2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographWeathermen ghosts continue to haunt Obama campaign
By Dan Streib
Posted: 9/5/08 Section: Opinion Columns
Accusations of a connection between Barack Obama and ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers have recently been gathering steam in conservative journals thanks to Weekly Standard and National Review contributor Stanley Kurtz.
For the uninitiated, the Weather Underground was a domestic terrorist group that grew out of the New Left in the '60s and '70s. The group sought to transform America into a communist nation. Obviously, Obama does not seek such a transformation, but relationships with people like Ayers do raise other questions.
More to the point is that Mr. Kurtz, along with many other journalists and lawyers, is investigating files that were recently released by the University of Illinois at Chicago that could have information regarding the relationship between Ayers and the Democratic nominee. As of yet, nothing has been found, but this does not mean that new evidence of a serious connection won't come up in the near future.
So, a stalemate has formed, but the Obama camp seems unable to effectively repel the allegations. Yet, the mere inability to prove his association with Ayers was not substantive could seriously hurt Obama come November.
The biggest reason Ayers has proven himself such a burden is the total lack of remorse he has shown over his involvement with the Weather Underground. That qualifies Mr. Ayers as an unrepentant communist terrorist. No one wants to campaign for president with something like that hanging around their neck.
Unfortunately for Obama, there are indeed reasons for suspicion. Obama endorsed Ayers' radical 1997 book on the justice system entitled "A Kind and Just Parent." Obama also kicked off his 2004 senatorial campaign at Ayers' house. Furthermore, Kurtz has written about times when Obama may have closely worked with Ayers on committees in Chicago. Although none of that evidence does anything more than raise eyebrows, the controversy is serious enough that McCain really does have a moral obligation to at least raise the issue during the campaign.
The strategic consequences of such a move are obvious. Imagine the "mere" possibility of close associations between an unrepentant communist terrorist and Obama being made known to the electorate. Does anyone not see the result here?
When undecided voters stand at the booth and remember that Obama may have radical connections, they'll logically choose to be safe rather than sorry. They'll choose McCain rather than Obama. And don't be surprised by a similar reaction from those Obama supporters who are less certain of their political allegiances.
So all McCain really has to do is make a point of the issue and keep close in the polls. Then, he can pull off an upset on election night. How did the Democrats get themselves into this situation?
Well, Andrew C. McCarthy had an article in the National Review last week that explained how the party selected a nominee like Obama, despite such suspicions. In his piece, he makes the point that all Hillary Clinton had to do was bring Ayers up, and the Obama candidacy would have been sunk. However, she could do no such thing, because her husband Bill had pardoned two Weathermen at the end of his administration.
Granted, maybe Bill just knew these guys. That sort of acquaintance is nothing compared to the close political relationship of which Obama has been accused of having. Yet, if Hillary brought Weathermen up, Obama would have done so in return, and horrific consequences would follow. So, according to McCarthy, she kept mum.
The Democrats are in a pickle. If they do lose this election over the Ayers issue, they should learn this: Don't fall too far in love with some fast-rising, planet-saving, faint-inducing, smooth-talking, inexperienced senator that hasn't been, as Senator Clinton put it, "vetted." What if he actually ends up representing your party due to circumstances beyond your control, like a far-too-quiet former first lady?
If the Democrats don't learn that simple lesson, then a saying on a popular cereal commercial might become applicable to politics. It'd go something like this:
Silly donkeys, the White House is for elephants!
Dan is a junior in political science and if Sarah Palin wasn't married, then, well...you know.
For the uninitiated, the Weather Underground was a domestic terrorist group that grew out of the New Left in the '60s and '70s. The group sought to transform America into a communist nation. Obviously, Obama does not seek such a transformation, but relationships with people like Ayers do raise other questions.
More to the point is that Mr. Kurtz, along with many other journalists and lawyers, is investigating files that were recently released by the University of Illinois at Chicago that could have information regarding the relationship between Ayers and the Democratic nominee. As of yet, nothing has been found, but this does not mean that new evidence of a serious connection won't come up in the near future.
So, a stalemate has formed, but the Obama camp seems unable to effectively repel the allegations. Yet, the mere inability to prove his association with Ayers was not substantive could seriously hurt Obama come November.
The biggest reason Ayers has proven himself such a burden is the total lack of remorse he has shown over his involvement with the Weather Underground. That qualifies Mr. Ayers as an unrepentant communist terrorist. No one wants to campaign for president with something like that hanging around their neck.
Unfortunately for Obama, there are indeed reasons for suspicion. Obama endorsed Ayers' radical 1997 book on the justice system entitled "A Kind and Just Parent." Obama also kicked off his 2004 senatorial campaign at Ayers' house. Furthermore, Kurtz has written about times when Obama may have closely worked with Ayers on committees in Chicago. Although none of that evidence does anything more than raise eyebrows, the controversy is serious enough that McCain really does have a moral obligation to at least raise the issue during the campaign.
The strategic consequences of such a move are obvious. Imagine the "mere" possibility of close associations between an unrepentant communist terrorist and Obama being made known to the electorate. Does anyone not see the result here?
When undecided voters stand at the booth and remember that Obama may have radical connections, they'll logically choose to be safe rather than sorry. They'll choose McCain rather than Obama. And don't be surprised by a similar reaction from those Obama supporters who are less certain of their political allegiances.
So all McCain really has to do is make a point of the issue and keep close in the polls. Then, he can pull off an upset on election night. How did the Democrats get themselves into this situation?
Well, Andrew C. McCarthy had an article in the National Review last week that explained how the party selected a nominee like Obama, despite such suspicions. In his piece, he makes the point that all Hillary Clinton had to do was bring Ayers up, and the Obama candidacy would have been sunk. However, she could do no such thing, because her husband Bill had pardoned two Weathermen at the end of his administration.
Granted, maybe Bill just knew these guys. That sort of acquaintance is nothing compared to the close political relationship of which Obama has been accused of having. Yet, if Hillary brought Weathermen up, Obama would have done so in return, and horrific consequences would follow. So, according to McCarthy, she kept mum.
The Democrats are in a pickle. If they do lose this election over the Ayers issue, they should learn this: Don't fall too far in love with some fast-rising, planet-saving, faint-inducing, smooth-talking, inexperienced senator that hasn't been, as Senator Clinton put it, "vetted." What if he actually ends up representing your party due to circumstances beyond your control, like a far-too-quiet former first lady?
If the Democrats don't learn that simple lesson, then a saying on a popular cereal commercial might become applicable to politics. It'd go something like this:
Silly donkeys, the White House is for elephants!
Dan is a junior in political science and if Sarah Palin wasn't married, then, well...you know.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 14
james domenlla
posted 9/05/08 @ 2:09 AM CST
first off dan streib your still a TP but i actually enjoyed this article...i didnt fall asleep and actually thought of it to be intriguing...nice one liner there with the trix rabbit
Student
posted 9/05/08 @ 11:28 AM CST
Dan,
I often wonder if when you read this piece for the last time you actually patted yourself on the back thinking you wrote another gem. Just because something is in the opinion section doesn't mean that logic, journalism and common sense go out the window. (Continued…)
Dave David
posted 9/05/08 @ 4:15 PM CST
Bravo to you! As a writer in a college newspaper it took guts to address a shred of knowledge that the Main Street Media is trying to cover up. Does it really matter that Obama was on board with the Unrepentant Bill Ayers? yes it does as this is just one of many associations that we somehow can't get the real information from the Obama handlers or Obama himself. (Continued…)
Von
posted 9/05/08 @ 4:19 PM CST
For those of you would still doubt the association of Obama with the Weatherman despite Obama's own book, check this site
http://www.uic.edu/classes/las/las400/conferencealt. (Continued…)
Paul Clark
posted 9/05/08 @ 4:42 PM CST
Dan,
I am surprised that would say that "Obviously, Obama does not seek such a transformation" when describing what the Weather Underground was all about. (Continued…)
Dan Streib
posted 9/05/08 @ 5:26 PM CST
Hey guys,
I appreciate the feedback. Student and Kat, that wasn't the point of my article. My point was quite plainly a more strategic one: that the mere possibility of serious ties with Ayers could hurt Obama in the election. (Continued…)
Glen
posted 9/05/08 @ 5:41 PM CST
Obama is a communist; more precisely, a 'useful idiot'. A total tool. An empty suit. A moonbat. Did I mention the corruption? Chicago? Hello...
Ken Berwitz
posted 9/05/08 @ 6:21 PM CST
Dan
The problem isn't Mr. Obama's inability to prove he did not have a substantive association with ayers. The problem is that Mr. Obama looked us straight in the eye and told us he barely had any association at all; that ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood he more or less bumped into now and then. (Continued…)
Post a Comment