There's NO there there. Why? There's no video. No smoking gun. Just a tangential association.

By the way, if Hillary pushes the guilt-by-association thing hard, it would be incredibly easy to push back. Can you even fit a list of the odious characters the Clintons know in a book?

Does anyone actually think Obama supports the policies of the Weather Underground? Anybody?

Tim McVeigh grew up in Lockport, NY. Tim McVeigh is a terrorist who received the death penalty because he killed people in Oklahoma City.
Senator Clinton is a Senator who represents the people of Lockport, NY. Senator Clinton. What are you trying to hide? Stop this stupid madness.

As a Democrat, the most troubling thing about the Ayers question was that it was really Hannity's question, filtered through George. That is dangerous. Instead of marginalizing right-wing talk radio, ABC legitimized it. A dangerous precedent, and very bad for our media. Imagine if it were the other way around, some liberal talk radio host wanted to grill McCain about blowing up that battleship during Vietnam. Would that ever get through to national television? No, it wouldn't.

Let them ask the tough questions but please, stop giving legitimacy to fringe players on both sides. Issues, please.

I am an avid reader here and don't comment very often but I am compelled to push back hard here.

Greg says "Hillary hit Obama hard over his ties to former Weather Underground member William Ayers at the debate yesterday"

Obama's ties? There are no ties here. A long ago minimal contribution of $200, they happened to serve on the same community board, and a get together, again many years ago, organized by someone else for Obama, in the South Side community where all the academics from U of C live. That is it. Those are ties? This is Mccarthyism, and TPM should be ashamed. No you are not 'reporting' you are perpetuating the inanity.
And you are surprised that Corn would push hard? YOU should be the one pushing hard. Instead of parroting back all these talking points and then going "oh wow, isn't that interesting?".

The fact that this site, Ben Smith and a couple of other bloggers have been trying to push a story for months, and this is out of Sean Hanity makes me wonder why we even make an effort anymore to distinguish between left and right 'journalism'.

Just. Incredible.

You know who won last night? America. Because we finally had a debate about the tough issues facing this country: What exactly did Bill Ayers do forty years ago? Where was Charlie Gibson's flag pin? How many times can Hillary Clinton say 9/11 and that New York is 'her' city?

The answers to these questions, as well as the follow up questions about Bill Clinton's pardons 12 years ago, will surely end the War in Iraq, capture Osama Bin Laden, and get our economy out of the shitter.

Thank you ABC! I don't use the word hero very often, but Stephanopulous and Gibson are the greatest heroes in American history.

The Ayers BS contrived controversy by the Clintonistas.

Reason #: 1,756,876,954,889 as to why I will NEVER lift a finger for any Clinton ever again (except maybe the middle one).

The race in Pennsylvania is "not tight" according to SurveyUSA

They have shown her winning Pennsylvania by double digits since January, not once have they shown her winning by single digits, nor have they shown her in a tie with obama or obama winning.

In fact... They have kept obama around 36% to 41% with clinton around 53% to 56%... I am so looking forward to the new polling info. they will have coming out before april 22.

SurveyUSA has been the most accurate this year.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!08

I don't care that Bill Clinton pardoned two Weather Underground people. I don't care that Obama knows one of them. This happened in the SIXTIES. Why oh why does the media, including the blogs, have to focus on such inane trivial bullshit.

57% of people in pennsylvania that are hillary backers, said that they will not change their minds to vote for her.

40% of Barack backers, said that they will not change their minds to vote for him.

and another 43% of Hillary backers could change their minds, while 39% of Barack backers could change their minds.

SurveyUSA

to newfapolooza:

I am 53 years old with a 26 year old daughter, and I had a difficult time explaining the Ayers thing.

The best I could come up with was a disjointed series of words like "radical" "bombs" "60s" - and then, "oh hell, look it up. I really can't remember." But the truth was, I never knew who about the Weathermen.

We have such a weird sense of the salience of historical events for successive generations. We assume stuff that was important to people during that time in the South (for example), was important to people in California. Same for Chicago. So yes, here we go again fighting the 1960s (a distorted memory of the 60s, in fact) again to the bewilderment of the large portion of the population who was not 20 years old in the 1960s.

And Ben Smith??? Well, he would think that Ayers (sp) was important, wouldn't he?

P.S.: Called a 52-year old friend who grew up in Texas. I asked her about the Weathermen. Did they blow up something?? Well, she sighed. I think so. Something like that.

And we are not stupid, uninformed people. It's just not/nor was it ever on our radar.

I also would like to suggest a more critical analysis of the point-of-view of Politico. I am not suggesting that they are not worth linking to sometimes, but perhaps a little clarity about its lens might be useful. I don't go to it anymore after seeing the commenters the site attracts. I know the point was to get something going on Obama (just like Politico's "recovering" the "hidden" paper of Obama's father), but really...

does anybody really seriously think any of this is an issue for the 2008 election? Just because Politico and Hillary and right-wing radio all claim something to be important doesn't make it, in fact, important.

I'm eagerly awaiting a pundit to offer some sort of unified theory on all of the conflicting smears on Obama.

Mildred, did you here what they just said on the debate about Senator Obama knowing the local weather man, and something about bombs bursting in air. I think that is really nice. I wish our local weather man would sing the national anthem when he does the forecasts. Why are George and Charlie so fascinated about Obama's weather man. I think they should talk to Al. Roaker if they want to know more about the weather. Why are they bothering our next president with all that foolishness.

What do you think Mildred, is it time yet to switch over to Matlock.

while you're at it, you might as well as well ask about this too:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Greg and all

I was not complaining about bias for Hillary at all. I actually don't think that is the issue at all.
Simply--by going back and forth on the spin on this--no matter how hard you may be on Hillary about her strategy--there is a legitimation to the idea that there are ties, that there is a relationship. (someone said this upthread too)

We should stop with the guilt by association. Period. Especially when it is as tenuous as this. I said I was going to push hard Greg but it is only because I think you are a good reporter.

And yes, Summer Girls. That's what it is.

Speaking of what people think, this morning Obama is saying that people "obsess" too much on what he says. So now he insults people who listen to what he says. Dig your self in deeper, Mr. Obama.

The pardon scandal was never fully vetted, Bush wanted it to go away as much as Clinton.

The different between this and the smears launched against Obama, is this goes to rank corruption with nepotism and abuse of power.

It should be covered. If the press really treated Hillary the way she complains, she wouldn't have made it this far.

This all needs some local context that's not getting out there. Ayers is a professor at UIC (in downtown Chicago), a well-known local figure, and his past is well-known and tolerated in Chicago politics. He's refused to apologize for what he did in the 60s and he's a total dick, but you anyone trying to make a case about this is indicting the entire city of Chicago. His participation in local politics is long -- not many people like this guy for what he did, but he's there. So, in other words, if Obama is a politician in Chicago, or in Illinois, he's going to run into Ayers sooner or later, as he did.

I'm not exactly sure what Hannity and others want people to do about it. Is the city of Chicago supposed to ex-communicate the guy from the city? There's no legal way to exclude this guy from being employed or from participating in the political process. This whole thing is stupid, and I think people are seeing it that way. The problem is that it's so stupid it never should've been brought up.

since flag pins are apparentally so important, why is Hillary never asked why she doesn't wear one?

The first time I heard about the Ayers association was over at Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarter, which I read until the pure anger, vitriol and childishness became too much to bear. (Yes, it's worse than anything that happens on these boards.)

Johnson, who seems to be quite proud of the US intervention in Afghanistan in advancing democracy, had no compunction in equating Ayers to Osama bin Laden. Both are terrorists who hate our freedoms.

NoQuarter was pushing this meme months ago. And from what I can tell, they are more or less a test base for the Clinton campaign's ugliest attacks.

I'd love to be wrong about this because I appreciated Larry Johnson and his work when he was critiquing and offering insight into Bush and the neocons. Unfortunately, now I wonder about his credibility given his blog's blind rampage against Obama.

"Obama asked to explain his association with
radical Weather Underground bomber William Ayers:

Obama association with William Ayers, a radical activist who, as a member of the Weather Underground, planted bombs, got further attention during the debate. Ayers is on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, where Obama also served. Obama was asked to explain his relationship with Ayers, including why he'd attended a political event in 1995 at Ayers' home."

Just a neighbor eh?

He does like to hang out with radicals.

Over on the Huffington Post they are trying to peddle the notion that the viewers turned on the moderators at the end of the debate yesterday because they were so unfair to Obama. They show the clip of moderator Charlie Gibson saying "We'll be right back after this commercial break". And then there were groans in the audience, and Charlie quipped, "Uhh... they're turning on me.". So Huffington Post is saying that this was all about how poor Obama was treated. NONSENSE! They had made the audience wait through several commercial breaks during the debate. Then when the debate ended they said, "We'll be right back". Then when they came back, they made a few short statements and said we'll be back again after this. That's when the audience groaned. It was entirely an expression of frustration over yet another commercial break.

I'm telling you, all these attempts to paint ABC in a bad light are pathetic. Nobody felt the debate was unfair except the Obama supporters, because they couldn't believe how poorly Obama did. Well, folks, blame Obama. He has to stand on his own two feet, same as Hillary.

Well, I can see that Obama is going to try to soften his defeat yesterday by having his supporters try to shift it to ABC. It's not going to fly. It will only show that he couldn't handle tough questions.

From today's Washington Post:

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

Hillary's Message:

It's okay for a white man to pardon these fellows, but they'd better not get uppity and diss his wife!

There will be voter backlash against Clinton's entire classless performance, especially as contrasted with Obama's pointed refusal to pile on her about Snipergate. This will only drive her negatives up further; watch the polls and you'll see.

Posted by Steve LaBonne

STEVE DIDN'T YOU HEAR ONE OF THE MODERATORS ASK OBAMA ABOUT SNIPERGATE, SINCE HIS CAMPAIGN MADE SO MANY CALLS ABOUT IT....

Talk about blinded by hatred! Ya think there MIGHT be a difference between what Senator Clinton's HUSBAND did or is she NOW responsible for what her HUSBAND DID TOO, and Obama's PERSONAL relationship with a terrorist individual? Ya think? Its amazing the rationale of these Star Trekian Obama groupies.

I'm surprised that all this "stuff" about Ayers hasn't been brought out sooner; maybe it just took the likes of the ABC boys. There has been much talk about Ayers on Taylor Marsh blog and Larry Johnson's No Quarter Blog. If nothing else works, try the guilt by association routine. Plus, my beloved father (WWII veteran and former Japanese POW) never wore a "flag" pin; he saved wearing his metals, etc. to days when it really mattered (e.g. Memorial Day)

When all is said and done I'd rather have a veto proof Democratic Congress than any of these 3 WH wannabees. More will get done for this country moving forward than anything any of the three will do.

Obama's pants are on fire!
Obama's pants are on fire!
By extension that also means his Star Trekkian followers pants are on...FIRE!

Politifact.com

continuing...

"... debating and discussing But we not only intended not to kill or hurt anybody, but we never did...."

"So there's one chapter that's gotten quoted quite a bit in the media, where I describe a rather flamboyant and outrageous action that the Weather Underground undertook, which was to put a small, one and a half pound bomb in a pipe in the Pentagon that went off in the middle of the night 30 years ago. What I describe in that chapter is a group of young Americans, the Weather people, slightly off-the-track, despairing but determined to go through that action. And I describe another group of young Americans, also off-the-track, also despairing, walking into a village in Vietnam (My Lai) and killing animals, looting, maiming, burning buildings and killing 347 people, mainly women and children, and I raise the question, what is terrorism?"

He talked to me how the Weathermen were basically brainwashing themselves. They tried protest, got clubbed in Chicago '68, saw Nixon get elected, saw the war and the draft drag on, but nothing they did seemed to do any good. So they turned radical, and convinced themselves that they needed to do destructive things.

What he learned from the experience: "We have to resist t

Continued...

What he learned from the experience: "We have to resist t