Plucking the Threads

Sometimes some of the best writing/thinking on blogs is done in comment threads. 

Go over to this thread at Althouse and do a find on John Stodder and one on reader_iam.  Reader does her thing of coming up with a perfect little bouquet of quotes -- violets and poison ivy -- that somehow pinions the moment from several different directions.  Stodder is just on a roll:

I hope I am not so pissed at the dirty tactics of the media and the left that I will still be able to vote for Obama. I will have to overlook a lot of disingenuous bullshit to do it. The more I feel like I'm being manipulated by this kind of crap, the more I expect I will vote for McCain in protest. [...]

Like Obama/Biden supporters, McCain/Palin supporters are decent Americans who have come to their conclusions based on reason, not racism, not anger. Quit insulting them, and quit insulting those of us who are independents and trying to look at this election objectively. It's been said by others, the biggest threat Obama faces is from his supporters. If Obama loses, you left-wing pricks can all just blame yourselves.

* * *
I don't hate Obama at all and have never once said I did. I question if he's up to the job based on a lack of experience and a tendency to ally himself with some skanky types, but on balance I think he's talented and a good man.

* * *
Chicago, like most big cities nowadays, is run by a wacky combination of radical activists, labor unions, political hacks, crooked fixers, planners, engineers and real estate tycoons, with perhaps a few ministers and a rabbi thrown in.

If Obama wins, he'll be the first big-city machine politician with corrupt mentors to serve as president since Harry Truman. That's not by accident.

* * *
The right question McCain should ask, the one that is not "hate-filled," would be to outline Ayers' published beliefs on education, and ask Obama to explain where he differed with Ayers, and if he indeed differed, why he would work with someone like that. Especially given his record as an attempted murderer and terrorist whose only regret was his failure to do more.

Ahhhh.  Vintage ambivalence.

There are others, too.  Look for Madawaskan and Bruce Hayden.  Dust Bunny Queen.  Jen Bradford.  John Lynch: 

One quirk of lefties is how they equate things people say with reality. Intentions tend to be more important than results. [...]

So, we can go with the reality, or we can go with verbiage. I think the actions are more important.

Why I'm not voting for Obama.  (And I'm a word person!)  He sounds good, but what has he done?  

Madawaskan (who remembers her dad, a Vietnam vet, getting spat on):

I keep trying to put myself in Obama's place and I would have avoided Ayers like the plague. Out of fear of what I might do to him.

But also for the practical reason-I don't think that someone with Ayers credentials should be how someone goes about advancing their political career.

So the excuse has been well that's the way it is done in Chicago-but how is Obama suppose to be about change when he is always going along never getting angry never seeming to fight how things are done-and actually profiting from that.

Always voting present. I just don't get it.

It's a good thread.

Comments

[RW Rogers]

The evidence is everywhere that Ayers and Obama had a working relationship, not a casual one. It's preposterous to think that a fundraiser would be held in Ayers' house for a stranger.

This was another of John Stodder's gems from that thread. The point about the fundraiser is particularly apt as it was Obama's first fundraiser ever.

[RW Rogers]

All of this is fair game for detailed investigation because the Democrats were having a delightful time with their proctoscopes delving into details about Palin's past. It turned out she never banned any books way back despite their claims to the contrary. At the same time, they've spent a lot of energy damning Palin for being a member of some church, so that may end up giving permission to revive Jeremiah Wright as an issue. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Obama, has been a paying member of Wright's church for over 20 years while Palin is not a member of any church (something which the Democrats and their friends in the press forgot to check). Yet more reminder that Law of Unintended Consequences reigns supreme. LOL!

[Ron]

We're the 'Algonquins with IP addresses' over at casa Althouse! When we're not beating off the rabid with sticks, that is...

Maybe there's a political film we can make derived from Invasion of the Body Snatchers about this election! :)

[david]

"Why I'm not voting for Obama. (And I'm a word person!) He sounds good, but what has he done?"

Remove "Obama," insert "Lincoln." Or "FDR." See http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html.

Of course, lack of experience doesn't equate to either eloquence or competence, necessarily; but in those politicians with ambition and vision, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there's surprisingly little correlation, in the office of the presidency, between competence and experience. And that, in fact, there's probably more of a correlation between eloquence and competence.

That's the good news. Bad news is, we've morphed into a society that distrusts experience. A track record is just a way of leaving fingerprints at the crime scene.

[amba]

Well, the truth is, I'll vote for McCain because I would feel like a dupe if I voted for Obama; but I won't be much unhappier -- or happier -- whichever one wins. In either case, I'll be wary and hope for the best, and try to help out whoever's acting as the loyal opposition.

[amba]

David: I want to say something along the lines of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": the fact that some inexperienced people have become great presidents does not mean that inexperience guarantees a great president. It just means that experience doesn't guarantee one either. I have some hopes for Obama, but that's all they are at this point (which is why "Hope" is such an ironically appropriate slogan for his campaign). He has shown eloquence but not much boldness, except in the pursuit of his own career. Thoughtfulness in word but not in deed, not yet.

[David]

I agree with your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" comment. In fact, I said so in mine (albeit, as usual, not as well). To wit:

"Of course, lack of experience doesn't equate to either eloquence or competence, necessarily. . . "

[Outis]

Let's compare the records of FDR and Obama.

FDR:
State Senator
Asst. Sec. of the Navy (then an independent agency in the Federal government)
Governor of New York (by far the most important non-Federal job in the country at the time)

That's two executive positions before becoming President.

Obama:
State Senator
Community Organizer

Hmm. Doesn't quite compare, does it?

For Obama to have similar qualifications, he would have to have been an Asst. Sec. of Defense and have been Governor of California.

If Obama had those qualifications, there would be little talk about his lack of resume, and much more talk about McCain's overly narrow resume.

As for the Lincoln - Obama comparison... That only has relavence if you believe that the country is the same NOW (in terms of size and complexity) as it was THEN.

[David]

Outis: Yeah, you're right. Civil War (incl. Emancipation Proclamation, 13th Amendment), Reconstruction, westward expansion managed via telegraph, railroad and renegade -- simple.

[Ally]

What's the point? Everyone is so invested in the spin of his or her chosen side that there really is no dialogue here, just people talking past one another. And I'm as guilty as the next person.
Having said that, it is correct that Palin banned no books. She inquired about it, and when she was rebuffed, she tried to fire the librarian. Popular outcry made her reverse that decision. At least so I've read in several different places. But I guess if you (that's a generic you, not aimed at anyone specific) think the evil MSM is in the tank for Obama, you'll just assume it's another lie or distortion and go back to spreading your nutty conspiracy theories about Obama.

[amba]

What's the point? Everyone is so invested in the spin of his or her chosen side that there really is no dialogue here

What I love about people like Stodder is that they're not in that "everyone." Of course, maybe we centrists are simply invested in the perverse spin of our non-side. But I really enjoy people like those on this thread talking honestly about the drawbacks of the candidate they are planning to vote for. That's the opposite of spin. (Backspin??)

[jason]

One thing I've grown weary of is the whole Ayers fiasco. There is a singular truth that so many are ignoring: Unless you've never spoken to, lived by, worked with, befriended, or otherwise been involved with another human being, EVERYONE EVERYWHERE is associated with a criminal to some degree.

And that leads me to this: The only bastion holding up the Ayers issue grows from the troubling belief that every person is defined solely by the worst thing they ever did. Ayers is forever a terrorist no matter what else he has done, and that includes serving on a charity board with Obama.

Along the same lines, we all should be defined by the worst thing we've ever done, whether it be driving drunk, having a physical fight, stealing, feeling jealousy, struggling with our own rage, or whatever. Think of the worst thing you've ever done in your life, then define yourself by it, taint everything else that came before and after with the taste of that toxic pill.

Now ponder what your neighbors, friends, coworkers, family and other acquaintances have done. With that in mind, consider yourself now judged simply by knowing someone who did something bad. If the person sitting in the cubicle next to you once raped a person but does a damn fine job of writing computer programs, then you support rape and, by proxy, must be a rapist.

This is the dangerous road we're traveling. Thankfully I don't see people according to the worst thing they've ever done, and I also don't judge people by somehow being involved with the more detestable elements of our species (where does that put preachers and rabbis and other religious leaders who visit prisons?). If Obama had spoken in support of what Ayers did, that would be one thing; to live in the same neighborhood and to have served on a charity board with him is something else entirely--and it fails miserably to link Obama to terrorism, or to call into question his trustworthiness or character.

Smoke and mirrors only, at least IMHO.

I wish, as Ally points out, that people--the candidates included--would stop sitting on piles of rubbish and declaring it gold, but instead would think, review, and seriously contemplate the issues instead of the spin. I'm still undecided in this race (erring more toward not voting, although that's not an option), but more than being sick of the candidates themselves, I'm grossly tired of the herd mentality that divides the country and squelches serious discussion and consideration.

[David]

Everybody has their opinions, Ally, it's true. That's why I went looking for the best info I could find on the correlation between experience and competence in the US presidency.

In response, Outis used a well-worn debate tactic: taking my two examples and trying to poke holes in them, hoping that, by inference, he could deflate the whole argument those two examples support.

He appears not to have looked at the rest of the site I linked to, which gives an exhaustive (though I'm sure many would say flawed and agenda-driven) example of how little a correlation there is between competence as a president and previous experience.

Now, as Annie rightly says, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But the evidence sorted through in that site suggests, in as objective and thorough a way as I've found, that the "experience-competence curve" is simply not borne out by reality.

Am I willing to see holes poked, not just in specific examples but in the argument as a whole? Sure. Am I willing to have my mind changed by evidence? By all means.

But the evidence I linked to is part of what makes me at least willing to vote for Obama. It outweighs claims of his inexperience, because he appears to me to have other qualities that mitigate more in his favor than his relative inexperience mitigates against him.

All evidence, however, is and should be on the table. I don't want to have reached a conclusion and then contort all available evidence to get it to support my contention, whether it does or not.

Would I rather have an experienced individual as president? Sure -- but not at the expense of energy, judgment, intelligence, and leadership skill.

Anyway.

[karen]

So, who wrote B.Obama's book? He, the expansive writer? Or, Ayers?

Just asking...

[amba]

Karen, you are so one-sided and such a sucker for propaganda that comports with your emotions. (I love you anyway.)

[amba]

David: "militates."

"Mitigates" means "lessens" (the bad effects of something).

Pick, pick, pick.

[amba]

Don't take my word for that.

[Liza]

You know, with one kid in college and another in 4th grade, with a 401K and a college fund about wiped out, with my plans to switch to a part-time job gone out the window, "hope" sounds pretty good... Just cannot find enough energy to care who any of the candidates was sitting next to at a fundraiser back when... those are happier times concerns, really.

[RW Rogers]

Ally: Dont let the facts get in the way of your version of events.

Jason: In the big scheme of things, William Ayers is but a footnote, an aging '60's Hyde Park monied leftist notable mainly for Obama's unwillingness to be candid about his long-term relationship with the man. It is not true, however, that Ayers is simply a man with a sordid distant past. He has a long resume of extreme left-wing political activities that continue to this day including support for governments and organizations that continue to finance terrorism. At the same time, he has an almost equally long record of invariably failed but highly politicized education initiatives, some of which were conducted with the cooperation, oversight and approval of the man who will most likely be the next President of the United States. As the direction of the Department of Education will be one of his responsibilities once in office, asking Obama questions about these specific examples of his own prior record should not be out of the realm of reason unless we are all forgoing any discussion of any issue whatsoever when potentially inconvenient for one candidate, and concentrating only on personalities, dreams, hopes and fears.

[wj]

I recall my father commenting that Truman was "a two bit judge out of the Pendergast machine in Kansas City." And then remarking on how good a President he had turned out to be. (This from a conservative life-long Republican, mind.)

I wonder if Mr. Stoddard has considered that Truman, for all his unfortunate antecedents, did turn out to do a reasonably good job as President. So perhaps those who are fearful of how Obama will do should take heart -- if history is any guide, it may not turn out as badly as you fear after all.

[Harry Gottlieb]

Not a word about the economy or the Iraq war in this blog or its comments. These are the issues on which I base my vote: strongly for Obama.

dad

[RW Rogers]

David wrote:

Am I willing to see holes poked, not just in specific examples but in the argument as a whole? Sure. Am I willing to have my mind changed by evidence? By all means....

All evidence, however, is and should be on the table. I don't want to have reached a conclusion and then contort all available evidence to get it to support my contention, whether it does or not.

Would I rather have an experienced individual as president? Sure -- but not at the expense of energy, judgment, intelligence, and leadership skill.

Well said, David! Well said.

(BTW, thanks for the link to that interesting webpage. I've visited the site often but don't recall seeing that particular page. FWIW, I couldn't help noticing Garfield ranks in the bottom ten. As he was murdered only 6 months after taking office, it seems to me that is a bit harsh but I guess they have to rank every last one of them.)

As you said,

Anyway.

[Tom Strong]

The librarian story is a good example of why communication between the two camps is so hard, even on a site such as this one. Randy looks at it and sees an attempt to make Palin look falsely like a book-burning harridan. Ally looks at the same story and sees a mayor using her authority to strong-arm subordinates using Bush-esque loyalty tests (hey, where has that issue come up before. In both cases the facts are pretty much the same - it's the emphases that are different.

[David]

Annie:

Thanks for always pointing out my SAT-poor English.

And while you're at it, be sure to tell Outis he misspelled "relevant."

[RW Rogers]

Tom, I'm firmly in the "pox on all their houses" camp. ;-) Even more so, after running across this story this morning. Unbelievable.

[Ron]

RW: Maybe there should just be a Federal 'brothel fund' just to avoid any hint of scandal. Oh, and maybe a 'coke and weed' fund while we're at it! Voila! All of Congress magically made 'moral'!

[amba]

Dad: Not a word about the economy on this blog?? Excuse me? Maybe you haven't read it in a while . . . not that you're required to. :) Love, A.

[amba]

P.S. My problem with Obama is his "pay attention to what I say, not what I do." I'm actually kinda "actions speak louder than words" -- which makes me more old-fashioned than you!

If elected, I hope he turns out to be an excellent president. That's all we have -- hope.

[amba]

I draw the line at correcting people's spelling. You never know whether it's a mistake or just a typo. It also affects me like a mosquito bite every time someone says "it's" as the possessive as "it," but I do not slap that mosquito because I know it's busy evolving into standard usage, and actually for a good reason.

But those "pour/pore over," "hoard/horde," "tow/toe the line," "mitigate/militate" things -- I can't leave them alone. It isn't personal.

[amba]

A typo (or braino) like "as the possessive as it." I could go in and correct it, but -- ehhh.

[Tom Strong]

Randy, fair enough. My point remains, though: even with FactCheck and other such services, the truth of a story like that of Palin and the librarian is hard to ascertain for anyone but the players. And the morality of it is therefore up to interpretation, unfortunately.

[RW Rogers]

Fair enough, Tom, although I think there's a bit more to it than just being a case that only the players can ascertain the truth. Orin Kerr's post this morning touches on the same idea.

[jason]

While your facts are true, Randy, my point remains: Are we to judge every person by whatever happenstance association they have? To judge Obama by Ayers is to declair resoundingly that no person stands outside those people they know, work with, are related to, and so on.

I'm not questioning Ayers or his past. He seems, to me at least, a rather sordid, questionable fellow whose general ethics I deem horrific at least--although not in totality considering his efforts to support education (a surface observation and not one of substance).

Still, has Obama declared he supports him and his views, or has he simply worked with him, lived in the same neighborhood and decried his values as horrendous?

The difference is paramount. And telling, at least for those who use it to bludgeon a presidential candidate with accusations of supporting terrorism, being a terrorist, "palling around with terrorists" and so on.

And I wonder: Who in your life has commited a crime, thought things most would find treasonous, felt violence, rage and distaste toward another gender or race, done an unseemly, illegal or terrible thing...

Shall I go on?

If we're to judge Obama via Ayers, let those without the same sin cast the first stone. Anyone here not know someone who the rest of us might call a terrorist or criminal? Or worse?

Most likely most don't even know the full history of their acquaintences. Imagine what the truth would mean to you if this is how we are to treat people, to evaluate their worth--all based on those around you, past and present, regardless of the relationship between you (and in direct contrast to any admonition you might have spoken about such activities).

[RW Rogers]

Jason, one of my relatives is a repeatedly-convicted felon. He's spent most of the last 50 years in one federal prison or another. Off the top of my head, I can recall Leavenworth, Yuma, Lompoc, and Terminal Island to name but a few. Some members of the family continued to associate with him whenever he was out of prison. All of those suffered losses in consequence, in one case her entire life savings. He's out now and has been for a couple of years. Probably the longest stretch of time he's been out in his adult life. I feel no need to associate with him.

I don't know anyone who has ever committed political violence, Jason, or spoken admiringly of it. Not being a mind-reader, I have no idea if anyone I know ever thought about it. I refuse to associate with those who espouse racism or use racial epithets.

While I've done my homework with the publicly available material on Obama's participation in Ayers's various schemes, I'd like some answers about his continuing association with the man over the years, answers Obama is unwilling to provide. Based on my experience, that unwillingness raises serious concerns that there is more there than would be otherwise assumed.

For the record, Jason, let's be extremely clear: I have not accused Obama of being a terrorist or supporting terrorism, but it sounds like 1) you are indirectly accusing me and others of doing so, and 2) you are declaring off-limits the known associates of this particular candidate. That strikes me as surreal.

[Spud]

I'd like some answers about his continuing association with the man over the years, answers Obama is unwilling to provide.

What are the questions that you want answered?

[Donna B.]

There's a trend in Obama's associations, Ayers, Acorn, Annenberg, Joyce Foundation, his church (Black Liberation Theology)... All those people or foundations were/are politically active in trying to change some things to an 'ideal' I oppose.

Actions do speak louder than words and Obama's slim voting record and his associations are all we have to go on. When they contradict what he says, I'm even more suspicious of him.

John McCain is much more of an open book - he's not opposed to talking about where he's been, what he's done, where he screwed up, why he's changed his mind about some things, why he is less than perfect. He's probably been far too open for his political good.

I know where I disagree with McCain, because I can somewhat sure of where he stands. With Obama I really have no idea.

[jason]

[Y]ou are declaring off-limits the known associates of this particular candidate. That strikes me as surreal.

Surreal indeed. I've not declare it off-limits, as you know clearly, but I have declared off-limits the rash, empty attacks stemming from association.

[O]ne of my relatives is a repeatedly-convicted felon.

What crime? If I'm to know how to judge you, I need to know what fiends you're related to, directly or indirectly, through support or indecision.

And don't take me at face value, Randy. You know--I hope--that I respect and admire you far beyond political claptrap.

But the point remains: Let me judge you by the company you keep, even if you don't support that company or even associate with that company any longer, even if you've publicaly denounced that company and voiced displeasure at what they do. That appears irrelevant. So let me continue to hold you accountable by way of those around you rather than you yourself.

I don't know anyone who has ever committed political violence.

That's what you claim. According to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" crowd abundant here, I need not beleive you. Truth be told, you do indeed know someone who has "committed political violence". That is a statistical truth, let alone a safe assumption.

Violence is physical or mental, or both. Unfortunately, you're as guilty as those around you given this mentality of "who you knew way back when and who you worked with whenever and who lives in your neighborhood"...

Regrettably, Randy, you claim to disown anyone who does what you don't agree with, but you can't say for certain if that's a fact. You're not a mind-reader, after all, and the "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," or so I'm told. Therefore, proving a negative with a negative, I must assume you do indeed cavort with racists and terrorists despite your protestations to the contrary.

Again, let me reiterate I'm speaking from a reductio ad absurdum point of view, yet it rings true, doesn't it? How many are mad at me now, angry that I would accuse someone as heartfelt and thoughtful as Randy with such terrible allegations?

Few who would admit the error, I bet.

[RW Rogers]

LOL, Jason. LOL.

[wj]

Let us stipulate (for the sake of discussion) that Ayers is an unrepentant scum. Now suppose that you are Obama, and invited to join the board of an education-related foundation. Probably, you inquire about what the foundation does, or tries to do. Do you also research all of the existing board memebrs? Probably not.

You get to know some of the people on the board in the context of the work of the foundation. Do you also research their pasts in detail? Not unless you are a lot more paranoid than I. (And that goes double in the days before Google made it easy.)

Then one of those other board members offers to host a fund-raiser, to kick off your political career. Do you research him? Nah, you already know him, even though you may not be best buddies. You worked with him on the foundation, so you know him . . . you think.

Think something like that can't happen in the real world? I've got close friends, people that I've known for decades. At least one of them is a devout conspiracy theorist, who is convinced that the Bush administration faked 9/11. (She is, however, relatively sane on other topics.) Another thinks Palin is the greatest politician he has ever seen. (He, too, is relatively sane on non-political topics.)

As I say, I've known both of these people for a very long time. I've been a guest in both of their homes. I've even gone into business with one of them; and the other has worked with us in that business.

So, if I run for office, people from either political party can easily denounce me for my associations -- on the grounds that they reveal my beliefs. But, I submit, not only can both not be correct, but neither embody my own views.

Which may prove only that nobody should go into politics unless they have artificially sanitized their entire life in preparation to do so. Real life, with real people, is just not so simplistic. Sounds like a far cry from what our Founders envisioned for Representatives in this Republic.

[Ally]

The Annenberg Challenge was hardly a radical education experiment. If anything, it showed that even a moneyed Republican can be a naive, idealistic sucker. Annenberg wasted millions across the country on his "challenge." And everyone with access to the money was sucking on that tit. I'm sure some valuable lessons were learned along the way. Those lessons didn't do much to fix urban schools. But in many instances, they were well-intentioned, if flailing, attempts to break the public education logjam.

I have not read Ayers' education writings. I read the blogs of some of his acolytes, and know they are rigidly dogmatic, anti-charter school lefties. Hardly terrorists. My point is that conflating Ayers' education work with his Weather Underground past is absurd. As far as I can tell, he's on the fringe of the mainstream in education thinking. I doubt I'd agree with him much on education issues, but he doesn't appear to be part of the lunatic fringe in that regard.

And Karen, my sources tell me that Ayers did not write Obama's book. Osama bin Laden did.

[jason]

Thank you, Randy.

[amba]

Re: Ayers: on the one hand, he is a self-declared small-c communist working for revolution by different means than he used in his youth. He's to the left of Bernie Sanders. His thinking is collectivist; in his view the point of freeing creativity in children is to turn them into soldiers for social justice.

On the other hand, Chicago chose him as its Citizen of the Year in 1997. That's how "rehabilitated" his reputation, at least, was, and how forgotten or forgiven his Weather terrorism was. It had a lot to do with his father's clout in the Chicago establishment, and a lot also to do with the fact that in Hyde Park he was surrounded by baby boomers who themselves had radical pasts to one degree or another and who, at one time, if they hadn't shared Ayers' actions, had approved of them, fantasized about doing similar things, and shared his rhetoric ("Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" and all that). The result was that his terrorism was unknown to younger people, and by his contemporaries, probably looked on indulgently -- maybe even a bit admiringly -- as a special case of the general youthful excess. He was the one who put his money where his mouth was.

When he published his memoir and it coincided so grotesquely with 9/11, Chicago became a bit embarrassed by its embrace of him.

This comes from an article I linked to yesterday or the day before.

[karen]

"While your facts are true, Randy, my point remains: Are we to judge every person by whatever happenstance association they have?"

I doubt like hell that was a happenstance association. Isn't that the rub? One can work and be friendly enough while sitting on boards together, but it seems the relationship w/Ayers goes beyond that. It developed into $$$$/politics- &fodder for this discussion.

As to B.Obama's book-- i read Althouse's post about the comparison between ~Dreams of My Father~ & Ayer's ~Fugitive Days~- i think the titles read. I was pretty intrigued. Anchoress commented that two books by a man who has no other written documentation ANYWHERE is quite unheard of since writers write... i'm intrigued even more.

So- i picked up a stick, poking to see who'd holler(:0)amba)and i really wonder what was thought on that subject. Ophrah has had crushes on other authors who have been known to-- fake it.

I didn't say i believed it, y'know.

[karen]

... and the fact that i can't spell ~Oprah~ until i see how it looks-- is kinda telling.

[amba]

And, Karen, I agree with Spud that you should quit pretending to be one of the uneducated simple folk. (No wonder you love Dubya, a far bigger pretender.) Having had some education doesn't necessarily make you an elitist. That's a matter of your heart, not your diploma.

[RW Rogers]

I doubt like hell that was a happenstance association. Isn't that the rub?

So it would appear. LOL!

[Donna B.]

Amba, I totally agree that elitism is a matter of heart, not diploma. It's not a matter of wealth or position either.

One of the most elistist people I know is a drunken bum with an Ivy League diploma. That skews my perception at times!

As for judging by association, I tend not to do that since information on four people in my family tree was gained from murder trial transcripts :-)

However, I feel completely justified in judging Obama by the ideology espoused within organizations he served as board member. I've been a member of a few boards myself, and you don't stay with organizations that you ideologically disagree with.

The happenstance of association between Obama and Ayers... is it that Obama agrees with Ayers on issues I deem critical or that Ayers agrees with Obama? Does it matter when I disagree with both?

[Spud]

As to B.Obama's book-- i read Althouse's post about the comparison between ~Dreams of My Father~ & Ayer's ~Fugitive Days~- i think the titles read. I was pretty intrigued. Anchoress commented that two books by a man who has no other written documentation ANYWHERE is quite unheard of since writers write... i'm intrigued even more.

Karen, I suggest you read both books, then make your own decision as to what you think they say. Anyhow, are we suppose to believe that Obama is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer? What's the point of this discussion? Is it to point out that Obama is bad in some way and we should be very afraid?

[karen]

Spud, i'm too busy reading Bill O'Reilly's new book(just jking- geesh)(although my Mom just bought it:0)).

My education is- not so great only for the fact i didn't develop any inner conversation on where i wanted it to take me. I could have done much better, but the more i was pushed toward a higher goal for myself- the deeper i dug in my heels and pushed back. It was a mistake.

I really wanted to go to Cornell. I could have and i chickened out. I have the heart of both chicken and lion- they devour eachother by turn. If a Tech Associate's degree is enough to claim educated in the rafters- i'm in. I know enough about farming to keep the girls fed, milked and clean. It's a lot like Motherhod. I also have a few courses under my belt(& am 8 classes shy)of a BA in Enviromental Science, but i quit on that about 12 yrs ago. Life kinda got in the way. I'd have been one hell of a Conservative Conservationist:0). I love our Earth.

As for Oprah- i meant more about culture- or not. I could watch her show and become a disciple, but her time must conflict w/Dr Phil(another zinger). Actually, we raked the largest pile of leaves tonight and we jumped in them and tunneled thru them 'til dark.

Hey, O/T but i've been meaning to ask: does Michael build Earth ships? I saw a Michael Reynolds on CBS the other morning and this guy builds houses out of recycled(sh-tuff). Is it this Michael?

[amba]

I suspect there's not enough Scotch on the planet to get the Michael I know to build an earth ship.