Are you getting paid for this, Jesse? The reason anyone cares about Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers is that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who, as recently as 9/11, said he “didn’t do enough.” That lunatic blew up American buildings and killed our own people. If he’s a friend of Obama’s—and Barack Obama has tried to duck the allegation that he’s more than wave-from-the-garage friendly with Ayers—then people have a right to know about it, just like you guys slobbering over the number of houses John McCain owns.

Look, you are unapologetic in your fealty to Obama, but most people look at him and wonder why the hell he deserves to be president other than his blackness? This is a carefully orchestrated campaign that wants everyone to know only what they care for voters to know about Barack Obama. So, if there really isn’t anything more than hopeNchange, then looking at his associations shouldn’t be a big deal.

How many McCain Action Points did you get for that, Sharon?

Sharon, to our knowledge, Obama does not have “connections” with Ayers. What you are babbling about is the classic right-wing faux outrage and tantrum throwing over something you have completely made up and, at this point, probably fooled yourself into believing.

It is not “real” outside the rarefied, isolated cult of right-wing talking-points purveyors.

I prefer the term ‘Maverick Points’ myself.

What you are babbling about is the classic right-wing faux outrage and tantrum throwing over something you have completely made up and, at this point, probably fooled yourself into believing.

I’m not sure she believes it, to be honest.  Those Big Lies aren’t going to catapult themselves.

Are you getting paid for this, Jesse?

Soros said the check is in the mail.
“I love you Barack Obama!”  <— See that right there?  I just made $5.

Look, you are unapologetic in your fealty to Obama, but most people look at him and wonder why the hell he deserves to be president other than his blackness?

ORLY?  www.pollster.com would argue differently.  If anything, people seem to be looking at McCain and wondering why the hell we should give him the opportunity to live out Bush’s Third Term.

After cheer leading for the unlawful imprisonment of US Citizens, police-state levels of wiretapping, the invasion and destruction of two sovereign nations, government sanctioned torture using Maoist / Soviet techniques, and general pissing on the Constitution, you’ve got absolutely no room to talk about moralizing over terrorism.  But if it makes you feel any better, I’ll let you know that if - 40 years ago - Barack Obama shook hands with the Unibomber, I’d still be voting for him today.  Why?  Because I don’t think bomb-flinging terrorist ideology is a communicable disease.  So far, Obama has managed to run multiple peaceful non-bomb-throwing based political campaigns for state and national senate and for President.  I’m willing to bet that his first act as President will not be lobbing a moltov cocktail into the Lincoln Bedroom.  Call me crazy, but that’s the gamble I’m making when I vote Obama in November.

Can I point out that not a single person hotly chasing this Mission: Impossiblesque lead seems to care about UIC hiring this unrepentant terrorist?

That’s because we’re all well aware of UIC’s radical bomb-throwing militant communist anti-American agenda.

Are you getting paid for this, Jesse? The reason anyone cares about Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers is that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who, as recently as 9/11, said he “didn’t do enough.” That lunatic blew up American buildings and killed our own people. If he’s a friend of Obama’s—and Barack Obama has tried to duck the allegation that he’s more than wave-from-the-garage friendly with Ayers—then people have a right to know about it, just like you guys slobbering over the number of houses John McCain owns.

Damn. You’re telling me you’re still scared of the 1960s, forty years after it expired? Seriously, this Ayers guy said something scary FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO and you are still fucking scared?

Do you walk down the street with your eyes darting side to side, watching for that bully who beat you up in grade school?

When you hear warning sirens, do you jump under a desk?

Are you building a stockade against indians in your backyard?

The SCARY 1960S RADICAL stuff just doesn’t work for those of us who weren’t adults in the 1960s.

It makes those of us born after the Vietnam War roll our eyes and sigh, “There go the boomers again..”

Sharon, to our knowledge, Obama does not have “connections”

Are you serious about this? We have the mayor of Chicago stating in this mornings Chicago Tribune that Obama and Ayers are friends. They served on the board of this organization together and now we can’t even see what the organization did. You don’t call that connections? How’s that Kool-Aid taste?

And Jesse, it’s Chicago. We know how Ayers got his job.

Chicago? THE Chicago?

Oh God, I’m so scared!!!!

/snark

I’d enjoy blowing Sharon up. Does that make me a terrorist?

Jesse, they used to do the same thing with that good heartland state of Arkansas when Bill Clinton ran. So its not just cities—its wherever the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates and superdelegates happens to come from.

The reason anyone cares about Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers is that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who, as recently as 9/11, said he “didn’t do enough.” That lunatic blew up American buildings and killed our own people.

Well, (1) Ayers didn’t kill anyone, and (2) he said he didn’t do enough to stop the war (Vietnam) without implying that “enough” would have been setting off more bombs:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/clarifying-the-facts-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/

Are you serious about this?

Yes, actually, I am serious about this. You have that Obama served on a committee of a non-profit with several people, one of whom included Ayers. And yet you’ve whipped yourself into a tantrum-laden fervor that “Obama is connected to terrorists!” You’re either being willfully dishonest or you association with various right-wing cult-groups has convinced you to believe and say stupid things. Your arguments are essentially ridiculous and not the ones made by serious people.

Sharon, is that analogy something like this scenario?:
I work at WageSlave INC. for a min wage job. I am a volunteer for a homeless shelter in my spare time. Bob has the same job in the same department, and was accused of child molestation 20 years ago. Bob and I are not friends, just co-workers. Adam, our manager, decides that because he saw me and Bob work together several times to get our closing tasks done on time, so obviously Adam is right in concluding that because of this observation, Bob and I are close friends and obviously I’m volunteering at the homeless shelter to find children for Bob to molest. Obviously since we work together for a task that needs to be done for our jobs, I espouse the same feelings that Bob had 20 years ago when he molested little Billy, so I, by that logic, am a child molester as well.
No, in actuality, it goes something like this…
Bob and I work together at our job. Bob is a hard worker, so I respect that aspect of his work ethic. His job skills and mine combined help our department and our company complete the goal at hand. Our personal views are held OUTSIDE the workplace, and just because I can work with an accused child molester in a professional and peaceful manner, doesn’t mean I support child molestation.

Does belong to a Catholic Church where the priest was convicted of child molestation make one “Connected to child molesters”?

Look, you are unapologetic in your fealty to Obama, but most people look at him and wonder why the hell he deserves to be president other than his blackness?

I dunno, maybe a decade of good judgment and experience as a legislator? A history of being right on the issues, and willing to see reason when he’s not? A powerful charisma that can’t help but align competing interests behind a single, effective agenda? Naw, can’t be any of that. Must be OBAMA MIND CONTROL!

Furthermore, if you’re so sick of the major party candidates, vote independent. It isn’t a wasted vote. If one independent party candidate gets 5% of votes, then that party will be eligible to receive federal $$$ in the next election, therefore adding more options to this twisted mix of mostly “lesser of two evils”. Yes, it may sacrifice the next four years, but in the long run it will be better for all parties involved. Two companies working (sorta) together in the same business for some aspects is not competition. A third party would make both Democrats and Republicans in public office more wary of their choices.

Right on, Ben.

why are you so willing to condemn millions upon millions of hard-working Americans based on the actions of a ginned-up stereotype?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Chicago has been known for decades for the Daley machine. As I pointed out, we even have a story in that city’s paper discussing the Daley machine. It’s not about “millions upon millions of hard-working Americans.” It’s about the political appartus that runs Chicago specifically and Illinois in general.

You have that Obama served on a committee of a non-profit with several people, one of whom included Ayers.

You do know that Obama has spent a lot more time with Ayers than just on that committee, right? He held one of his first fundraisers at the house of Ayers and Dohrn, both of whom are far-left people (I guess that explains why you’re excusing them performing terrorist acts on American soil). The mayor of Chicago even stated they were friends. Now, you might tell yourself that it’s just like your coworker from a different department at a large corporation, but I don’t really think an acquaintance from the same company would hold a fundraiser for you when you run for office.

But, hey. You approve of all this. I just think looking at the documents would be more revealing than Democrats would like. Which is why they won’t be unsealed before the election.

This is even dumber than when they tried to say Bill Clinton was a Communist agent because he visited Moscow once.

Can you please define, “Far left” Sharon. Thanks!

The AP has an article on this here:  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzhxdkuecq3l3HWnAFXwQfQrQyLgD92LKT6G0
which gives the U of I’s explanation of why it hasn’t released the documents.

On the issue of how complicated does everything have to be, why do you think the interest in these documents is so complicated?  The reports are that the Annenberg Challenge was judged a failure by the foundation.  Obama was board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for three years and associated with the project for another.  If the reasons for the Annenberg Challenge’s lack of success had to do with errors in judgment, incompetence, etc. by him or people he was supposed to oversee, then that track record seems like something worth considering in whether to vote for him.  Moreover, given that it’s Chicago, Kurtz et. al. probably think they have a good chance of finding kickbacks, embezzlements, and other abuses in a project that Obama chaired.

The second part is that Ayers today (not thirty years ago) advocates social justice theories of education that probably won’t go over well with a lot of US voters.  If the documents show that the Anneberg Challenge chaired by Obama was promoting these theories, then that’s another way to attack Obama on education.  And it doesn’t even involve bombs or Ms. O’Leary’s cow.

I’d run to the polls to vote for Bill Ayers for President over McSenile. Any day of the week. Bill Ayers is a patriot, unlike Trigger McCrazy.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Chicago has been known for decades for the Daley machine. As I pointed out, we even have a story in that city’s paper discussing the Daley machine. It’s not about “millions upon millions of hard-working Americans.” It’s about the political appartus that runs Chicago specifically and Illinois in general.

This is my favorite part of this particular smear. The freaks who use it start out screeching Bill Ayers! Bill Ayers did scary shit! I need to change my underpants because of Bill Ayers!!!!

But as surely as night follows day, they will start attacking Chicago itself for being a corrupt city full of dangerous people—and, it is, and we are. But they forget that while this will play with the folks out in the sticks, it also pisses a lot of people off.

I invite freaks like Sharon to continue using this particular smear. Sharon, it must feel good to finally air out your hatred for our city. Please remember, however, that Chicago has chewed up and spit out much better people than you, and it will do so again.

Do they realize that smearing Chicago might piss off people outside of Illinois in swing states, but within the Chicago media market (Wisconsin, Indiana)?

It makes those of us born after the Vietnam War roll our eyes and sigh, “There go the boomers again..”

It’s going to be very amusing when Obama finally does with Ayers what he did with Wright: use the pseudo-controversy generated by the MSM and GOP as an opportunity to distance himself from yet another Boomer clinging bitterly to identity politics.

Initiative from charitable foundation doesn’t pay off: apparently this is a huge, crucial issue.

One the other hand, none of these people were pitching apocalyptic fits that Bush’s business ventures repeated failed, over and over again.

Yes, Sharon, keep spinning your conspiracy theories. The only people who think they’re for real are the wild, delusional right wingers still claiming that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th attacks. “OMG OBAMA SERVED ON A FOUNDATION BOARD WITH SOMEONE!” makes you sound like an idiot. It would be as though I was claiming that Obama was firmly in the pocket of “big oil” because an executive of BP was on the same board.

Seriously, when the heck are you going to act like a rational person., rather than the delusional angry relative at the dinner table whinning about what you heard on talk radio this afternoon?

I think Ayers and Dorhn kinda suck, I’m not inside Obama’s head but I would bet up to five dollars that he does too, but sometimes you’ve got to deal with people you don’t like

Do they realize that smearing Chicago might piss off people outside of Illinois in swing states, but within the Chicago media market (Wisconsin, Indiana)?

Uh, I don’t know about that. I think Wisconsin and Indiana regard us the way the rest of the world regards America…

I don’t know the dynamics of your metro area, it was just a thought.

I’m convinced Kerry won New Hampshire and Gore didn’t because of all the Mass-smearing done by Bush turned off New Hampsherites in the Boston media market.

I’d enjoy blowing Sharon up. Does that make me a terrorist?

Not if she’s inflatable.

. . . and no, I don’t know exactly what that means either.

Sharon, to our knowledge, Obama does not have “connections”

Um, of course Obama has connections. Obama has connections on his connections. He absolutely has to… he’s running for president! Duh.

(Sharon is pissed because Obama, & Obama’s connections, wouldn’t touch her skanky ass with a ten foot pole.)

I see a new state motto coming on: Illinois - Come for the corruption, stay for the infanticide

These sorts of conspiracy theories seem all the more hilarious when you realize that the people getting worked up about them probably voted twice for a man whose grandfather was a documented Nazi sympathizer and WW2 profiteer.  Without ever even hearing that particular bit of information, or if they heard about it, shrugging it off as a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

I’m going to defend Prescott Bush. Not because I like his son, but because he was an early supporter of Civil Rights legislation before it was popular (the 1950s).

I’ve never heard of this FDR plot thing.

Er, make that son or grandson.

“Because it involves an insatiably complex conspiracy to cover up DA TROOF.”

I know you’re being sarcastic, but the alleged “conspiracy” doesn’t seem very complex, and maybe I missed it but I did see anyone arguing that it is.  No grassy knolls or bullets defying the law of physics are needed to explain why and how Obama’s campaign could make a few phone calls to block or stall access to the documents after learning that a conservative writer planned to investigate them.

You do know that Obama has spent a lot more time with Ayers than just on that committee, right?

And you know this how, exactly? You haven’t cited any references for this “fact” and I am not willing to just trust you on this one ... and no, Rush Limbaugh does not count as a valid source of info.

I guess that explains why you’re excusing them performing terrorist acts on American soil

If they actually had performed terrorist acts, here or anywhere, I don’t think they’d be employed, or not in prison, or appearing in the NYT and/or on TV. He is not a fugitive.

The mayor of Chicago even stated they were friends

Oh, well. Then it certainly must be true ...

Any conspiracy theory that abstracts itself to documents and what happened to them, or what could happen to them, or how exactly the subject of the theory managed to hide the evidence, rather than whatever the original conspiracy was supposedly about, is officially overcomplex. 

Srsly, either Obama and Ayers are Totally BFF’s 4-Evah, and plenty of evidence exists to this effect, or they are no more than acquaintances who have a circumstantial association which does not necessarily imply any shared affinity, in which case the whereabouts of a couple of pieces of paper suddenly become extremely important.

Any supposed connections between the two that depend on the discovery and preservation of the final report of a nonprofit project are probably not particularly compelling connections.

Not if she’s inflatable.

Sharon is pissed because Obama, & Obama’s connections, wouldn’t touch her skanky ass with a ten foot pole

Hmm. I thought this was a feminist site. Shouldn’t Amanda be posting soon on what mouth-breathing troglodytes you are to attack my femaleness for opposing you politically? Down with Teh Patriarchy!

I’ve never heard of this FDR plot thing.

Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

The best test of a troll is the fact that they tend to get all confused about the difference between “has a vulva” and “is a feminist and/or holds or represents feminist political positions”.

“The best test of a troll is the fact that they tend to get all confused about the difference between “has a vulva” and “is a feminist and/or holds or represents feminist political positions”. “

Thats kind of the Pandagon Turing Test, isn’t it?

That lunatic blew up American buildings and killed our own people.

Well, a bomb did go off in the house they lived in, which killed his girlfriend. So: American building, check; our own people, check. But that was the only building blown up and killing that Bill Ayers was ever associated with.  And I suppose a full Professor of education, even a PhD graduate of Columbia, could be a lunatic. So: technically correct.

The insidious Dohnr-Ayers-Obama connection: Like Obama, Dohrn is a law professor who lives in Hyde Park. How could they ever get together unless they independently wanted to burn down the Reichstag?

But actually, Obama is a member of the Bilderburg group, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Secret Water Flouridators, the Masons, the Eastern Stars, the Illuminati, They Walk Among Us, They Float Above Us, They Could Care Less, and Alien ZOG.

Hmm. I thought this was a feminist site. Shouldn’t Amanda be posting soon on what mouth-breathing troglodytes you are to attack my femaleness for opposing you politically? Down with Teh Patriarchy!

I’m not attacking your femaleness, I’m attacking your idiocy.

I wonder how Cheney would react if one of his many banks claimed they lost his account information and are unable to retrieve it due to a computer glitch, so a years-worth of million-dollar deposits were forfeited…

If his battlestation was fully operational at the time, said bank (and, since this is Cheney, several unrelated surrounding buildings like schools and hospitals) would be a smoking crater.

On the plus side of the whole Weatherman accidental “bombing” of their own building, there’s a lovely modernist townhouse in its place these days.  So, you see, the Weathermen weren’t really leftist terrorists so much as just trying to raise property values. 

Hooray, the march of capitalism!  Hooray gentrification!

Seriously, though, I often walk down that particular block and try to imagine the village as it was back in the 60’s, when the blocks around NYU were considered slums fit only for leftist scheming.  I think it really underscores the huge changes of the last 40 years that the block where the weathermen had their lair is now full of multi million dollar row houses inhabited by the sorts of people who will sneer at you if you perch on their stoop for a moment to send a text message.

“Yellow Card or Red Card?… “

The Race Card.

I’m not attacking your femaleness, I’m attacking your idiocy.

I don’t know, this

(Sharon is pissed because Obama, & Obama’s connections, wouldn’t touch her skanky ass with a ten foot pole.)

seems pretty clearly to be an attack on someone’s femaleness. If Sharon were a male troll, would you have ever considered saying “Male troll is pissed because Obama wouldn’t touch his skanky ass”?

I know you’re being sarcastic, but the alleged “conspiracy” doesn’t seem very complex, and maybe I missed it but I did see anyone arguing that it is.

There’s a difference between the mechanics of the conspiracy and the content of the conspiracy. The thing that makes this a reach is the idea that these papers could contain something that would show that Obama is an America-hating, bomb-throwing, infant killing and eating (although really, it’s much better to kill them first, then eat them then it is to just eat them) terrorist out to destroy our way of life.

I’ve been thinking about Jesse’s post about the failure of the Dems to come up with a good John McCain is X strategy and I’m disturbed by how successful the Thugs have been at propagating a racist Obama is X campaign—specifically that “why does he deserve to be president other than his blackness” argument that has been slowly oozing through their messages.  It started with the stupid Paris Hilton ad but that whole “not ready to lead” thing is entirely a dog whistle for that “he’s not qualified, he’s just black..” thing that is spreading.  It is really grotesque.  Not surprising but grotesque.

Yeah, spending your time poking around archives to see whether Obama and Ayers drank from the same styrofoam cup during a meeting—not much of a conspiracy.  What exactly is the smoking gun they expect to find?  On the other hand—vanishing government e-mails?  Hmmm.

seems pretty clearly to be an attack on someone’s femaleness.

Maybe I’m being over-charitable to Atheist, but I read this as meaning that if Obama’s connections connected him to Sharon (or Sharon’s politics, at least), she wouldn’t be so worked up about this.  She’s not, for instance, worried about the implications of the Bushes’, Cheneys’, or McCains’ connections. 

Though “skanky” was probably uncalled for.

Besides which, I thought we decided that Sharon was definitely male?

I don’t really see a way to interpret the phrase “wouldn’t touch her skanky ass with a ten-foot pole” as anything other than a sexual reference. It could be, but if it is, it’s an incredibly poor choice of words to convey that meaning.

Um, am I the only one who finds the Obama= Daley machine, thing hilarious? I mean the fact that Obama won the 2004 Dem primary against the Daley machine’s choice would kind of make this “point” moot right?!

Sharon,

Before we focus on what someone who doesn’t actually hold political power did or didn’t do some 20 years ago, can we do something about the current administration’s crimes which have been admitted (FISA violations, Presidential records act violations, Convention against torture treaty violations), documented (Hatch act violations, Goodling and friends), or are still under investigation (too fucking many to count)?

Please?

I’ll even split the difference: you demonstrate any amount of concern for just half of the current admin’s criminal acts, I’ll force myself to give a shit about Ayers and one other offender to be named at a later date.

Deal?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Chicago has been known for decades for the Daley machine.

Right, and that’s why Ayers is working for the University of Illinois at Chicago, because the Daley machine is so far reaching even institutions of higher learning can’t escape it.

That lunatic blew up American buildings and killed our own people

You are a LIAR.  Ayers killed no one.

Oh, wait.  I just realized something.  Something good.

OK, so apparently being implicated in the accidental death of an American, on American soil, makes someone a domestic terrorist, right?  And any connection with such an individual, even a rather circumstantial professional connection which does not imply any social affinity or political sympathy, indicates that one is a terrorist sympathizer at the very least.

George W. Bush:  Terrorist

You see, back in the day, George’s wife, Laura, was at fault in a car accident that killed a friend of hers.  An accident that took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the USA, and which resulted in the death of at least one American national.  Ergo, she is a terrorist.  And, thus, since George W. Bush married her, he must at least be a terrorist sympathizer, if not a traitor, or possibly even a terrorist himself.

Hmm. I thought this was a feminist site. Shouldn’t Amanda be posting soon on what mouth-breathing troglodytes you are to attack my femaleness for opposing you politically? Down with Teh Patriarchy

L2Troll

Ur doin’ it wrong.

cwutidithur?

Besides which, I thought we decided that Sharon was definitely male?

In which case, my adjective ‘skanky’ still applies.

Definitions of skanky on the Web:

disgusting: highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust; “a disgusting smell”; “distasteful language”; “a loathsome disease”; “the idea of ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Skank is slang and a pejorative term used in English to describe a certain type of female. The term “skank” differs from that of “slut” in that whereas the latter implies only sexual promiscuity; the former also implies poor taste, personally degrading behaviour and low socioeconomic class. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skanky

in the manner of a skank
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skanky

Though “skanky” was probably uncalled for.

OK, you’re probably right… I’m sorry.

Do they realize that smearing Chicago might piss off people outside of Illinois in swing states, but within the Chicago media market (Wisconsin, Indiana)?

Hah! How naive. Those people see us all as FIBs.

The Chicago Tribune’s right-wing Mike Royko wannabe, John Kass, was all over this in today’s column, with his trademark cringe-inducing attempts at humor: “The Richard J. Daley Library don’t want nobody nobody sent.” (Apparently some jerkoff from the National Review ran into a roadblock in his attempt to get at some “documents” he thinks he can use to smear Obama with Ayers.)

“and the content of the conspiracy. The thing that makes this a reach is the idea that these papers could contain something that would show that Obama is an America-hating, bomb-throwing, infant killing and eating (although really, it’s much better to kill them first, then eat them then it is to just eat them) terrorist out to destroy our way of life.”

How do you know that’s what they’re looking for?  What if the “content of the conspiracy” is that here is a government project that Obama chaired, and it turned out to be a failure for its stated education purpose, and (given that it’s Chicago) probably involved some graft and improprieties along the way.

On whether criticizing Chicago-style politics would hurt McCain’s campaign, while it’s all speculation I doubt it.  From my experience living in Chicago people have a kind of fatalism about waste and corruption in the city and county government.  If someone argues about how corrupt Chicago is, they say “yeah, yeah,” then shrug their shoulders; I’ve never seen some deny the corruption and get angry at the allegation.  So from my experience it won’t have much negative effect, but others may have different opinions.

And Jesse, it’s Chicago. We know how Ayers got his job.

Uh…it’s IN Chicago, but it’s actually a **Federal and State Funded School** (The U and I stand for University of Illinois). He got his job the way most tenured professors do…by murdering the unborn and eating their souls.
Duh.

I think Wisconsin and Indiana regard us the way the rest of the world regards America…

Nah. If they hated us that much, their residents wouldn’t currently be clogging up my motherfucking morning commute train every day, to gawk at the fucking Bean.

The thing that makes this a reach is the idea that these papers could contain something that would show that Obama is an America-hating, bomb-throwing, infant killing and eating (although really, it’s much better to kill them first, then eat them then it is to just eat them) terrorist out to destroy our way of life.

Hmm, way too stuck on stupid here. The interest in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge information is to see how close Obama and Ayers are (because Obama has denied that they were anything more than acquaintances but that doesn’t pass the smell test) and to see if there was misuse of funds or other malfeasance. Obama has connections with a lot of unsavory sorts such as Ayers, Dohrn and Tony Rezko, who is not in jail. Barack Obama has put forth one version of his life in his books. But there are various things about his life that either don’t entirely add up or have been hidden (such as that he has asked various people who knew him in the past not to talk to the press without his consent). Now, it is understandable that Obama wants to control the message about who he is and what he stands for. But I would think good, upstanding liberals would argue that we should make sure the narrative he tells is at least close to the truth. Isn’t that what you demand of Republicans in every. single. election?

Atheist, you’re a sexist, just admit it. Your “skank” remark was an attack on my being a woman. What the reaction of most here—acceptance of your behavior—speaks of the hypocrisy so prevalent of your ilk. If a troll had called Amanda, Pam, or any commenter here a “skank,” you all would be having the vapors. But no. I disagreed with the men, so Teh Patriarchy is trying to keep me down.

Oops, that should read “Tony Rezko, who is in jail.”

good, upstanding liberals would argue that we should make sure the narrative he tells is at least close to the truth. Isn’t that what you demand of Republicans in every. single. election?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK, that is the funniest shit I have read in a loooooong time.

Yes, we demand the truth of Republicans…and that gets us so far, doesn’t it?

I mean, sure, in 2000 and 2004 the media was all over W for being a lazy, Connecticut-raised, draft dodging ex-coke-head who ran every business he touched into bankruptcy and had to be bailed out by the Bin Laden family, and while Gov. of Texas, he destroyed Texas schools (and lied about it), bilked the city of Arlington out of $9 million and made the taxpayers foot the bill for his baseball buddies’ new stadium, and “disappeared” only god knows how many millions out of the Texas Lottery profits (because he successfully killed the corruption investigation).

Oh, wait, no, that didn’t happen.

The media told us that W was a Vietnam War hero, a self-made Texas rancher and successful businessman, a Washington outsider who be a great CEO President, and that he oversaw the “Texas Miracle” of improving schools, and he would “bring honor and dignity” back to the White House after those sleazy, corrupt Democrats stole all the W’s from the computer keyboards.

But, hey, John Kerry shot himself with a grenade launcher and Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet, so it’s all fair, right?

You must not have been reading the same media I read, Dorothy. Because, in fact, most of what you say wasn’t reported was reported: about George W. Bush’s drinking, business dealings, governorship and more. And don’t forget: Democrats dropped the old DUI charge just before the election to try to affect the outcome.

So, please. Don’t argue that, somehow, Democrats haven’t tried to slime Republicans or bring out “facts” that help their candidate. I know you aren’t really concerned about what happened while Obama was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. It doesn’t bother you that, documentation that has been released, shows he really sucked and showed very poor judgment in the only executive position he’s ever held.

Sharon:

The interest in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge information is to see how close Obama and Ayers are (because Obama has denied that they were anything more than acquaintances but that doesn’t pass the smell test) and to see if there was misuse of funds or other malfeasance.

An interest spearheaded, no doubt, by people who don’t know the first fucking thing about how educational grants are written, approved, funded, or managed. Such as, for example, you.

Now, it is understandable that Obama wants to control the message about who he is and what he stands for. But I would think good, upstanding liberals would argue that we should make sure the narrative he tells is at least close to the truth.

Actually, what we’d do first is to make sure that the argument we want to make isn’t a blatant appeal to guilt by association based solely on Sean Hannity’s say-so.

Isn’t that what you demand of Republicans in every. single. election?

It’s what we demand, but it’s not what we get. Mostly because of people like you, funnily enough.

Don’t argue that, somehow, Democrats haven’t tried to slime Republicans or bring out “facts” that help their candidate.

There is a rather clear difference between facts and “facts” that has, apparently, been completely lost on you.

You must not have been reading the same media I read, Dorothy. Because, in fact, most of what you say wasn’t reported was reported: about George W. Bush’s drinking, business dealings, governorship and more.

Go out on the street and ask 100 people how many businesses Bush ran and what happened to any one of them. Ask them what Bush was doing in the Vietnam War. Then ask them how many of John Kerry’s medals were received under questionable circumstance.

Then come back and tell us what color the sky is in your world.

An interest spearheaded, no doubt, by people who don’t know the first fucking thing about how educational grants are written, approved, funded, or managed. Such as, for example, you.

It makes sense that you wouldn’t be interested in what went on at an Obama-chaired organization, given your viewpoint. But most people want to know why the hell Obama ran the organization into the ground as the documents we DO have show that the CAC was incompetent at educational reform and seemingly threw money around without any accountability (there wasn’t even an executive director for the first 2 years of Obama’s tenure). I hear frequently about all Obama’s experience and how that experience makes him presidential material. But the same people here that excoriate George W. Bush as a failure in business have no interest or curiosity about Barack Obama’s lack of experience or ineptitude at the one executive experience he had. To quote you, you don’t know the first fucking thing about any of it and don’t care.

Actually, what we’d do first is to make sure that the argument we want to make isn’t a blatant appeal to guilt by association based solely on Sean Hannity’s say-so.

If there’s no reason for Obama to be ashamed of his assocation with William Ayers, then he would have admitted up front that he and Ayers were more than passing acquantances. Again, we have a presidential candidate who has obfuscated about his associations in an attempt to appear less like them and more mainstream. I realize you probably think being uber-left is a good thing, but even Obama realizes he can’t win in America by appearing to be a real liberal. Believe me, I would loooove for Obama to spend more time talking about his experience, his accomplishments, and who he thinks would be terrific at advising him (beyond his wife, that is). But he doesn’t want to talk about anything but a handful of anecdotes that he thinks will make him look like a reg’lar guy. So, if he and Ayers weren’t friends, didn’t hang out together, didn’t agree on various ideas and philosophies, why would Ayers have chosen Obama for chairman of the CAC? Surely, there were others equally qualified. Why Obama?

It’s what we demand, but it’s not what we get. Mostly because of people like you, funnily enough.

I’m not in charge of all media, ok? And seriously, you guys try the gotcha attacks hourly. It’s not my fault your side is so inept that they keep stepping in it at every opportunity.

There is a rather clear difference between facts and “facts” that has, apparently, been completely lost on you.

Facts are important points worthy of debate and interest like, for example, what Obama did while chairman of the CAC. “Facts” is concern over how many houses John McCain has, as if Democrats don’t nominate rich guys or that owning a lot of property disqualifies a person for the presidency.

Who broke the DUI story nationally? Carl Cameron on Fox News, who got it from a reporter at their local affiliate.

The story was broken by Erin Fehlau, a local reporter and no fan of George Bush. I guess the idea that releasing the story right before the election might affect the outcome was just coincidence, right?

Sharon’s world is full of all sorts of odd “facts” that just happen to be untrue.

Yeah, like commenters on feminist sites aren’t sexist and that liberals are interested in the background of presidential candidates.

Go out on the street and ask 100 people how many businesses Bush ran and what happened to any one of them. Ask them what Bush was doing in the Vietnam War. Then ask them how many of John Kerry’s medals were received under questionable circumstance.

Jay Leno runs a segment nearly every week on how out of touch most Americans are. That doesn’t prove in any way that such information wasn’t reported, Dorothy.

I would say the sky in your world is black.

I’m a little late to this party, but know quite a bit about the Annenberg Challenge and on the off chance that you might want to know a little context, here’s what I know about Ayers, from my 2nd row seat as a school reform researcher in Chicago during the 1990’s.

Bill Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the big public campus in Chicago, and he’s in the School of Education (it is known as UIC—not the same as the University of Chicago, which is a big private research university where Obama taught Constitutional law, and not Chicago State University, which is a former teachers college that has become a comprehensive state university—people from out of town get these confused all the time). Ayers has been deeply involved in Chicago school reform since he arrived in 1990 (I think that was the year—I didn’t arrive until 1993, so I’m not sure) and if you have any connection to education reform programs, either as a teacher, social services person, administrator, or researcher, you know who he is.  If you are at all interested in or involved in anything having to do with school reform in Chicago, you are eventually going to cross paths with him. Love him or hate him (and there are plenty of people on both sides), Ayers is very involved in school reform issues and he’s a big personality, so you have to interact with him.  Since I was in graduate school (not at UIC) studying teacher education in the city of Chicago, and simultaneously conducting paid research on school reform, I knew Bill Ayers. I sat in on countless meetings where he was a participant or a presenter, and conducted two formal research interviews with him—one for my dissertation and one for my paid research work. 

Since I was a little kid during the 60’s and 70’s (born in 1965), I personally didn’t know about the “terrorist” stuff until much later (I think about 1999 or 2000), when I read a book that involved Ayers’ son as a major character (A Hope in the Unseen by Ron Suskind—this book is based on the articles for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.  It has nothing to do with politics—it tells the story of an inner-city Washington DC student who makes it to Brown University).  There’s a chapter in that book where Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, attend parents’ weekend at Brown University, and Suskind described their radical past with the Weathermen.  It’s rather comical, because, as Suskind points out, at that point in their lives, they were part of the upper middle class establishment that they were (at least in part) fighting against as Weathermen. 

I also first encountered Obama through Chicago school reform research.  He was the Chair of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, a big multi-city school reform effort sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation. It was through seeing and hearing about him in this context that I became interested in his political career (he resigned as chair of the Annenberg Board in order to run for Congress in 2000. He lost that bid).  Bill Ayers was one of a group of people who put together the initial grant to Annenberg in 1994—he and Obama certainly crossed paths through that endeavor, since they were both major players, though in different contexts.  Needless to say, I don’t think it says anything about Obama that he knows Bill Ayers. If you were involved in school reform in Chicago in any way—and Obama was, through more than one venue—you’d have to know him. And I would guess that most people who were involved in school reform in Chicago and were kids during the Weathermen phase of Ayers’ life had no idea about that, and perhaps still don’t unless they’ve been following the news lately. 

So, though I realize that this line of argument has very little to do with actual context and facts, these are the ones I know and I thought it might be helpful to some people to know this.  And A Hope in the Unseen is a great book! Read it!

Go out on the street and ask 100 people how many businesses Bush ran and what happened to any one of them. Ask them what Bush was doing in the Vietnam War. Then ask them how many of John Kerry’s medals were received under questionable circumstance.

Jay Leno runs a segment nearly every week on how out of touch most Americans are. That doesn’t prove in any way that such information wasn’t reported, Dorothy.

Holy Non Sequitur, Batman! Please go look up the phrase “all over the story”, then check in on the Pew Research Center studies regarding the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories per candidate and the breakdown of misinformed viewers per media outlet. You can also pull the those articles yourself from Lexus, and check out the detailed poll results on each candidate—some of them even mention these issues in particular. Or, if you’re lazy, you can just go to mediamatters.org or the dailyhowler.com.

I would say the sky in your world is black.

Yes, it is, and I’ll tell you why:

Because W fucked over my state, sold his soul to Rove and Cheney to steal the White House, and then tore the Constitution into tiny shreds and wiped his ass with it. And while all this is going on, the damned media is fawning over how good Bush’s “package” looks in the damned flight suit (when he was removed from flight status in the National Guard) and how manly he looks “clearing brush” on his fake former-pig-farm of a “ranch”. 

But Jay Leno made some jokes, so that makes it all even-steven, I suppose.

An interest spearheaded, no doubt, by people who don’t know the first fucking thing about how educational grants are written, approved, funded, or managed. Such as, for example, you.

It makes sense that you wouldn’t be interested in what went on at an Obama-chaired organization, given your viewpoint.

It’s not that I’m not interested, it’s just that I’m pretty sure you’re lying about it. There’s a difference.

But most people want to know why the hell Obama ran the organization into the ground as the documents we DO have show that the CAC was incompetent at educational reform and seemingly threw money around without any accountability (there wasn’t even an executive director for the first 2 years of Obama’s tenure).

If those documents are anything like the ones that “show” that Obama was born simultaneously in Kenya, Hawaii, and Indonesia on seven different days over a span of six years, I think you’re going to have to find some different ones.

Actually, what we’d do first is to make sure that the argument we want to make isn’t a blatant appeal to guilt by association based solely on Sean Hannity’s say-so.

If there’s no reason for Obama to be ashamed of his assocation with William Ayers, then he would have admitted up front that he and Ayers were more than passing acquantances.

Clearly, it never occurred to you even for a second that he’s actually telling the truth about his association with William Ayers. Also, you’re a complete fucking liar. What Obama said publicly about his association with Ayers was exactly what you’ve just suggested he say:

“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 eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George [Stephanopolous].”

For what it’s worth, the list of people I could classify as a guy I know with whom I don’t exchange ideas on a regular basis and whose actions do not reflect on me or my career in any way includes Lance Armstrong and John Corigliano. And I’m not famous, by any stretch of the imagination.

But he doesn’t want to talk about anything but a handful of anecdotes that he thinks will make him look like a reg’lar guy.

You mean like Bush did in 2000? Yeah. Because surely, no American would ever be dumb or shallow enough to fall for that strategy.

So, if he and Ayers weren’t friends, didn’t hang out together, didn’t agree on various ideas and philosophies, why would Ayers have chosen Obama for chairman of the CAC? Surely, there were others equally qualified. Why Obama?

Well, I don’t know about you, but before I was hired at my current job, and even during the interview process, my boss and I weren’t friends, didn’t hang out together, and had no earthly idea what each others’ ideas and philosophies were. I’m sure that he had several other equally qualified candidates to choose from, even. But by your logic, my boss and I were ipso facto BFFs and political cronies before we ever even worked together, simply by virtue of the fact that he hired me instead of someone else.

It’s what we demand, but it’s not what we get. Mostly because of people like you, funnily enough.

I’m not in charge of all media, ok?

Who do you think their key demographic is?

And seriously, you guys try the gotcha attacks hourly. It’s not my fault your side is so inept that they keep stepping in it at every opportunity.

On the contrary, it is completely, totally, 100% your fault that you’re so pathologically incapable of processing reality that you’d honestly, truly believe something like “our side is so inept that…oh, look! A chipmunk!”

There is a rather clear difference between facts and “facts” that has, apparently, been completely lost on you.

Facts are important points worthy of debate and interest like, for example, what Obama did while chairman of the CAC.

Shorter Sharon: “A fact is whatever Sean Hannity says is a fact.”

“Facts” is concern over how many houses John McCain has, as if Democrats don’t nominate rich guys or that owning a lot of property disqualifies a person for the presidency.

Wow. It’s almost like you really do believe that the only possible reason anyone could ever object to McCain being unable to remember how many houses he has while simultaneously calling his opponent an out-of-touch elitist is because, well, we just don’t like rich people.

Stoopid.

Atheist, you’re a sexist, just admit it. Your “skank” remark was an attack on my being a woman.

Please come to Chicago. We’ll eat your lunch, stupid cobag.

Holy Non Sequitur, Batman!

Holy, you don’t get out much do you, Batman! I brought up Jay Leno to show that regardless of how well-known information is, most people just don’t pay attention to it. And really. Media Matters and Daily Howler are NOT objective sources of anything. Both distort conservative speech and ideas in ways that if they were liberals, the same groups would be excoriating the claims.

And Dorothy, you still aren’t paying attention to major media. Pics of George Bush clearing brush from his ranch are probably 1/10 of the pics we’ve had the NYT run about how godawful the war is and we shouldn’t go and shouldn’t have gone and omg look at all the innocent civilians we killed!!!1!!!11! The problem is, you can’t tolerate any positive press of this president. I hope you get the same coverage of a Democrat president as you desire for this one. Then let’s hear you complain about it.

It’s not that I’m not interested, it’s just that I’m pretty sure you’re lying about it. There’s a difference.

No, I’m not lying about anything, but I really wouldn’t expect someone making these sorts of accusations to have the intellectual curiosity to know the difference.

If those documents are anything like the ones that “show” that Obama was born simultaneously in Kenya, Hawaii, and Indonesia on seven different days over a span of six years, I think you’re going to have to find some different ones.

This has nothing to do with the silliness over Obama’s birth certificate (which, oddly, he didn’t produce until now? Why not just produce the bona fides back when that stupidity started?). The papers in question concerned evaluations of the effectiveness of the CAC, which said that the organization had no effect on the schools it was supposed to be helping.

Clearly, it never occurred to you even for a second that he’s actually telling the truth about his association with William Ayers. Also, you’re a complete fucking liar. What Obama said publicly about his association with Ayers was exactly what you’ve just suggested he say

Obama has changed his story on William Ayers multiple times. Why don’t you put away the vindictiveness towards anyone not impressed with HopeNChange and actually pay attention to Obama’s words and actions.

For what it’s worth, the list of people I could classify as a guy I know with whom I don’t exchange ideas on a regular basis and whose actions do not reflect on me or my career in any way includes Lance Armstrong and John Corigliano. And I’m not famous, by any stretch of the imagination.

Did they help your political career? Donate to your campaigns? Hold fundraisers for you at their homes?

You mean like Bush did in 2000? Yeah. Because surely, no American would ever be dumb or shallow enough to fall for that strategy.

Nah, I was thinking of John Kerry pretending to eat at Wendy’s. You know, that kind of fakery you guys approve of.

But by your logic, my boss and I were ipso facto BFFs and political cronies before we ever even worked together, simply by virtue of the fact that he hired me instead of someone else.

But Obama claimed that he knew Ayers before the CAC. That would be before he worked for Ayers. So, it wasn’t as though he dropped off a resume at an impersonal office and then was chosen because he was the most qualified candidate out of the stack. He had contacts with Ayers already. Did you know, in some sense, any sense, your supervisor before you applied for your job?

Who do you think their key demographic is?

Who’s? Obama’s? I would say young, ill-informed people.

On the contrary, it is completely, totally, 100% your fault that you’re so pathologically incapable of processing reality that you’d honestly, truly believe something like “our side is so inept that…oh, look! A chipmunk!”

You’ve yet to show a single example of this. Is there some talking points you guys get every morning? If so, you need something new because this one isn’t working for you. Well, with anyone who can read.

Shorter Sharon: “A fact is whatever Sean Hannity says is a fact.”

Shorter Dan: I can’t argue, so I figure I can win by just throwing Sean Hannity in there.

Wow. It’s almost like you really do believe that the only possible reason anyone could ever object to McCain being unable to remember how many houses he has while simultaneously calling his opponent an out-of-touch elitist is because, well, we just don’t like rich people.

Well, I do think you object to John McCain for reasons that are just a bunch of straw. After all, your presidential candidate in 2004 was the richest man in the Senate, who had far more property than John McCain owns. Yet, somehow, you thought he was a great guy, in-touch with the common man, not elitist in any sense of the word. What word am I looking for? Oh yeah, hypocrisy.

Please come to Chicago. We’ll eat your lunch, stupid cobag.

Dude, I’m a native Texan. You brought a knife to a gunfight. But I like how you don’t have a real argument. So, keep calling me names, please. It gives me more ammunition.

Dude, I’m a native Texan. You brought a knife to a gunfight.

Yawn. If you’re afraid to come up, that’s fine.

But please keep dissing Chicago, choad.

Sharon:

It’s not that I’m not interested, it’s just that I’m pretty sure you’re lying about it. There’s a difference.

No, I’m not lying about anything, but I really wouldn’t expect someone making these sorts of accusations to have the intellectual curiosity to know the difference.

The fact that you claim not to be lying isn’t proof that you’re not lying.

The papers in question concerned evaluations of the effectiveness of the CAC, which said that the organization had no effect on the schools it was supposed to be helping.

Well, that’s just terrible. I mean, that’s just so much worse than not being able to find oil in Texas and running a Major League Baseball franchise into the ground. IOKIYAR, and all.

Clearly, it never occurred to you even for a second that he’s actually telling the truth about his association with William Ayers. Also, you’re a complete fucking liar. What Obama said publicly about his association with Ayers was exactly what you’ve just suggested he say

Obama has changed his story on William Ayers multiple times.

- “I served on the board of a public-service organization with him”
- “he donated $200 to my campaign and once held a fundraiser at his house”
- “our relationship was friendly but businesslike”
- “a guy I know who I don’t exchange ideas with on a regular basis”
- “somebody once mentioned me at his house while I wasn’t there”

Clearly, all of these descriptors are wildly different.

You mean like Bush did in 2000? Yeah. Because surely, no American would ever be dumb or shallow enough to fall for that strategy.

Nah, I was thinking of John Kerry pretending to eat at Wendy’s. You know, that kind of fakery you guys approve of.

Shorter Sharon: “I know you are, but what am I.”

But by your logic, my boss and I were ipso facto BFFs and political cronies before we ever even worked together, simply by virtue of the fact that he hired me instead of someone else.

But Obama claimed that he knew Ayers before the CAC. That would be before he worked for Ayers. So, it wasn’t as though he dropped off a resume at an impersonal office and then was chosen because he was the most qualified candidate out of the stack. He had contacts with Ayers already. Did you know, in some sense, any sense, your supervisor before you applied for your job?

Of course I did. But that’s the point, isn’t it? It’s not even slightly unusual to hire someone you know over someone you don’t. It’s also not even slightly unusual to do the opposite.

Who do you think their key demographic is?

Who’s? Obama’s? I would say young, ill-informed people.

I spend most of my day with young, ill-informed people, what with working at a high school, and all. In my experience, most of them are much better able to draw conclusions based on logical extrapolation from verifiable facts than you are.

On the contrary, it is completely, totally, 100% your fault that you’re so pathologically incapable of processing reality that you’d honestly, truly believe something like “our side is so inept that…oh, look! A chipmunk!”

You’ve yet to show a single example of this.

You’ve yet to show that you’re capable of substantiating your claims with anything more valuable than repetition. As such, I don’t really have to do anything at all.

Shorter Dan: I can’t argue, so I figure I can win by just throwing Sean Hannity in there.

I guess, then, that it’s just a complete coincidence that nobody thought anything was out of the ordinary about CAC’s activities until Hannity decided to make it a major campaign issue, right?

No, surely not! There must be some kind of cover-up. I’ll bet the Bilderbergs are involved, somehow.

Wow. It’s almost like you really do believe that the only possible reason anyone could ever object to McCain being unable to remember how many houses he has while simultaneously calling his opponent an out-of-touch elitist is because, well, we just don’t like rich people.

Well, I do think you object to John McCain for reasons that are just a bunch of straw. After all, your presidential candidate in 2004 was the richest man in the Senate, who had far more property than John McCain owns. Yet, somehow, you thought he was a great guy, in-touch with the common man, not elitist in any sense of the word. What word am I looking for? Oh yeah, hypocrisy.

Ironic that you’d use the word “straw,” considering that the only reason you can think of that we might object to McCain’s gaffe is one that you yourself made up, not one that we’ve actually expressed ourselves.

So thank you for proving my point for me.

Yawn. If you’re afraid to come up, that’s fine.

How old are you? 13?