The BO campaign is in panic mode: Here is a link [1] the American Issue Project ad. A link [2] to the BO campaign response.
Here the text of the core of BO’s response:
Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.
Announcer: With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the sixties? Trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers. McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers’ crimes, committed when Obama was just eight years old. Let’s talk about standing up for America today. John McCain wants to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq
Jim Geraghty, National Review [3], mines these four nuggets for just one paragraph of BO’s response:
1. It’s good to see the Obama campaign conceding that Ayers is “a radical” who committed crimes, not just “a professor who lives in Barack’s neighborhood.”
2. Why is McCain talking about the sixties? He isn’t. He’s talking about Obama’s relationship with Ayers over the past two decades or so, and Obama’s comfort working closely with a man who built bombs to kill American soldiers and cops.
3. The crimes were committed when Obama was eight. Well, Eric Rudolph committed his crimes quite a few years back. Does he get cut some slack?
4. I am sure the McCain campaign thanks their rival for running an ad in Ohio that depicts Ayers, calls him a radical, mentions his crimes. This will make it a much bigger story
BO’s only claim to be qualied to be President is his vaunted judgement. BO’s long association with an unrepreented terrorist impugns BO’s judgement.
BO now claims to have denounced Ayers. When? BO has been associated with Ayers since 1987 [4]. So at what point in BO’s twenty year association with Ayers did BO denounce him? The answer has to be damning.
If BO now describes Ayers as a radicial criminal, why did when speaking to George Stephanopoulos, did BO describe Ayers merely as his neighbor? At the time of the interview was BO not yet aware of Ayers’ criminal record and not yet denounced him?
For far more go to Memerandum [5]..
For a chuckle, Ed Driscoll [6] gives us some de ja pew:
John Kerry wants to be president because he is John Kerry, and John Kerry is supposed to be president. Hence his campaign’s flummoxed and tone-deaf response to the swift boat vets. Ban the books, sue the stations, retreat, attack. Underneath it all you can sense the confusion. How dare they attack Kerry? He’s supposed to be president. It’s almost treason in advance. . . . Inconsistencies are irrelevant, because he’s consistently John Kerry. And he’s supposed to be president.
In my lifetime, the only candidates the democrats have bave able to elect as President have been southerns, and since Lyndon Johnson, only southern governors. So why the ‘rats so intent on running northern liberals for President?