WSJ "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools"

[Rob D]

The following link is from the Wall Street Journal on Obama's association to Bill Ayers. A guy Obama claims is just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222128 ... torialPage

Easy to see why he would try to downplay his association with this small c communist!

How can Obama even pass a security clearance to be our next Commander in Chief?

[The People]

Obama was eight years old when the Weatherman actions were going down. An attempt to make an association between the two is a stretch to say the least.

This article is more about language framing than about the purported subject. It's purpose is to talk about some bad things while over and over again inserting "community organizer" in to the text of the article until the reader starts to equate the selected term with the actions being "reported" on.

It's classic propoganda. It's trying to frame a term and make it in to a bad word, like they did with the word "liberal." Look up the definition of the word liberal, and see if it really means what righties have told you to believe it means.

[Rob D]

Did you even read the article?
It didn't try to tie Obama to Ayers back in the 60s!
It only told of their association with the radical school group founded by Ayers and Led by Obama, and how Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' living room!
Read it! It's not propaganda, it's the Wall Street Journal.

[The People]

It's not propaganda, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I think I'll make this my signature.

[Greg_Cornish]

....It's not propaganda, it's the Wall Street Journal.

LOL

[Greg_Cornish]

It's not propaganda, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I think I'll make this my signature.

Darn, you beat me to it. If you do please give credit to the author.

[StockOption]

I wonder why no representative for the junior senator appeared on the same radio program when Kurtz went on the air in Chicago? Huh, probably easier to just try and silence Kurtz as he was saying things the campaign would rather let lie.....funny. That's what's so weird about all this, time and time again instead of vigoursly fighting this allegation the campaign choses to instead try and silence the messenger. How odd.

[The People]

Simple. Because no issue exists here. It was completely invented by making false and exageratted connections to two people who happened to sit on the same board of directors of an organization.

If you think that automatically makes them of the same mind, go to one of your city council meetings one night. Doesn't matter what city you live in. You'll clearly see that different members of the same body can have different and sometimes competing interests.

This is spin. Pure and simple. It's not worth the Obama campaign's time to respond to it, and showing up to debate it would only give the issue some perceived validity.

[StockOption]

Perhaps.

AllI know is I would love to see some reporter ask the junior senator a tough question related to this. Up to this point no one has.

Perhaps one of those lovely ladies on the View can muster enough courage to ask for a frank an honest explanation? Right

Clearly the relationship is more than "just a neighbor who I am friendly with" and the American public deserves a more forthright and complete answer given the factual data that is out in the public now.

[The People]

AllI know is I would love to see some reporter ask the junior senator a tough question related to this. Up to this point no one has.

Perhaps the issue will come up during the debates, which will begin on Friday. Introduction of this issue would serve two purposes. A question about this subject would give Obama the opportunity to address the issue directly and would also bring up the issue of false claims made against the candidates by their opposition. I would love to see both discussed in the debate format.

[Rob D]

Simple. Because no issue exists here. It was completely invented by making false and exageratted connections to two people who happened to sit on the same board of directors of an organization.

If you think that automatically makes them of the same mind, go to one of your city council meetings one night. Doesn't matter what city you live in. You'll clearly see that different members of the same body can have different and sometimes competing interests.

This is spin. Pure and simple. It's not worth the Obama campaign's time to respond to it, and showing up to debate it would only give the issue some perceived validity.

Intresting, so that means that even members of the same party have different and sometimes competing interests.
Not so McSame after all!

[The People]

Right. Sometimes.

As far as ,members of Congress go, you'd have to check out their voting record. By McCain's own admission, he's sided with Bush 90% of the time.

[Rob D]

Right. Sometimes.

As far as ,members of Congress go, you'd have to check out their voting record. By McCain's own admission, he's sided with Bush 90% of the time.

Or another way to look at it...
McCain votes against Bush and his party 10% of the time.
Obama never crosses the line, votes liberal 100% of the time(when he votes), even when many of his party are reaching accross party lines. "THE" most liberal voter of 2007. That does not sound like someone who will unite parties.