Nailing Obama On His Associations

The one and only Charles Krauthammer brings the “hammer” down on Obama and his dubious associations with Ayers, Wright, et. al.
The following piece is the clearest and most well-articulated explanation of why Obama’s past associations DO matter. Everyone in America should read Charles Krauthammer’s column before stepping into the voting booth.
Read the full column below the fold.


October 10, 2008
A Question of Barack Obama’s Character
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON — Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.
But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama’s associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.
McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by The New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.
This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.
Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama’s associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.
Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.
Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.
Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

6 thoughts on “Nailing Obama On His Associations”

  1. This guy Obama/Socialist…has done a great job of hiding his extremist views. His wife let them slip out a couple of times and now you never see her. But Obama…what a con job he has been pulling on the American people with the help of all the extreme wackos organizations in this country. These American self haters of the left are jumping for joy with thier damning of The United States. All Americans should be very concerned. This man is going to bankrupt our country. He is following Saul Alinsky`s “Rules for Radicals” word for word.

  2. So it’s o.k. to support Luis Posada Carriles who bombed and killed over 73 people some of which were innocent civilians and diplomats, but this guy Ayers is a terrorist? How many people did Ayers kill again? oh yeah, zero! Then he got his PhD, and THEN he was asked to serve on the the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Barack Obama.
    And who started the CAC?… Oh yeah, Walter Annenberg, the billionaire REPUBLICAN who was NIXONS ambassador to the UK. Guess who Else sat on the CAC with Ayers and Obama… REPUBLICAN Arnold Weber. Anyone here want to take a shot at how much he donated to the McCain campaign?
    Which makes me wonder, why would two republicans financially back Ayers and collectively contribute over $15,000 to the republican party at the same time. **GASP** they must be terrorists too!
    LOL, so can we grow up and move on now?

  3. Marmo: Obama and Osama both have friends that bomb the Pentagon. Ayres bombed the house of a federal judge in NY. They, Obama’s friends and your friends, set bombs to go off at the judges’s front and back doors so him, his wife and his children would not get out, only a good man standing by saved the family when he threw snow on the fire by the back door, Ayres and his wife bombed a lady’s restroom in The House of Congress, to this day one can see the mismatched brick in that restroom from the explotion’ blast damage, just 40 seconds earlier a mother and her small daughter had the left the restroom when the bomb went off. Your prof Ayres while stepping on the America flag proclaimed after his case got thrown out in Federal Court something to the effect of “only in America I do the crime and don’t get the time”, right on 9/11/01 he stated he did not do enough to overthrow our government with more bombing, now your beloved commie Barak Hussein Obama claims he did not know about Ayres terrorist past, a blatant and pathetic farce for a guy who was a lecturer on constitutional law, off course he knew evry detail on Ayres using the 4th Admendment to skip out of Levenworth. Ayres is the same as Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden, as for Posada he was tried twice and got off twice without any Fourth Admendment tricks…but I’m sure in your view (and in your DGI handler’s) a federal judge and his family deserve to be fire bombed and burned to death just as a young mother and her daughter deserve to be blown up for visiting Congress. Fuck you, you bolchevik sucking dog!.

  4. marmol_set,
    What part of “associating with terrorists and shaky characters” don’t you understand. Apparently, quite a bit.
    However, you may have just been yanking our chain, so in that case I guess a little levity is needed with all that’s going on in today’s world. Thanks for providing some of that for us this afternoon.
    Indeed, let’s “move on”. Or is it “move on.org” for you?

  5. Hey fuckhead marmol_set,
    First of all a lot of us are conflicted about Posada Carriles so I don’t know where you get the “support” thing from. Secondly, you are convicting him despite the fact that the courts that looked at it Venezuela could not come to that conclusion during the 10 years they held him in jail. Also none of us has a personal relationship with Posada.
    Secondly, we’re not running for president ASSHOLE. Big fucking difference.

  6. A “marmoset” is a monkey found in the New World (Callithrix jacchus). Truth in nomenclature, I’m sure, since this New World monkey-brain is having some Kool-Aid along with his bananas, papayas and mealworms.

Comments are closed.