Ayers didn’t actually kill anybody, so it’s a bank shot to try to get blood on his hands. But he was a scum bag, and he got away with blowing shit up because his daddy was rich and powerful. I don’t like that Obama played pattycake with him (to the extent he did, which is not super impressive), but it’s the cost of doing business in Chicago. Palin was in bed with Stevens and Young, before she dramatically got out of their bed, twenty minutes before running for VP.

Are we really prepared to say that no politician from Chicago, or Alaska, or Louisiana, or Florida (all of which are notorious for dirty politics) can be eligible for higher office?

I actually registered as a Republican in 1999 to vote for McCain in the primary (I figured Gore was going to be okay without me, Feinstein was an incumbant, and my congressional district is hard line rethug, so it never really matters who we run against the pustule who’s had the seat forever), though it didn’t end up mattering. I’m not disappointed that he’s going to lose, or even that it’s going to be a blowout. But I wish he hadn’t let the party hardliners convince him to be an asshole. Bob Dole didn’t, mostly–Dole knew he was going to lose big, too, and he took it with some grace. Maybe in another couple of weeks, McCain will accept what’s coming, and try to rehab his image. Or at least try not to burn down the village to save it.

so, though Ayers says he has no regrets and says he should have “done more,” he says he does not mean they should have planted more bombs, but that they should have used other strategies to get their point across.

My understanding was that the statement was more general as in “We all should have done more to end the war.”

Look, I work with a number of truly, honestly, vilely sexist and racist people, but it’s my job to relate to and work with them in a professional capacity. If I were campaigning for feminist of the year, someone could easily stand up and inquire why I would associate so closely with these folks and not call me out as a racist, sexist homophobe — I mean, I attend weekly meetings with them, I’ve been to company parties with them, I’ve had plenty of conversations with them, they hired me, etc. But my job is not to stand in moral judgment of them, even if I do so behind closed doors, my job is to perform my job duties. Unlike Obama, my “career,” sad as it is, is not my passion. Obama’s job, I assume, was to be a part of delegating funds and resources to community programs that directly affect the folks he was hired to help, and believes in helping, as he’s done it his entire adult career, not be BFFs with Bill Ayres.

So the pseudo-earnest answer to your pseudo-earnest question is that when I see Bill Ayres, I see a guy who, like many people of his generation, participated in some pretty damned radical acts that were dangerous to many, but were designed to draw attention to a legitimate political point: the end of the Vietnam war. He fucked up big, fucked up even more, wrote a book about it that is questionable in fact, but underscores the point that his radicalism was part of a much bigger moral crisis in the US that has been documented heavily by historians and sociologists alike. He wasn’t the only radical, but he’s relatively high-profile which makes this a tempting talking point for those who want to manipulate Obama’s public image. Today Ayres participates in meaningful political activism in a socially acceptable way that directly benefits children and the poor with other progressives and former radicals. So in other words, the other thing I see is that this guy who fucked up so badly forty years ago, is for all intents and purposes, rehabilitated.

Others may be charmed by the storybook quality and distance of his brand of activism, but I’m not. Dude’s still effectively rehabilitated.

Moreover, I’m still not convinced that Obama’s and Ayres’ relationship is even worth commenting on from here on out — unless you’re willing to draw stronger parallels between McCain’s and Palin’s ties to violent radicals. They had a working relationship that doesn’t appear to be all that close, and Obama has to date never been shown to refer to Ayres as an advisor. I fail to see the import.

It’s not a defense per se, it’s just how I see it.

Meanwhile, to reiterate what I’ve said above, why aren’t you beating the drum about McCain’s and Palin’s connections with violent radicals?

But hey, thanks for derailing.

From what I heard, he didn’t have a role in murdering anyone. The only casualties of the bombs he helped set were actual members of the organization that got killed by accident. As far as I know, the group never intended to kill anybody. It’s still horrible, but they were not murdering people and this was forty years ago. Also, though Ayers says he has no regrets and says he should have “done more,” he says he does not mean they should have planted more bombs, but that they should have used other strategies to get their point across.

And I’m not interested in a “particular answer,” I’m looking for any answer to this question: What level of voluntary professional association with a known, unrepentant terrorist is acceptable?

It’s an honest question. But it may not be an easy one to answer, and I confess that’s why I’m asking it. I don’t think it will be easy to find an answer other than “none” that will stand up to logical scrutiny very long. My repeated asking of “What about X? Is that bad?” which you seem to view as hectoring, was meant to underscore this point. If it’s OK to serve on two boards with a terrorist, is it bad to serve on three? What about four? Why the difference?

Such moral hair-splitting pretty quickly collapses into incoherence.

So what? Of what relevance is his current employment status? Does his U of I staff ID card somehow mean he is not an unrepentant terrorist? This only makes me hold the education department there in very low esteem.

“you’d have a be a moron … to think that Obama somehow has deep ties to terrorist groups.”

I know. Which is why I’m not even remotely suggesting that he has such ties. I am just pointing out that it’s beyond dispute that Obama has had repeated professional associations with a man who is an unrepentant terrorist and cold-blooded killer. I never said Obama shares the Weathermen’s goals or philosophy.

“And as long as we’re talking about reputable, I don’t think Steve Diamond’s blog cuts it as a reputable news publication, but good try.”

I never suggested that Diamond runs a “reputable news publication.” I pointed him out because he was contacted repeatedly by the Times during their work on the very story you believe absolved Obama of any guilt in his association with Ayers. He provided the Times with contemporary documented proof that Ayers was personally involved in composing the CAC board which Obama chaired. This makes it virtually impossible to believe that Ayers and Obama didn’t know each other before his appointment to the CAC board. Why would you appoint a perfect stranger with no relevant experience to head up a $100 million project?

“I’m not condoning ties with terrorists,”

It certainly seems like you’re trying to minimize them, though.

“but mere passings in political groups hardly qualifies.”

Does voluntarily endorsing the terrorist’s book qualify? Does having your wife compose a panel that includes said terrorist? Does launching your political career in the home of two terrorists?

If these things don’t qualify, what does?

And as long as we’re talking about reputable, I don’t think Steve Diamond’s blog cuts it as a reputable news publication, but good try.

I’m not condoning ties with terrorists, but mere passings in political groups hardly qualifies. This story is ridiculous, and you’d have a be a moron (or a wingnut with a disgusting agenda, which I suppose is basically the same thing) to think that Obama somehow has deep ties to terrorist groups.