Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama's Communications Director, tries to equate Obama's ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers with Sean Hannity's interview of someone who is antisemitic.
As you watch, notice how Gibbs never answers the question. Instead of being honest and forthright, the typical Obama campaign strategy is to use moral relativism to dismiss difficult questions all together.
Mr. Obama's relationship with William Ayers is far more than "guilt by association". The man is a known terrorist that participated in the bombings of the New York City police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.
Mr. Obama lived in the same neighborhood as Ayers, worked on education reform in Illinois with Ayers, and after being named to the Chicago Annenberg Project board to oversee grants, he ended up granting money to schools with radical ideas at Ayers request.
Mr. Obama has released a statement that he was only 8 years old when Ayers committed his crimes and condemned the violent acts, yet, in 1995, Ayers hosted a function for Obama during his first run for office. Would you have "coffee" with an admitted terrorist?
The issue here is not Sean Hannity. He is not running for President. Barack Obama is.
Chip Flowers
Duh, the point is moron that if Hannity thinks Obama is a terrorist for serving on an anti-poverty board with Bil Ayers, along with a number of Republicans as well, then Hannity must be a rabid anti-semite, loon, and holocaust denier for hosting a rabid anti-semite and holocaust denier and using him as the basis for his show to support his own thoughts and feelings about Obama. Of course for the bozo's on the far right who seem to care less about health care and the economy (things that average Americans really care about and not whether or not Obama has a casual relationship with a reformed 60's radical, and Chicago's 1997 Citizen of the Year(i might add), Bill Ayers for his contribution to education reform) but whether or not you can carry a gun, I'm sure the analogy is a bit too complex.
Sean Hannity is over. There is a God! Maybe he can follow Palin back to Alaska on a dog sled to hole up in a Wassila meth lab where he will be spending the rest of his miserable days.
Comment by Josh on Oct 8th, 2008 @ 21:09
Mr. Ayers also was awarded Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" Award in 1997.
Comment by Joe C. on Oct 8th, 2008 @ 23:37
The problem here is that republicans (and slobokan) don't seem to understand what "guilt by association" means and why it is a poorly-reasoned and, indeed, dangerous basis for criticizing someone. The whole point of Gibbs' emasculation of Hannity, of course, is that just because you "associate" with someone, it does not follow that you endorse everything that person has ever said or done. Thus, Hannity's provision of a forum to an anti-Semite does not (by itself) prove that Hannity is anti-Semite. Instead, you need to look at Hannity's own actions.
In turn, you can judge Obama based on HIS actions, e.g., the education reforms that he endorsed and/or his action in sitting on a board that is financed by the (conservative) Annenberg project. But don't judge Obama based on the unrelated actions of third parties that Obama merely has "associated" with.
For what its worth, Hannity's provision of a forum to the malicious lies of Anthony Trigona-Martin (a.k.a. "Andy Martin") comes far, far closer to an affirmative "endorsement" by Hannity of Martin's ill-deeds than Obama's stting on a board with Ayers, especially since Obama has affirmatively and repeatedly criticized the misdeeds that Ayers committed over 30 years ago. Note that Hannity not only sat passively as Martin lied, he also affirmatively sought to portray Martin innocently as merely an "author and journalist," hiding Martin's reckless, deceitful, and embarassing track record. In turn, Hannity's producers repeated Martin's allegations over and over without any hint of journalistic skepticism.
Comment by Eric on Oct 9th, 2008 @ 11:06
I do understand what "guilt by association" is, and sorry, that argument just does not fly.
I have met a lot of people in my life, some good, some bad. If I found out that one of those people I knew was a known domestic terrorist, who was unrepentant of the things he had done, you wouldn't find me having a political social drinking coffee with him.
You wouldn't find me associating with him at all.
I don't think Barack Obama is a terrorist because he is friends with Ayers. I question his judgement and whether or not he is fit to serve as President of the United States.
Obama's answers concerning Ayers have changed. First he knew who he was, but then he didn't. Now the campaign is quick to point out that Obama was only 8 years old when Ayers was going around with his friends blowing things up. So what? I was only 5 years old at that time, and you would never find me drinking coffee with a known terrorist.
The question, for me, is whether we can trust Obama's judgement if he makes it to White House, that's all.
Comment by Slobokan on Oct 9th, 2008 @ 11:19
I didn't find that the question returned was clever in this least bit. It was asked in an attempt to avoid answering the original question given. Relating to the original question, can you have friends that have done bad things? I think many of us do. Is it wise to trust those friends with related issues? Probably not, trust and friendship doesn't necessarily relate.
Comment by Rockabilly Clothing on Oct 9th, 2008 @ 13:49
[...] what's affecting your family and your country – Joe Biden talks about the claims that Barack Obama has long associated with a known domestic terrorist and the fact that Barack Obama was a bona-fide Socialist. I wonder which charges Biden thinks are [...]
Pingback by Joe Biden Is Whining Again : Talk Of… on Oct 12th, 2008 @ 23:10