Soccer Dad

"We have your back"

Just One Minute writes:

Now, how about the question of whether Bill Ayers has a hard-left educational philosophy shared by Barack Obama? My guess is that soccer moms (and dads) would be
interested to learn about that.

Well, yes I would, thanks for thinking about me. And I would like to know about the connection between Sen. Obama and the guy who said on 9/11 that he was happy to have committed terror against the United States and that he didn't do enough.

Unfortunately, if I read the New York Times, I wouldn't know a whole lot more. Just One Minute summarizes:

Mr. Shane presents the bare bones of many of the allegations made by critics, thereby allowing the Times to defend this piece as fair and two-sided. However, little or no evidence is presented to support the allegations while the Obama denials and current explanations are presented uncritically. The net effect will probably be to convince many people that the Times pushed hard but simply could not find a story here.

Of course a blogger, Stephen Diamond, has illustrated the ties between the two. The Times contacted him and still refused to use the information he provided.

Finally, you have now twice questioned whether I have evidence of the role of Ayers. I told you about the evidence on the phone, I sent you copies of the evidence and I blogged on the evidence prior to the posting of your story. My evidence is written, it is contemporaneous with the events, it fits the facts as we know them and it is consistent with how organizations like the CAC are established and organized.

On the other hand, your evidence is based on two conversations with individuals who did not have either the legal authority or fiduciary responsibility for the selection of the board. Your evidence is 14 years after the fact.

In social science and law, written contemporaneous records are considered a more credible source than ex post recollections by only a small number of the individuals involved. I thought the same standards applied in journalism as well.

Diamond, BTW, does not appear to be a McCain supporter.

Fausta sums it up:

So we have two issues:
An issue of judgement
An issue of experience.

On the judgement side, Obama worked for an extended period of time in two political projects with an unrepentant terrorist who travels to Chavista schools to advocate the overthrow of democracy.

On the experience side, Obama's only real administrative experience track record is as dismal as it can get. $160 million of CAC money? gone.

(h/t Instapundit)

Hot Air goes after the Times:

If John McCain had spent ten years on charitable boards with someone less egregious than abortion bombers -- say, with Randall Terry of Operation Rescue -- the New York Times would have Page One, in-depth reporting, complete with teams of reporters combing through the minutes of the board meetings. Hell, the New York Times infamously smeared McCain with allegations of a sexual affair based on nothing but gossip from two disgruntled ex-staffers last February, and spent days rolling that out, using four reporters on the story. For the Obama/Ayers connection, they have Scott Shane telling us that there's nothing to see here.

Why might this line of attack work? Think back to Charles Krauthammer's column on Friday. Krauthammer wrote:

Now Obama is cool as in collected. He has the discipline to let slow and steady carry him to victory. He has not at all distinguished himself in this economic crisis -- nor, one might add, in any other during his national career -- but detachment has served him well. He understands that this election, like the election of 1980, demands only one thing of the challenger: Make yourself acceptable. Once Ronald Reagan convinced America that he was not menacing, he won in a landslide. If Obama convinces the electorate that he is not too exotic or green or unprepared, he wins as well.

Tying Sen. Obama to Ayers makes Obama seem a little less safe. It hardly seems out of bounds. Still Jennifer Rubin points out:

The pattern in these situations has been the same throughout the campaign. A a one-sided press account comes out. The McCain camp stomps its collective feet and puts out detailed emails to conservative media decrying how unfair the MSM is and unloading rebuttal information. Conservative media examine, investigate and present contrasting information while the MSM goes merrily on its way. The McCain camp publically rails against the MSM. The problem? No voters who actually matter have any information as to what the "real" or at least balanced story may be. Why? Because for reasons not entirely clear the McCain camp itself has resisted taking on the burden of directly through ads, speeches, interviews and debates informing the public. As a result their message never sees the light of day.

Is Palin a hint of things to come? Perhaps. But if they want this job done they had better do it themselves.

So there needs to be an effective followup by the McCain campaign.

And where is, you might ask, America's other major daily, the Washington Post on this? Glad you asked:

In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park.

Obama has taken pains to minimize their connection, calling Ayers "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know" and "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight."

It's not just Obama (who's been minimizing the connection). It's been the MSM too! Message from the Washington Post to the Obama campaign: "We have your back!" If the Washington Post had taken every denial of the Nixon administration at face value, we'd never had had the Watergate scandal!

Lots more via memeorandum.