meltdown, the sudden mention of Ayers only when McCain is down, cynicism towards politicians, etc.) allow voters to treat it as typical campaign noise.

CRS: you're a Reagan/Goldwater supporter and so, I can expect, it's not exactly going to be easy to come to agreement on the merits of this issue with you.  But ...

Have you ever worked on a charity board?  I sit on one.  In fact, I manage its money.  Out of an executive committee of fifteen, if we get four people out to meetings we call it a successful committee meeting.  I "know" all of the board members, but I really know only three of them.  The rest - law professors, lawyers, judges - are there because of their current accomplishments.  Neither I nor indeed anyone else on the board has ever looked into their past; and if told that one of them is a former terrorist, our collective respone would be - "yes, but what are they doing now?"  I know of no one around the table, all respectable people of varying political stripes, who would walk out, leave the board, leave the work that we do, and say, "ha! I will not serve with that person."

Now, if we have an active criminal, that is a different issue.  Certainly, no one has suggested that Ayers is a criminal or a criminal wannabe now.

I say this as someone who fled a violent revolution, who has lost friends and cousins to war and execution, and who has lived under a totalitarian and terrorist regime.  Today, many former revolutionaries and "terrorists" are in respectable positions and giving back to their communities.  I don't like what they did and they are not repentant, in the sense that they try to justify what they did and who they were by reference to the "times".  I rejected then, and I reject now, what they stand for and in fact left behind my homeland never to return for that very reason.  But as to what they do now and how they contribute to their communities - I don't point a finger and stomp out of the room.

Your post is "The Crucible" redux; it is emblematic of all that is wrong in the American Puritan psyche.  It was wrong when it was deployed by the left; it is wrong when it is deployed by the right.

Ryan: President Reagan actively subverted the law and made deals with terrorists, and lied about it.  I have no idea who Epstein is, but Iran-Contra was as close to an act of treason a US President has got as any in the US history.  And between him and Ayers, there is no moral equivalence.

Furthermore, bcrago77, there is a difference, which you seem to have some difficulty grasping, and it's this:  we don't convict people in the U.S. (mostly) on the grounds of a speculative theory offered by random individuals.  Irrespective of the cosmic significance of your opinion, Ayers has not been convicted of any crime in a court of law, so the presumption of innocence holds.

More relevant, however, even if your reading of events has some force, is that they have nothing to do with Obama.  The events referred to took place when Obama was a small kid, and when he was working with Ayers it was 35 years later on a legitimate and laudable mission supported by a range of respectable, even establishment, political constituencies in Chicago.  For Obama to have withdrawn from a project whose goal he supported because of the past history of another member of that project would have been spineless and unethical.  Which Obama, I think, is not.

The latest dogshit coming out of the upper anuses of Republican operatives, this is the Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party at work:

"With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary.""

www.time.com/.../0,8599,1849422,00.html

Regardless of what Ayers may or may not have done, this sort of fear and hate mongering undermines democracy.  To those who continue to support McCain, look into the mirror.

I think Cass's point about Epstein and conservatives on the law school faculty is not to say that Epstein and Ayers are moral equivalents, but that even a much closer association than that between Obama and Ayers does not imply ideological sympathy.

You are right, jhildner, but it is a lot easier to rant against Sunstein's post if you intentionally misinterpret him.

"Use a gun, go to jail."

Use a bomb, go to hell!

That's the sum of my attitude toward the likes of Ayers and Dohrn, terrorists both no matter what they happen to think of themselves then or now. Too bad the prosecution fucked up. Thank their lucky stars I wasn't the judge or on the jury. Verdict, guilty; sentence 15-life. Better had they been injured, maimed, or dead from their vile acts.

I don't know what to think about Obama, his association with Ayers, what he thinks (or thought) of him and Dohrn and their comrades in crime. I would like to know and I guess I'm a coward not to press the matter in my own conscience to find out Obama's attitude. It certainly counts with me, and I feel guilty for supporting him while passing over the matter of his politics vis a vis violence committed in the name of the revolution - because that is what it was. It's what to my thinking may distinguish a Marxist from a Bolshevik.

"We didn't think it was so serious, we weren't trying to blow up people, only things." Fuck you.

I could say something about the irritating fact that we have courts to declare guilt or innocence, not random opinions from folks.  But I think it's more important to note that if you don't know by now, after months of opportunity to observe and think, what Barack Obama's attitude to militant political violence is, then I doubt you'll ever know.  On the other hand, we are now faced with a fringe element on the right that is calling for violence not against things, but against a person.

ironyroad, don't get sanctimonious on us with how we have courts to say who's guilty.

Ayers has bragged a lot how is guilty and he got away free because he's well-connected in Chicago. The lovely revolutionary is free because of his daddy. That's the extent of his prowess - hit everyone, daddy will clean up. Sounds as privileged as it can be. If that's a revolutionary, W. Bush is a revolutionary. I think Ayers radical past has been overplayed. The man's just a nasty guy who is full of hatred and will always do nasty stuff. Not for nothing he's now a Chavez groupie.

Anyway, back off with your garbage about courts. The courts you love listened to Ayers' daddy. That you have forgotten to mention, haven't you?

icarusar,

Richard Epstein was not in any way involved with Iran-Contra, he is a law professor.

Look, the proper response to the Ayers stuff is "hey, GOP pols, including McCain, hang out people like G. Gordon Liddy, who organized the watergate break-in, and go on his radio show.  That obviously doesn't mean McCain is in favor of burglaries and political thuggery.  Prominent people deal with other prominent people."

tomeg:  No need to feel guilty.  I agree with you about Ayers.  No need to mentally sweep inconvenient facts under the rug or avoid finding out what they are, because the facts aren't inconvenient -- for Obama.  Ayers is another story, I grant you.  When you look at the facts in full, I think it's very hard to conclude that this tenuous association has any relevance with respect to Obama's views, his character, his judgment, or this election.

Obama has called Ayers's acts despicable and reprehensible.  At a certain point, we get into "reject and denounce" territory which gives this whole thing more attention and credence than it deserves.

As for Obama's association with Ayers, it began many, many years after Ayers had put his criminal past behind him.  Ayers was (and remains) an education professor at the University of Illinois.  At one point, he was an aide to Mayor Daley.  He travels in some liberal political circles.  When Obama met him, he was outwardly a rehabilitated and respected member of the community.

Obama served on a board regarding urban education along with, as Obama says, "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders."  The Wikipedia page on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is instructive.  (I believe the "Woods Fund" and the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" refer to the same board.)  Although you cannot discern the political orientation of the other members of the board with certainty, their resumes suggest that Obama is telling the truth on that score.  The source of the money that the board administered is the Annenberg Foundation, which is not a liberal group by any stretch.  The grant that the board administered was awarded based on Ayers's proposal.  The work of the board had nothing to do with Ayers's radical viewpoints or past.

I believe that the State Senator that Obama replaced introduced Obama and endorsed him (before later going back on the deal because she wanted to keep her seat) at a gathering at Ayers's house.  (Hence the attack that he began his political career in a terrorist's living room.)  But, so what?  The location was happenstance and, as Sunstein points out, he was bound to run across Ayers at some point as Hyde Park politician.  It doesn't signal any radicalism on Obama's part.

Obama has also said that when he first met Ayers, he "assumed he had been rehabilitated."  He didn't really know his past.  It wasn't important.  Nobody cared or knew the whole story.  (This was before Ayers had written his memoir.)  No red flags were thrown up.  Ayers was neither Obama's buddy nor advisor.  Sunstein's description of Obama as "running across" Ayers is about right.

By the standards of the McCain-Palin camp, those conservative businessmen and civic leaders to which Obama referred are dubious terrorist sympathizers, Mayor Daley is a terrorist sympathizer, South Side politicians are all terrorist sympathizers, anyone who has had tea with Ayers -- like, all of Chicago -- is a terrorist sympathizer.  It's absurd.  While what Ayers did was reprehensible, his non-apology apologies don't sit well with me at all, and I basically agree with you that he can go to hell, at least until he really takes responsibility for his actions, none of that has got anything to do with Obama.  Rest assured.

jhildner, I acknowledge the facts you cite (though I haven't researched them myself), and most of the arguments and conclusions you, and many others, draw from the record. Those don't really address my concern about Obama, however, which is to what extent is Obama clear about the categorical difference between a misguided individual who acted on the basis of distorted thinking and ignorance of the...blah blah blah; and a terrorist. I would agree that all terrorists aren't despicable people on the order of the brownshirts who murdered and maimed with impunity, or Osama bin Laden. Their acts weren't horrifying, repugnant, and calamitous on a scale of Muhamed Atta's, no. But what *they intentionally did attempt and accomplish* were terrorist acts, not no, not maybe, but yes, and they aimed to commit them with impunity, i.e. get away with it.

What I believe is to be guilty of little is to be guilty of great. In other words, though they didn't do a whole lot of damage as it turned out, and they didn't intend to kill or injure people (and I include also animals, but that's another argument), just blow stuff up, or whatever they say now about their thinking and planning and doing then, they committed very serious crimes that could as surely have killed or...blah blah blah, and *they meant to do what they did without regard for the consequences. They used a bomb indiscriminately, intentionally, so they fall into the same category as Atta on one hand, and Timothy McVeigh on another. I don't relativize, as sleepy and others do, evidently. If Ayers and Dohrn hadn't been arrested, what would their next act be?? Nobody knows except Ayers and Dohrn, they were adults and they knew their own minds and made their choices, and, as I have already put it, who is guilty of little is guilty of great...when you use a bomb.

So I don't know what Obama thought other than what he has said, and in my book what he said is insufficient. Sure, he now condemns all terrorist violence, but what did he think and feel then? I don't find it credible that he knew nothing and thought nothing but the assumption "he was rehabilitated."

Much more important is, what does he think about Ayers now, what does he think about the fact that, knowing or not, he did business of whatever sort and extent with Ayers then. In other words, what has he learned now about himself that he didn't know or understand or examine then about the need for a leader to clearly know his own mind, clearly know what he feels and why, and most importantly, what guidance will he act on, and what not. If and when he meets with Ahmadinejad will he be willing to tolerate or not from a man who says he would wipe Israel of the face of the earth, and what will guide him morally and practically.

I've rambled on but I hope you get what I'm saying, *it is a matter of conscience what he believes* regarding not terrorism or terroristic acts, but terrorists. It's a simple question that demands a profound response, however simply put.

Oh Gaaaaaawd! I wouldn't care if they spent every Sunday together, tete a tete, trying to fix Chicago schools. God love anybody trying to fix schools, ok? Were they building bombs? No. I don't like this "purge" mentality. If the guy is spending his time trying to fix schools now, then what more do you want? You want him to fry in a chair? Maybe he's an asshole who can't say he was wrong. Fine. Do you have any idea how full of assholes this world is? Where would we even start the purge? Believe me I wouldn't start with the guy trying to fix schools.

About the Repubs tactics and methods I don't disagree, they are reprehensible and irresponsible. I expect that, and f**k them for their selective disregard for accuracy and sincerity, and in this campaign, the potential violence it could incite.

I suppose I should re-emphasize what I  said at the outset: I don't condemn Obama, however I want to know more about him, acutely, passionately, in matters of profound importance to me.

I don't understand what Senator Obama's association with Ayers has to do with anything.  If it goes to Senator Obama's judgment on terrorism, we should look directly at his record.  Senator Obama said we should be dealing directly with Iran and five secretaries of state agreed with him.  He said we needed a timeline to get out in Iraq; the Iraqi's agree and Bush now talks in term of a time horizon.  He said we needed more troops in Afghanistan, and now we are in trouble there.  Meanwhile, Senator McCain "exercised poor judgment" in the Keating five scandal.  Governor Palin "abused power" in the troopergate scandal.   These scandals, that they were directly involved in, appear not to disqualify them from anything.   But if Senator Obama is in the same room with William Ayers, the McCain campaign wants us to believe  its an indication of how terrible Senator Obama is.

What jhildner and Robert Powell said about the 60's.  Historically, there was an unprecedented amount of progress in our society, accompanied by a lot of high profile violence,  It's hard to think of a time when the country took so many positive steps with regard to civil rights and civil liberties (it baffled me when McCain used to talk about Obama wanting to return to "the failed liberal policies of the 60's.").  It was probably the high water mark for liberalism as a movement, which then sort of self-destructed as a result of Vietnam, Democratic Party fractures over civil rights, and, as RP points out, the fact that so many of the charismatic leaders of that era were assassinated.

With regard to Ayers and politics, I'm pretty sure this is a loser for McCain.  They haven't come up with a coherent or consistent message about why we should care at all about Ayers.  I've heard all of the following aboutwhat the Ayers relationship is supposed to show.

1. That he shares Ayers's radical ideology

2. That he thinks terrorism is ok

3. That  he has poor judgment

4. That it shows he'll do whatever he needs to get ahead

5. That he doesn't love America

6. That he's a liar

7. That we don't know who the real Barack Obama is

8. My personal favorite: that it was actually Ayers, not Obama, who wrote Dreams from My Father, and thus the writing that everyone admires is not really his own (as absurd as it is, I'm not making this up: corner.nationalreview.com/post )

None of these arguments is actually compelling, but they haven't been able to actually stick with one.  Their strategy has been jumping up and down and saying "but he *knows* him.  They may even be *friends*".  The don't have an answer to the question: "So What?"

There are a lot of good, and a lot of bad, things that can be said about the 60s. About the left, about the right, about the young & old, about conditions in society and choices people made. But I must adamently disagree with guyminuslife about "not giving a rat's ass." From a historical perspective, I find the 60s endlessly fascinating. Music, film, art, technology, lifestyles, thought, and yes, poiltics went through incredible, seismic transformations: you can isolate the period from Jan. 1, 1960 to Dec. 31, 1969 and it forms an incredible narrative, almost the human condition in microcosm.

And I'm 24, not some aging boomer with nostalgia problems. To me, and I'm not speaking from a moral perspective about which decade is "better" or which offers more hope for the future, but rather about which decade I find interesting and compelling in what it has to say about people and society and transformations of both, and certainly in what its pop culture and mass experience has to offer, the 60s is the Sistine Chapel and the present era is graffiti scrawled on a bathroom stall with permanent marker. It's probably a good thing I wasn't around then, at worst I could have been, and at best I'd be afflicted with a "those were the best years of my life, and now nothing compares" attitude instead of looking forward. But I certainly give a "rat's ass" about the 60s.

And, not to belabor the point, but, if nothing else, the 60s' popular music certainly kicks the 00s to the curb and back. Hell, to the moon and back.

*meant to write, "at worst I could have been killed or scarred by Vietnam, or an acid casualty in some mental ward somewhere."

tomeg:  I agree with you that Ayers was a terrorist, for starters.  As I said elsewhere, the view that nobody is innocent and that you are justified in starting a private war is the view of a terrorist.  In my book, domestic terrorism has a long road to go before becoming laudable freedom-fighting, and I don't think Ayers was living in a nation that was "so imperfect," to (regretfully) borrow Palin's formulation, that its imperfections could justify terrorism.  I simply can't imagine setting a bomb that might (even if you don't intend it to) kill or seriously injure an innocent person while living in the confines of a civilized society such as ours (as opposed to a war zone).

But, Obama's association with Ayers a million years later when he was a respected member of the community in connection with perfectly laudable and mainstream civic and charitable activities simply raises no doubts about *Obama's* views about terrorism or that *Obama* disagrees with us about terrorism or that *Obama* believes that Ayers's acts as a Weatherman were anything but "despicable" and "reprehensible" as he's said.

You doubt my suggestion that he didn't really know the full story on Ayers when he first ran across him.  But, it's not as though anyone was talking about it.  It wasn't in the press, it wasn't in the air, and Ayers had not yet published his memoir in which he admitted the extent of his participation in terrorist activities.  I find it very likely that Obama may have had a vague sense that Ayers was a reformed 60's radical but didn't have the whole picture.  What does one assume when a guy is a professor, an aide to a mayor, a minor local personage who's not in prison -- the husband of another respected academic, the son of the former head of Commonwealth Edison, whose bad history all happened when you were a child?  One assumes he's not a devil with whom even tangential contact must be avoided at all costs.  One gives him the benefit of the doubt.  One assumes, as Obama said, that he's rehabilitated.

And even if his past was known to Obama to a greater extent than I'm guessing, so what?  As psantillana says above, if they are involved in doing good work today, what's the problem?  Was Obama not supposed to serve on this board because Ayers had written the grant proposal?  Was Annenberg not supposed to give a shitload of money to the Chicago Public Schools because Ayers was the one who was proposing how to spend it?  Do you doubt the attitude of the "conservative businessmen and civic leaders" who also served on this board toward terrorism?  Do you doubt that they know themselves on this issue?  What about Mayor Daley (*not* a lefty by any stretch), who has not, I believe, denounced Ayers?  If not, why not?

I would like Ayers to show some humility and express genuine regret.  If he did that, I would be more inclined to let his good work since he turned himself in eventually and avoided prosecution (due to illegal FBI tactics) speak for itself and let go my anger toward the guy for not only doing horrible things (that thank God didn't kill anyone other than Weathermen bomb-makers) but for doing horrible things in the pursuit of goals most others were pursuing peacefully -- and giving those peaceful activists a bad name in foggy historical memory.

But the real point is that the facts of this tenuous association simply do not suggest that Obama has to answer for Ayers in any way and certainly not for Ayers's radical views or acts as a young man when Obama was a small child.

As I said before, we're getting into "reject and denounce" terrirtory -- a demand that Obama utter certain magic words in addition to "despicable" or "reprehensible."  To not trust Obama on Israel or Iran or any other foreign policy issue calling for resolve in the face of threats because he only said that Ayers's acts of domestic terrorism were "despicable" and "reprehensible" strikes me as ridiculous.  McCain demands an "apology" from Obama for ever having been associated with Ayers.  I see nothing to apologize for.

As you may know, Gordon Liddy is a sicko, and I'm not talking about Watergate -- his participation in the Nixon administration's vast criminal conspiracy, for which he earned a four-year prison sentence.  I'm talking about advising Branch Davidians to aim for the heads of ATF agents, reminding them that they wear bullet-proof vests.  I'm talking about the thrill he says he got when he listened to Hitler's speeches as a child.  That's for starters.  McCain attended a fundraiser at Liddy's house.  He appeared on Liddy's radio show and the two acted like old friends, with McCain heaping praise on Liddy.  Do you doubt McCain's loyalty to this country based on that?

Liddy is a pig, and a greater danger to this country at present than Ayers (perhaps more than Ayers ever was). I don't doubt that McCain employs an utterly dishonest double-standard, but I'm actually glad that Obama looks to be winning without having to drop down to the guilt-by-association level.

Liddy actually planned to bomb the Brookings Institute, and also planned the murder of liberal journalist Jack Anderson until Nixon administration officials told him that was going too far.  He is also, like Ayers, unrepentent.   The McCain campaign's double standard is mind-boggling.