Of course Obama was not part of the Weather Underground, and I never implied he was. It is the mentoring issue.

There are some strong indications that he was mentored, at a critical, formative time in his career, not just by a member of the WU, but a founder and active participant in bombings. That person, to this day, is proud of what he did, has stated that publicly, and says his only remorse is that he didn't do more.

So, isn't it fair to question what influences HE may have had? As I said, what reason would Ayers have for trying to create and encourage Obama as a viable political candidate? Just becuase Obama is half Black and intelligent, but not sharing significant core values? Unlikely, but possible.

If we are concerned and willing to look at Rev. Wright, and Palin's preacher (don't know the name), her husband's connection to a peaceful secessionist movement (again, we should), etc., why is it nuclear to talk about Ayers possible influence on Obama?

Anyway, so, yeah, if Palin's currently involved or was ever involved in a group which bombed anyone then we'd want to know. A wee bit relevant. But of course no one's suggesting that Obama was ever in the Weather Underground (except for New Yorker cartoons). After all, he was 7? 8? The question is whether Obama is allowed to associate with such a person for fund raisers and non-profit boards.

OK. I'm going to stop here. I've been hoping to write a guest post about evidence in politics, and this would fit in nicely with it. Essentially, I am reading one of Austin's earlier comments now, where he brings up the issues of mentoring, which fits nicely in my mind with earlier worries about Reverend Wright's influence on Obama, at least in my mind. So I will attempt to take this up that way, if it's okay.

If you are on the left, as we see with Ayers, it doesn't matter how repugnant your actions were, nor how unrepentant you may be, you are still a welcome part of the team, and it is wrong to criticize or even suggest that the level of involvement and association between them and someone like Obama, the Democratic Presidential candidate, should be investigated.

'See no evil' is a very common part of human nature, especially if you become convinced that the ends justifies the means or if corrupt leaders are better than the alternatives.

Actually, I am having a hard time coming up with someone who used to bomb and kill police and other innocents within the US, advocated the violent overthrow of the US government, then went on the be 'a respected mainstream' member of the Right.

If you think of one, use them instead, and tell me how comfortable you would be then.

My first thought was 'no'. I guess I'm too trusting of people. I basically am assuming that all 4 candidates have good intentions and will keep assuming so unless I'm proven otherwise. In the end, I'm always more interested in what the candidate is likely to do when elected. I would be extremely interested if a candidate turned out to have a David Duke-like past and was a member of the KKK, but having a conservative mentor with whom I disagree… not so big a deal? It's interesting, but I care more about plans for education, war, etc.

A mentor is usually picking and guiding someone because of common goals and beliefs, and the mentor often needs a proxy when they themselves cannot run due many possible reasons, including 'skeletons'. That is my only concern.

If that turns out to be the same type of BS so much else has so far, that is great. But, until someone looks closely, how will we know?

Let's do the old 'reversey' thing – if Palin was mentored by Pat Buchanan, would you think that would be relevant?

What are they going to do if Palin gives a good speech, and the same with McCain?

What are they going to do if this becomes an incontestibly even contest between the two pairs of candidates (and the two parties) or even swings in McCain's (and the GOP's) favor — horrors! To what lower level will the media descend?

Y'all have to understand, that to the faithful of the messiah Obama, it is war against his opponents, and all is fair — there's no “fair,” in fact, as we see routinely.

Well, that's certainly one awkward part. But the part in her initial VP speech where she claimed she told congress to take the bridge to nowhere and shove it — if we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves (I'm paraphrasing, of course) was even more blatantly awkward.

I'm good.

Also really dumb (laughably so) is the idea being floated by some McCain surrogates that she has foreign policy experience because her state borders Russia.

Anyway, remember this stuff cuts both ways for everybody. I was with CStanley and Austin about many of the attacks on Palin, particularly the obviously baseless one about her last child.

Actually, I'm not even sure what the story is supposed to tell. It seems to be a guilt by association thing. Ayers is bad, Obama hung with him, so he must be bad too. I guess that's something. More interesting are insinuations that Obama and Ayers confiscated millions of dollars or gave it to cronies. That would indeed be an interesting story if there's good evidence for it. So we are now supposed to think that the MSM composed of several thousand people who all compete with one another would universally refuse to look into Obama stealing or wasting tens of millions of dollars because they will lose their careers, but they will question him about flagpins on national tv?

That quote from the debate is admirable. I read it when you linked to it before. I'm just saying I don't think she's uniquely qualified because of her state to discuss energy. And even if she is, I don't think that excuses her on virtually every other issue where she's been a blank slate.

Naturally, each bridge has the name “Sen. Robert Byrd” on it.

And I'd presume that Alaskans, while wanting to exploit their fossil fuel resources to the benefit of their state, would have a bit more interest in what's best for America than the Saudis would, doncha think?