The purpose of the NY Times article, silly, is to give cover to the upcoming Ayers Smear Campaign. It's Play #23 in the VRWC Playbook.

Or don't you look at polls...

CHALABI/McCAIN

How about McCain/Palin have close ties to man who illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia and killed many innocent people. His lasting legacy in Vietnam is that people today still lose limbs and have cancer from his policies.

Why is the press afraid to attack Mr K for his ties to Nixon, Vietnam, and all the other shit he pulled during his stint as Secretary of State?

I wish I had copied the shifting headlines and lead-ins of the article in the last 12 hours: they've changed at least twice. When I first saw the article last night, the piece was central on the front page, with a photograph of Ayers from his long-hair days; the headline was provocative, suggesting Obama had some substantive relationship with Ayers; the lead-in sentence under the head was something like, "Obama tries to distance himself from Ayers." I read the article and thought the headline and teaser were, um, overstatement...

This morning, the piece is no longer the central, with-photograph attraction. Instead, the article is now just below the new attraction, and it's announced with the somewhat less suggestive headline of "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" with the much more honest teaser of "A review of records suggests that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weathermen, were not close."

Its not about logical connections, but about tweaking anti-radical brain circuits, and connecting them the Obama. They activate the "weatherman were violent wack-jobs" circuit, and the negative emotions associated with it, and then the Obama connection. Even though the logic doesn't support the connection, the brains neural networks for the two (weathermen and Obama nets), now have some association, i.e. either one, activates the other. Some of the emotional baggage associated with the weatherman, rubs off onto Obama. That is the point of the exercise. The rightwing think tanks who think up these strategies, are aware of this.

inoculation....

As usual, the Right are convinced that reviving the 1960s is a surefire winner for them. Wait for them to wheel out Bobby Seale or Stokeley Carmichael.

i wonder why they haven't tried to find out what mr. ayer's political views currently are. my guess is that information would so mess up their story line.......

orange

The Republicans remain firmly stuck in the '60s. The simple math that Obama was a child then, too young to be a flower child, escapes them.

If the Congress becomes Republican while Obama is President, expect a multimillion dollar investigation of this non-issue.

Amazing, I just mentioned Obama's response to the Ayers "association" in my response to Stranger a few threads down.

Here's why the NYT is reporting it: Every presidential campaign over the past 40 years has been about the 1960s, in one way or another. White resentment over civil rights. Liberals responsible for defeat in Vietnam. Everyone left of center is a DFH radical.

It's why Hillary lost the primary, it's why McCain is losing now, and it's also why the national press pays any attention whatsoever to Bill Ayers' flimsy "association" with Obama: because noone in the business has never had to play this game on any turf other than the 1960s, and they don't know how to do it.

It's a frame that's been very helpful to Republicans for the past 40 years, but has no meaning to the majority of the population who is under 50 years old.

More to the point, it's a frame that cannot work against a candidate who was a child during the 60s, who both knows that's a specious frame to use for addressing the problems we face today and who cannot be held responsible for anything that happened then.

We keep hearing about how this is a "change" election, and the press continues to interpret that as "change from Republican to Democratic domination". Well, that may be true, but that's not the biggest truth. It's a change election because from here on out, we aren't going to be framing everything in terms of what happened 40 years ago. And the people who knew how to run campaigns on other ground, or cover them, have all long since retired. So it's perhaps inevitable that we will see them revert to bad habits this time around - it's the only thing they know how to do. Is it going to work? Not this time.

"We can, of course, look forward to the Times' 2,100-word piece on the Keating Five now, right? You know, just to help push the story back into the political discussion of the day?"

not gonna hold my breath. btw, i've met obama several times and i took a class at UIC with ayers several years ago. where does that leave me?

Wen Ho Lee

The National Enquirer has higher standards than the NYT.

This reminds me of the NYT story in February about Obama's drug past. One gets the impression that the Times pays reporters by the word.

I'm wondering if Ross Perot (who absolutely hates McCain) will inject his comments into this campaign at some point.

First off, it might be a little tough--or at least ironic and certainly hypocritical-- for the McCain camp to use the NY Times as the launching pad for attacks based on this article, given they have called it a non-journalistic entity.

The problem with this as an attack area is that it's already out there, and I think most people who might conceivably vote for Obama (the 55% he hopes to achieve) have absorbed and discounted this already. And the economic news over the next month is going to reinforce people's interest in solutions, not desperate attacks.

I. hope.

The whole meme is kind of absurd. The money for the Annenberg Challenge was given by Walter Annenberg, who was a Republican newspaper publisher who served as Nixon's ambassador to London. I am dubious that anything Walter Annenberg was involved in was some sort of radical leftist project.

I'm going to go out on a limb and try to give NYT the benefit of the doubt. Now I have only read portions of the article, but maybe, just maybe the article was written because they know that McCain is going to be bringing Ayers back into the conversation and the NYT is preemptively trying to tell the public that was not paying attention during the primaries that there really is nothing to the allegations so that when they hear about it, they will know that McCain is grasping at straws.

That said, I do want to see the NYT report on the parallels of our current economic crisis and the Keating scandal.

"The problem with this as an attack area is that it's already out there, and I think most people who might conceivably vote for Obama (the 55% he hopes to achieve) have absorbed and discounted this already. "

I wonder if the "Bradley Effect" is as much part of our quickly-fading past as are the 60s? If not, if the Bradley Effect is still in force, then Obama should be aiming for something like 62%-64% in the polls to barely squeak out a popular vote victory in the election.

We need to hear from the jailed Duke Cunningham, who's part of the group, Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain . Surely a jailhouse interview would reap lots of dirt from Hanoi, and just may hasten the release of those papers which allegedly prove John McCain's traitorous behavior.

We also need to demonstrate how McCain's connection to the mafia led to the disappearance of Chandra Levy. ;-)

Sink the swiftboat!

My husband just handed me the front section of the national edition. It's pretty obnoxious and my own spontaneous reaction was "WTF?"

There's a DFH photo of Ayers, from 1982. The story itself, written by Scott Shane, is above the fold on the left, next to the bailout plan story that occupies the rest of the page. It has the same head that mossie notes, but it has a ludicrous, DFH lead-in that intones: "At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants in 1969 . . ." Here's the language:

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. [emphasis mine]

A review of records leads the journalist to these conclusions, but his conclusions are larded with notions about intent? Shane can discern that Obama has actually played down an association? "But" that they appear not to have been close?

How does "But" follow logically? And why are we reading this story at all?

"I'm not even sure what the point of the article is..."

It looks to me like a vaccination for both the NYT and Obama. It doesn't bother me much given Obama's lead.

This reminds me of this week's story in The WaPo about Biden's financial history. How he knew a lot of the people he did business with, but never got a great deal from any of them ... as far as we know. After 36 years as a powerful senator he has two mortgages worth $710,000 on his $3Mil "estate".

The problem with John McCain and Sarah Palin is that their ethical issues are clear and obvious, and there is nothing left to the imagination.

I saw Mayor Daley of Chicago, whose father was Mayor during the Weatherman Days of Rage, led by Bill Ayers, speak well of Ayers in an interview during the Democratic Convention. Shouldn't that put this all into perspective? McCain led the effort to normalize relationships with Vietnam, for crying out loud!

Good points, Jennifer@10.24a

From the Times:

"In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, 'How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?'"

Remind me again, what did you do in the war, John?

It was hard to drag myself to the tv for the debate. I suspected Joe would fall into a trap, and Sarah would rally. Glad I was wrong. I've also feared an "October surprise" but if this is all they got, it's clearly a sign, instead, of a thug's last gasp.

Go home you angry little man.

Puhleeze! The article itself and its physical placement are closer to NYT snark. It's an attempt to disarm a talking point, nothing more. I saw it on the website last night, but as usual, wanted to see its placement in the Saturday paper.

First, the headline...Ayers is not in the title. He's a '60's Bomber.' They point out Obama's age at the time of the bombing. They point out how Ayers has been forgiven in Chicago, and it's not unusual to forgive a person's past in that region. Finally, they end with the fact Obama had his first political gathering at a Rabbi's house, and the real leftists are upset that Obama isn't a leftist.

In other words, those extremist republicans are going to end up with some very limp noodles. The leftists are mad Obama is not a leftist. Yes, it says it more than once, so I did too.

The front page printed layout has the article, boxed with a thin line, upper front left corner. It does not drop to the fold. And oh...the story on Obama winning Florida? The headline is clear and bold under the '60's Bomber' story. Only after you read what is on the front page (jumped inside) do you get the reason for running the story is ... there's not much to the story. But they spill and display a lot of ink to deliberately leave the reader empty. So it's not a hit piece at all. They just did him a New York Times Style full page and a quarter favor.

It's a frame that's been very helpful to Republicans for the past 40 years, but has no meaning to the majority of the population who is under 50 years old.

As I've said all along, if you tell most people under 50 that Obama is friends with a former Weatherman, they're going to think you mean a meteorologist.

It's fascinating to me that the Republicans are convinced that the best way to lead us into the 21st century is to pretend that it's still 1968.

Great post, kravitz. A sophisticated take on what no doubt the NYT was attempting. My 83-year-old dad, however, will see only the DFH photograph and the "some say" suggestion of radical connections and feel confirmed in his biases against Obama.

But he's a lost cause anyway. Last week he declared to me: "The NRA told me Obama's going to take away my guns." I bit my tongue. I wanted to say, Thank God, dad, because you can hardly see to shoot straight. I merely observed, instead, that the NRA was misrepresenting Obama's record.

Meanwhile, just yesterday it seems, the Obama campaign--with the NRA in its, ahem, sights--is running an incredibly effective TV ad on gun rights that speaks directly to the NRA propaganda. You have a hunter/farmer speaking directly into the camera about why he's supporting Obama. He's a Colorado physical type: the ruddy coloring and sandy mustache and a speaking style that is both gruff and articulate. He's standing next to his truck. Then he's out in the field with a firearm that my father could probably identify. Finally, you know you can trust this guy, because he has a hunting dog. A yellow labrador. Perfection.

It's like McDonald's winning the argument with the now health-conscious mom, cited in Omnivore's Dilemma: "But mom, you can get a salad at McDonald's. Can we please go?"

The Obama campaign is taking away every excuse a wavering voter might have. Obama won't take your guns. You can vote for him now.

There is a myth that Ayers has refused to condemn what he did as a radical. In fact, he has stated that, he still does not regret his opposition to the Vietnam War -- as he shouldn't, he was right to do that -- but he has admitted his tactics were wrong and that his opposition should be peaceful.

Just something to use to someone who decides to try and use the Ayers connection.

This is all that we need to know about the corporate media and their evil double standards:

Mainstream Media Stand To Receive $1.44 Billion From McCain’s Tax Cuts»

Think this article debunked the smear? In the Rovian technique, here's a possible McCain ad composed entirely of pullquotes just from the Times piece:

The New York Times says "Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol."
The New York Times says that Obama, like Ayers, has "a stealth radical agenda."
The New York Times says that Obama is an "ambitious politician... trying to keep his distance" but that he "has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers" a man who even now says "I don’t regret setting bombs."
According to the New York Times Obama "praised a book by Ayers" and "Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign"
Keep his distance? Hardly.
John McCain says, “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?�
Obama and the domestic terrorist Ayers. Two of a kind. Just ask the New York Times.

Wouldn't be surprised to see something like this at all.

The NYT is merely regurgitating the same Kurtz material in the form of a fluff piece. I doubt many Times readers read the WSJ.

The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false, said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

The question conservative critics have been asking is .. did the Chicago Annenberg Challenge provide an opportunity for "fellow travelers" to work together ? The answer seems to be "yes".

Right, Porrofatto--although I agree with others here that, demographically, these news stories work only with the 50+ voters, for whom the DFH notion evokes a visceral reaction.

Here's the problem: my elderly dad and his ilk, out in the hinterlands, get the national edition of the NYT at home and read the political news with interest but largely for cover. Cover for criticism that they're just Drudge-reading right-wing bigots. (My dad doesn't read Drudge, but he does get viral right-wing hate emails from friends and the NRA and the George C. Marshall Institute.)

And his takeaway from the Ayers story will not be that of, say, kravitz, upthread. Nor was his takeaway from the misbegotten New Yorker cover (Obama and Michelle in radical muslim black panther garb--hah-hah, rotfl) that of uber-sophisticate David Remnick. His takeaway will be what he already believes about Obama, and now he thinks (granted, wrongly) that he has respectable intellectual cover because it was a front-page story on the NYT.

One could therefore argue, as I think Steve Benen is, that the NYT editors are being too clever by half, inserting a politically volatile nonstory in the final weeks of perhaps the most important election of pretty much everyone's lifetime.

John McCain personally murdered helpless, defenseless, innocent Vietnamese women and children by dropping bombs on them.

Bill Ayers has got nothing on John McCain when it comes to "bombings that could have or did kill innocent people".

Of course, to the Republican base -- at whom the McCain campaign's attack ads are directed -- the Vietnamese aren't "people", any more than Iraqis are "people".

And killing "gooks" and "ragheads" with napalm bombs is pretty much considered "sport" -- not much different from Sarah Palin gunning down wolves from a helicopter.

We can, of course, look forward to the Times' 2,100-word piece on the Keating Five now, right? You know, just to help push the story back into the political discussion of the day?

How about a compare and contrast story about the sordid details of Troopergate and the US attorney purges?

John McCain personally murdered helpless, defenseless, innocent Vietnamese women and children by dropping bombs on them.

OK, SecAn. I hear you. McCain is a hypocrite and war is terrible and Sarah Palin supports reprehensible and inhumane hunting practices.

Meanwhile, there's an election we need to win and your argument just alienated old white guys who, if cajoled and charmed and reasoned with, might vote for Obama-Biden this November.

Let's push Sarah Palin's association with a Party (Alaskan Independence Party) that wants to secede from the USA, and her husband was a member. Let's push John McCain's association (his wife!) with a person who stole and took narcotic drugs!

I'm not even sure what the point of the article is; it simply reinforces what anyone who cares about facts already knows: the reports of Obama's "close ties" to Ayers are absurd.

There you go - you *do* know the point of the story.

What do you call an investigative reporter who won't investigate? A Timesman.

The point is: Obama lied about his relationship with Bill Ayers from the very beginning. Kurtz has documented that Obama was chosen by Ayers at the behest of Annenberg Challenge management at Brown University who requested "ethical diversity" on the board. Ayers chose Obama to be Board Director as a result of that request from Annenberg Challenge director Gregorian. The arguments from the right-wing that Ayers is a radical socialist are pathetic, in my view; however, the criticism that Obama has disguised and hidden his relationship with Ayers from the beginning, is verifiable and credible. So, the point is--it's not the Ayers radicalism that is in question; it's the Obama lies about his relationship with Bill Ayers on the Board of the Woods Fund and the Annenberg Challenge that is in question. The Annenberg Challenge provided funding for a diverse array of projects during its failed tenure; Obama received political power by his presence as Board Chair. To what ends did he utilize that political power? And, did this Board position enable him to travel in highly influential political circles, meeting people like Rod Blagojevich, Mayor Daley, Emil Jones, and Tony Rezko among others? Of course. Those associations--and why he lied about them--are central to this issue. Get the cluebird, folks?

The question conservative critics have been asking is .. did the Chicago Annenberg Challenge provide an opportunity for "fellow travelers" to work together ? The answer seems to be "yes".

So Neo, are you going to accuse Walter Annenberg of associating with terrorists? he's the one who approved the grant application Ayers filed.

So fucking absurd....

All of you covering for Obama have one major problem, Ayers threw a political launch party for Obama at his home and Obama attended. Now, say what you want about their working relationship but throwing a party indicates a familiarity.

Obama knowing who Ayers is and still attending shows either lack of judgment or that Obama accepted Ayer's ideology without concern.

Obama needs to explain how he can attend a party thrown by a terrorists in his honor.

This is really, really good news for Obama's campaign. It shows just how desperate the McJerk people have become. They are playing to the hardest of their hard-core base now. That's what they've been reduced to.

Very few Republicans care about William Ayers. Oh, they'll pretend to care, or at least some of them will. But if you had a candid conversation with Republicans, most of them would be scratching their heads and saying, "Who cares?"

Only the hardest-core wingnuts give a damn about this, but that's who McJerk is forced to play to, otherwise what's left of his campaign will collapse and he'll be lucky to get 35%. So he's quite literally being forced into this.

Step back an inch or two and McJerk is in dire straits. He's just conceded Michigan. He doesn't have a prayer in Pennsylvania. Ohio is slipping out of his grasp, and Obama is kicking ass and taking names in Virginia and now North Carolina. He's even getting ready to take Indiana, for God's sakes.

And now McJerk is going to waltz into Tuesday's town hall debate and start ranting about William Ayers. This, in a setting that is tailor-made for congeniality, in a year where the dial testing shows that people really disapprove of attacks by either candidate.

At the moment, Obama is up by 8 points. If McJerk is stupid enough to really do what his campaign says he'll do -- and I think he's pretty much locked into it -- then we're looking at an Eisenhower-sized landslide! It's remarkable to watch how fast McJerk's operation has fallen apart.

I predict that by the end of October, Obama will be turning his attention to congressional races, campaigning to "Change Congress Too." Who'd have ever thought it would end so badly for McJerk?!

All of you covering for Obama have one major problem, Ayers threw a political launch party for Obama at his home and Obama attended. Now, say what you want about their working relationship but throwing a party indicates a familiarity.

Obama knowing who Ayers is and still attending shows either lack of judgment or that Obama accepted Ayer's ideology without concern.

Are you STUPID or what?

Y'all have no clue what Ayers is or what his ideology (supported by the Chicago establishment, much of which is Republican) actually is.

Grow up, dimster; the 60s ended 40 years ago.

All of you covering for Obama have one major problem, Ayers threw a political launch party for Obama at his home and Obama attended. Now, say what you want about their working relationship but throwing a party indicates a familiarity.

Obama knowing who Ayers is and still attending shows either lack of judgment or that Obama accepted Ayer's ideology without concern.

Are you STUPID or what?

Y'all have no clue what Ayers is or what his ideology (supported by the Chicago establishment, much of which is Republican) actually is.

Grow up, dimster; the 60s ended 40 years ago.

Personally, I think the OTHER folks who've served with Ayers on Foundation boards may have a case for libel....

"We can, of course, look forward to the Times' 2,100-word piece on the Keating Five now, right?"

"We just want truth, we want fairness" -- Sarah Palin

I suspect there will be no article, no truth and no fairness.

"Obama needs to explain how he can attend a party thrown by a terrorists in his honor."
Posted by: JimC on October 4, 2008

As I understand it he never did attend a party thrown by a TERRORIST. He attended a party thrown by an education professor who believes in peaceful means to political change.

McCain needs to explain why he continues to annoy us when it's obvious he loves George Bush and hugs him every time they're near. He doesn't even blush at the implications. They're very close. Somebody should ask him when he last spoke to Dubya.

It's all garbage we don't really need in campaigns for the presidency.

None of the entire "guilt by association" meme seems to note that Ayers was never convicted of any crime. Perhaps because he was innocent; certainly because the lawyers hired by his father, head of ConEd in Chicago, did their job.

And the fact that he's a professor in Chicago, instead of Lost Overshoe, Idaho, probably has something to do with Dad's contacts.

Since that's the same way that McCain got through Annapolis and Pensacola, you have to wonder why he's so sore at the guy.

Steve, did you miss the interview where Ayers himself proclaimed that he was proud of setting bombs and felt "he hadn't done enough?"

With exquisite timing, it was published in the New York Times on September 11, 2001.

Who needs a conviction, we have his proud confession. To quote Bill Ayers, "Guilty as sin, free as a bird."

Steve, did you miss the interview where Ayers himself proclaimed that he was proud of setting bombs and felt "he hadn't done enough

You obviously didn't read the rest of the article for comprehension.

Quote mining is not nearly enough.

By the way...when are YOU going after the head of the Prebysterian Seminary that also served with Ayers?

Nadine, I think YOU missed the interview.

Ayers proclaimed that he was proud of his opposition to Vietnam, but that his methods at the time were wrong. "Hadn't done enough" is not a reference to increased bombing, it is a reference to getting the message of the protest across.

In other words, he was saying his regret is he could have done more to disseminate his beliefs ... e.g. taking a more peaceful approach than what he chose at the time.

I am not defending any action he took - I am just clarifying the quote.

As a librarian I will offer you an important piece of advice:

You may find in the future that reading an entire interview -- instead of relying on selected segments from an editorial writer -- will provide you with fact as opposed to opinion, and will enable you to form your own views based on the facts, as opposed basing your views on some writer's own personal bias. Just a thought.

Nadine, I think YOU missed the interview.

Ayers proclaimed that he was proud of his opposition to Vietnam, but that his methods at the time were wrong. "Hadn't done enough" is not a reference to increased bombing, it is a reference to getting the message of the protest across.

In other words, he was saying his regret is he could have done more to disseminate his beliefs ... e.g. taking a more peaceful approach than what he chose at the time.

I am not defending any action he took - I am just clarifying the quote.

As a librarian I will offer you an important piece of advice:

You may find in the future that reading an entire interview -- instead of relying on selected segments from an editorial writer -- will provide you with fact as opposed to opinion, and will enable you to form your own views based on the facts, as opposed basing your views on some writer's own personal bias. Just a thought.

Golly gee, you guys act as if the whole country not only reads but believes the NYT. And for a story most of you claim isn't going to register with anyone under 50 years of age, well you have sort of disproven that with your own reaction to it. Walter Annenberg is dead but his heirs may well be close friends of both Ayers and Obama. This makes me a little suspicious of FactCheck.org which is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama endorsed Ayer's book which among other things suggested we really don't need prisons, that O.J. could be monitored on house arrest. BTW, I happen to think O.J. just got convicted by a lynch mob, but I think his case helps puts Ayer's criminal justice philosophy in perspective for Fred Goldman. Will the Ayers connection matter on November 4th? Probably not, but if it helps take people's minds off their 401K's for a few days, then I would say it's a smart move to get the information out there. Soon we will all regret not supporting Ron Paul.

-- Nigerian Stock Exchange Chief Executive Officer Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke is being investigated after holding a fund-raising event linked to U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, Agence France-Presse reported.
U.S. electoral laws forbid donations from foreigners to electoral campaigns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8

Obama keeps reaching back to Chicago political past for policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil “rabbit” after another out of his hat.
The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not. They need to be.

23 years at TUCC with Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks. racist sermons on Youtube.
He chose the most radical church in the country; chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings, Obama met while carrying out his own radical social activism as community organizer at ACORN, (radical organization)

Penny Pritzker, heads Obama camp National Finance Committee was president of Superior Bank - massively failed and she literally bought her way out of jail paying $460 MILLION fine; was the very epicenter of subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, discovered he benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

Tony Rezko certainly and his federal indictments and financial dealing with Obamas of course and William Ayers, US terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend.

Communist Frank Marshall Davis, obama mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (Kellman’s Woods Fund is how Obama hooked up with terrorist William Ayers)

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, appointed as Obama camp national coord for Muslim n affairs also stepped down after news about his stint on the fund’s board - which includes fundamentalist imam - prompting The Wall Street Journal inquiries about relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and his long personal relationship with Hamas Jamal Said.

Obama desperately needs voters to forget hes the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; to forget he attended a madrassa in Indonesia and practiced Islam; forget that he campaigned in Kenya on behalf of Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and violence in his campaign; numerous associations with radical Muslims; forget the photographs of Obama in traditional Muslim clothes, hanging with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

The mainstream media has frankly put the security of our great country at risk with an Obama coronation media like CNN & MSNBC is the only way Obama managed to steal the Dem nom. It’s extremely concerning that so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is?? simply amazing and frankly scarey.

PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE ASAP

"The Last 100 Days"
Hon. James David Manning, PhD.

www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html

Here's what we DO NOT know to be indisputably factual:

We do NOT know for a fact that Obama knew about Ayer's past, endorsed Ayer's past or has had any close association with Ayers.

Here's what we DO know to be indisputably factual:

McCain has had a long relationship and associations with known felons who unrepentedly attempted to overthrow the US government and undermine the Constitution, (G. Gordon Liddy), and who disobeyed direct orders and broke the law on foreign soil to incite wars and which resulted in the deaths of foreign nationals as well as Americans, (Oliver North).

Both North and Liddy have made careers of being proud of the damage they did to this country and the same Right that loves Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin has made them both very rich and famous for being treasonous criminals, and McCain has long connections and associations with both.

We know for a fact that McCain has played essential roles in not only supporting those responsible for the current financial crisis, a form of domestic financial terrorism that has already cost lives, (at least two people, one a 90 yr old woman, have committed suicide as their homes were being taken from them), he was also front and center for the forerunner of this, the Keating 5 scandal, which cost the US a measly $150 billion in the 80's.

McCain is also a suck-up supporter of the energy corporations and received financial support from Enron, another corporation which used financial terrorism to destroy and even kill people in California. The money Enron received through manipulating the California energy markets went directly into the Republican's pockets and helped put Bush in office.

We know for a fact that McCain has been an ardent supporter of Bush's illegal policies in Iraq, and his devastating misadministration here at home.

We know for a fact that Sarah Palin attended meetings of the Alaska Independence Party, with her husband, who was a member of the organization. This organization openly states it's hatred of the United States and it's advocacy for Alaska's secession from the union.

We know for a fact that Gov. Palin actively sought and received the endorsement of this admitted America-hating organization for her candidacy for Governor.

We know for a fact that Governmor Palin and her husband are both illegaly defying lawfully issued subpoenas, a felony.

We know for a fact that Cindy McCain admitted committing multiple drug-related felonies, including embezzlement and fraud, and that she waas never prosecuted because her husband illegally used the power of his office to shield her and protect his career.

What we know to be verifiable facts about McCain/Palin is so much more damning than any of the much less than substantial allegations being made against Obama that this would be laughable if these samme liars making acussations against Obama were not trying to keep control of this country.

I've reached the point where I no longer care to try and even discuss this with McCain/Palin true believers - these are, after all, the people who brought us 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Apparently, they have much more invested in still believing themselves to be right despite all evidence to the contrary, and they would happily watch this country be completely destroyed before they will ever admit to giving their allegiance to the wrong people, people who never put their country before themselves.