Sunday, April 13, 2008

Obama's Past Association With Known Terrorist Returns to Haunt Him

Change? What kind of change? Wish he'd tell us, because we're getting a little wary about his intentions should he become President. It isn't enough to simply go around promising "change" and trying to please absolutely everyone with a slick, malleable message. Besides, his baggage does tend to make people worry a bit more.

Story here. ht:

Just when Obama thought he had had enough of a headache with this slur he made against a certain group of folks, for which he thinks his subsequent "clarification" and expression of regret for the supposedly-unintended tone and interpretation, he's now got to deal with questions about past association with yet another extremist, this time with a known terrorist.

A PAST association with a former terrorist has returned to haunt Barack Obama as the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination nears its end game.

Republicans are turning on Obama for his connection with William Ayers, once a member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and the State Department in the 1970s.

Ayers was loosely involved in Obama’s election as an Illinois state senator in the late 1990s, when he was introduced to local activists at a meeting in his house. He also donated $200 to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2001.

Obama served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic foundation, for three years and shared a platform with him at two academic conferences.

Republicans believe they have found new evidence that Obama lacks judgment and patriotism just as the controversy over the Rev Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, who said, “God damn America”, is dying down.

Maybe Obama does lack judgement. I'm afraid the evidence is already piling up.

Doesn't he know well enough to avoid associating with haters and violent extremists?

Or is he just so clueless as to what's going on around him and in the world as to be ignorant about the way some folks really are?

One cannot help but think that maybe it'd be too risky to put this fine fellow behind the desk in the Oval Office.

It's about judgement and ability to tell right from wrong. These qualities are required for one to be a good President.

And it's not enough to say, "Oh, well, he couldn't be any worse than Bush". Come on; Americans really ought to aim higher than "no worse than".

Hillary? Ewww, too. Too communistic. Promised, actually, to "take things away from you... on behalf of the 'greater good'".

If I were American, I'd go with the logically safest choice, a man who actually put his life on the line to fight for his country and was actually a prisoner of war. To me, as imperfect as all the choices appear, the clear choice would be John McCain.