A Pilgrim’s Digression

Last night on Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity opened another line of attack on Barack Obama, devoting a considerable portion of his speaking time to denouncing the Senator for “surrounding himself” (Hannity’s phrase) with “terrorists” (note the plural).

Who are these terrorists with which Obama consorts? Are they anti-Israel muslim “Isalmo-fascists,” as the right likes to call them?

No. Apparently, at some point in the distant past, Obama had contact with a former operative in the sixties organization known as The Weathermen, William Ayers.

The Politico has a story about the relationship between Obama and Ayers, brief as it was. Obama Once Visited Sixties Radicals. Here is the relevant quote from the article, as I see it:

“Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.”

Hannity quoted an Obama supporter as saying Ayers and Obama were friends, but if he was referring to this quote from The Politico, Dr. Young was merely present at the event in question, back in 1996.

What we have here, in Hannity’s rattling another skeleton in Obama’s closet, is merely another attempt at raising guilt by association to the level of legitimate political discourse. Suddenly the debate becomes, not Obama’s policies or professed beliefs, but the people with whom he “surrounds” himself.

At this rate, the fact that he served in the Illinois state senate, probably with some of the most radical left politicians in America, will probably become a disqualifier for President, in the minds of Hannity and others like him who seek to impugn Obama for his associations. Really, where ought the “guilt by association” train stop? If we are going to disqualify the man because Obama served on a board with Bill Ayers, or gave two speeches at events where Ayers also spoke, then we ought to fully investigate each of the candidates associations for hints of undesirable relationships.

Would McCain pass that test? Certainly Clinton would not.

Ayers is without a doubt a violent, radical leftist, who should have been convicted of the bombings to which he has confessed. But to suggest that there is a link to “terrorism” because over a decade ago, Obama had contact with Ayers in a professional setting…well, that is just the height of ignorant propagandizing

And yes, to use an overused term, it is McCarthy-like in its persecution of people because of their associations.

How worried should Obama supporters be about the Ayers connection? Not much. First of all, unless some video turns up of Obama with his arm around Ayers, pronouncing him a friend and mentor, I doubt that Obama can be more than casually linked with Ayers.

Also, the difference between this story and the Wright controversy is that in the case of Wright, there was video of the man’s fiery anti-American denunciations. There may be video of Ayers, too–in fact I pretty much assume there is video of Ayers. However, it is a far cry from a man’s pastor and spiritual mentor denouncing America to a distant political/business associate denouncing America and confessing to bombing public buildings.

In any event, I sort of feel like getting this out now is a good thing. Not to be overly crude, but Republicans are blowing their wad a tad early in the game. The focus right now is on the Clinton/Obama rivalry, and inasmuch as this story about Ayers is out there, it’s not festering behind the scenes, waiting to explode.

My wife worries that Obama cannot win because of his liberalism and his “unpatriotic” associations, which is a major reason why she supports Clinton. I confess to some worry, as well.

Republicans have a knack of defining an opponent before he has a chance to define himself. Sometimes a candidate like John Kerry hands Republicans the pencil with which they caricature him.

I don’t think that will happen with Obama. Republicans have tried it with the flag lapel pin story, the Pledge of Allegiance story, the Jeremiah Wright story, and now the Bill Ayers story…all intended to caricature Obama as an anti-American radical. Pundits like Hannity, when pressed, will say that they do not believe Obama is anti-American or that he believes the same things as Ayers or Wright. Well then what is the point of bringing up his associations if not to suggest to Americans that there is a dangerous, unpatriotic tendency in Barack Obama?

Make no mistake, Republicans are trying to define Obama at a time in which Clinton is distracting him on his left. Simultaneously, McCain has an unprecedented opportunity to define himself in perfect freedom from criticism, as represented by his “biography” tour around the country.

What gives me hope is that after each controversy, Obama has arisen from potential disaster looking better and more Presidential than ever before. Can he beat McCain in November is the question that can only be answered after the summer and the convention, but right now, Obama looks pretty darn good. He took a real beating in March, and the punishment is unlikely to let up, and yet he’s still smiling.

Just don’t ask him for an autographed picture to sell on eBay. He won’t be smiling then.