Is This What It Has Come Down To?
John McCain delivers yet another invective-filled stump speech, this one at a rally in New Mexico. He asks rhetorically:
“Who is the real Barack Obama?”
Someone shouts:
“A terrorist!”
The crowd cheers. McCain remains silent.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is doing her part in Clearwater, Florida, telling a rally where reporters are herded away from the audience by campaign workers, that:
“I was reading my copy of the New York Times the other day.”
The crowd boos.
“I knew you guys would react that way, okay. So I was reading the New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago.”
More boos.
“Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers.”
Still more boos.
“And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.”
Booing continues, accented by the shout of a man in the audience:
“Kill him!”
The crowd cheers. Palin remains silent.
This is not merely lowering the bar. This is playing to the basest instincts of a lynch mob. We can only pray that some demented soul doesn’t take the tacit support of McCain and Palin for such hatefulness as a message to . . . K – I – L – L – H – I – M.
41 Responses to “Is This What It Has Come Down To?”
If Barack Obama is assasinated, I would put the PIs (and some rare honest cops) on Sarah Palin's case for accessory. She is now publicly linked to any attempt on Barack's life. A high-ranking public official like her remaining silent to the clear and audible shout of “kill him” to her reference to Obama, and remaining smiling no less, is linking herself to any potential future conspiracy.
More of that “maverick” style I guess? Like I said, it paints a clear picture of their desperation. To paint Obama as a morbidity-risk in office is their clear retort to McCain's recent public exposure for being way too old to take office in this particularly stressful upcoming administration, with the malignant melanoma and all.
There is just as much chance of McCain dying in office as there is Obama. So once again the playing field is levelled and we're back to the issues.
Poor McCain.
Add a third incident:
“Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”
Silhouette:
Although such outbursts should be of great concern to the Secret Service, I don't expect McCain or Palin to burst the excitement balloon at a rally by scolding someone who yells “Kill him!”
But neither do I expect them to put out word that such hateful outbursts are neither tolerated nor reflect the views of the ticket.
I am sure that should such a statement be issued, one of the McCain tolls here at TMV will bring it to our attention.
Is this what it comes to? Making stuff up in order to try to stop the McCain campaign from raising concerns that the American people feel are legitimate?
Here's a video of that appearance; the relevant remarks start around 6:28. Can anyone hear that shout that Dana Milbank claims was made? It's possible that it wasn't picked up on this particular audio, but Shaun, at least admit that you're embellishing by saying that this shout rang out and then the crowd started cheering.
It would be terrible if such a thing happened, but it's equally terrible to make stuff up. Dana Milbank needs to produce some evidence that this actually happened.
Isn't what Palin is doing illegal? Isn't it inciting violence in a sense? Is she stupid? No, I am for asking this question! She cares not that he, Obama is a father with young children, what kind of a woman is she? What kind of upbringing has she had, what kind of mother is she? Awful, just awful.
CStanley, Marc Ambinder, who really likes McCain, heard invective, too. Look at McCain's brief frown at 25 seconds after the man shouts “Terrorist”, then watch him perk up ad continue on.
More of this please. As Palin says, this is the time when Americans really need to know who the candidates are and what they're about.
I'm sure it's playing well with the Independents. I want them to be clear on the Republican base.
Mary, I don't dispute the crowd boos and people calling out “terrorist” at that McCain event. Ayers is a terrorist- does anyone dispute that? No one said that Obama is one.
There's a world of difference between that and someone yelling out “kill him” and the candidate ignoring the crowd cheering such a statement.
How cares since the Repubicans are not going to win. As the Republican party completes its death spiral, a more interesting question is what will conservatives do in the coming one party state. Will they start voting in the Democratic primaries and thus make the Democratic party more conservative (See Blue Dog Democrats). Or will they decide that the government is the enemy with an accompanying increase in tax fraud and corruption (see current day Mexico)
What disappoints me is the continuing support and apologist attitude for all the rotten behavior on the part of the McCain/Palin people. If I was a traditional republican I'd be taking great pains to distance myself from this neo-GOP. It ushered in the era of Bush/Cheney/Rove and now is trying to pass the torch to McCain/Palin. None of these people seem to have a great deal of use for truth, decency or transparency. It stopped being the party of Lincoln a long time ago.
If anyone is interested into an analysis of Palin's 'stupid' populism, TNR has an excellent piece. Seems Palin is a vindictive liar who goes after even her allies to win a battle.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8c130…
I notice that the one thing missing from any commentary here is someone actually viewing that video clip and hearing the incendiary remarks that were said to have been made…
Regardless of whether someone yelled out “kill him” or not (which I agree is a serious charge to make, especially that she heard it) I can't believe that you seem to be calling their rhetoric raising “legitimate” concerns, not to mention that you said the “American people” platitude. I hate that phrase as it is so lazy and overly used to say anything.
A “legitimate” concern would be to investigate to see if there was fraud in the Chicago foundation…a “legitimate” concern is even to argue that his ideas about education are wrong, and show clear evidence that Ayer's bad ideas about it influenced Obama…heck a legitimate issue would be to press Obama to explain how his ideas were influenced since it's obvious that he knows of Ayers work.
For example, if you look at the Keating “documentary” that Obama released, it never accuses McCain of doing anything illegal because he wasn't found to be doing anything illegal. It says that he took vacations on Keating's dime and got campaign contributions even after the regulators told McCain that Keating was doing criminal behavior. But it's not really an indictment of McCain as much as of the system at the time (regarding lobbying, and that was an influence in changing the rules) and the system now, with the idea that regulation is just burden. His whole point was that the regulators could have potentially stopped the S&L crisis from being as bad as it was, but they were prevented.
You can disagree with the message, you can even argue if you think Obama has his facts wrong, but you can't dismiss that his attack ads (for the most part although some are really stupid like the houses thing) focus on specific messages that are tied into governance issues.
Yes Ayers was a domestic terrorist that's a fact. But he was also a major figure in education when Obama interacted with him, and got a major grant from a foundation that was formed by a former ambassador for Nixon and was personal friends with Reagan. Forgive me if I'm skeptical that its goal is to secretly destroy the US.
So to say Ayers = terrorist, and Obama knew Ayers……then? That's all they say.
“Terrorist” is arguably worse than “treasonous” simply for the fact that it's been used a lot more in modern history. Just as the colonial powers committed grave crimes and riled up the masses in the name of protecting them against “treason” so have authoritarian governments used “terrorism” as justification. So has the Bush Administration as well as countries like Britain had concerted, deliberate pushes to use it to justify massive intrusion, and stifle dissent on domestic and foreign policy choices…choices that many experts say have severely hurt our country and muddy a debate about how to tackle the very real threat.
Just like the absolutely disgusting 9/11 “tribute” that slipped in Iran and explicitly implied that if you weren't for military force as the primary solution that you were dishonoring the victims, the explicit theme of linking Obama to terrorism is beyond the pale. It is to create an entirely emotional reaction, and a reaction that has often been exploited. It has no place in honest discourse, it is Orwellian and it is wrong.
If Obama did anything like that I just wouldn't vote.
I watched it before I put up my comment and didn't hear it. But first of all it was filmed from far away from the stage and I could hear nothing in the crowd other than what was around the camera. (I did hear someone yell out something that sounded like terrorist).
There was no way to tell what could be heard by Palin. At the very least it didn't “ring out” across the whole audience..but Shaun was the one that said that. The actual article just said “suggested one man.”
Regardless of Palin being accessory (is anyone really, seriously suggesting that Palin wants to see Obama assassinated? Come on!) the ugliness of the crowd is quite apparent. The difference in the tone of the crowd cheering between the Republican rally and a Democratic rally that I heard this morning on the radio was startling. The Republican crowd sounds mad. There is a nastiness to the cheering, a sense of unease.
The Democrat rally sounds the way I'd expect a rally to sound. Enthusiastic, excited. Nothing special, actually.
The anger is what the Republicans are tapping into. They're losing and they're mad as hell about it. Joe Biden suggested that is was a bad idea to impugn the motives of one's opponents, but I'm starting to wonder. Are these people of good faith? Jeez.
The fringe, far wacky, excitable element is out in full force in Election '08. BUT this is not the norm/standard or Senator Obama would not have made it this far in his run. I think we all need to remember that.
Mikkel, by attempting to silence anyone who brings up Ayers (and the work that Obama did with him) prevents anyone from hearing about the legitimate issues that you mention. What is so hard to understand about that?
You do realize that when Stanley Kurtz attempted to read the documents from the Annenberg project that he was first told to come to Chicago to do so, and then when he arrived he found out that the records had all suddenly been sequestered? He had to fight for weeks to get them released.
And when Kurtz was going on a Chicago radio station to talk about what he eventually did find, Obama's campaign was invited to send someone too but instead they put out an e-mail asking supporters to call in to the show and complain. Kurtz and another Obama detractor (Freddoso) were also maligned by the Obama campaign as smear merchants.
What I'm getting at is that you are right that there are legitimate and non-legitimate ways to go about bringing up the Ayers' association, but NEITHER is being permitted in this case; instead, the Obama campaign is doing everything it can to stop people from even asking questions at all (and many in the media are aiding that effort.)
And mikkel, your points about the video clip link that I posted are well taken- but surely you'd agree (I infer from your other comment that you do) that the charges being made by Milbank and then embellished even further by Shaun Mullen are serious enough that they ought to be backed by actual evidence.
And even if the clip I provided doesn't disprove Milbank's claim about one man shouting something, Shaun's claim of the crowd cheering that comment and Palin ignoring it ARE proven false.
OK, CStanley, I didn't know which video you were referring to and assumed you meant the one I had seen, of McCain. I watched and listened to that amateur YouTube video of Palin, taken from behind her, in the thick of the crowd. The audio was fairly clear for her, very clear for the people in the immediate vicinity, and nowhere near up to the job of catching everything said by the rest of the crowd. I couldn't hear “kill him!” in that video.
But the failure to catch the words “kill him!” (which may have targeted Ayers or Obama, the context isn't clear) doesn't mean that Dana Milbanks, no Obama fan, was mistaken or lying when he wrote that story. But I will give some credence to a professional reporter's direct experience, while acknowledging that it is possible he misheard or misinterpreted what's going on. Your video does not disprove his allegations, given the conditions and quality. it just fails to support them.
The accumulation of reports that people are acting in very ugly ways at these rallies does alarm me. McCain and Palin are choosing to incite anger and hate via guilt by association. That's pretty damn low and incredibly irresponsible of them.
Mary, my comment just above yours acknowledges exactly what you are saying- I fully realize that I can't prove a negative, but the clip that I provided DOES disprove what Shaun Mullen asserted about the crowd reaction and fails to prove Milbank's claim. And what I'm saying is that his claim is serious enough to require something more than his account of it. If this happened, why hasn't anyone else reported it or caught it on an audio clip?
And yes, some people are choosing to incite anger- on both sides. People close to Sarah Palin have had their phone numbers published and had threats made; Andrew Sullivan (that stalwart defender of privacy) spent weeks asking why Sarah Palin refused to publish all of her medical records surrounding the birth of her son in order to prove maternity; 'comedienne' Sarah Bernhard publicly DID incite violence against Palin; people have repeatedly misrepresented the facts of Palin's positions in the most inflammatory ways, insinuating that she's a theocrat and that she charged rape victims for rape kits while mayor of Wasilla (which has been shown to be false.) Has anyone here at TMV defended against these things? Instead of defense, some of the flames have actually been fanned instead.
Now I presume that you'll come back by saying that in the case of McCain and Palin, that they themselves are inciting the anger, but how so? By bringing up the very legitimate point, that Obama's work with an avowed domestic terrorist is being hushed up by his campaign and most of the media?
So then they should get up there and say that Obama is trying to block an intellectually honest investigation. The whole going around with the “domestic terrorist lover” meme hurts their credibility for pointing out anything that Obama did do wrong.
You last paragraph sounds aggrieved like it's up to Obama what is “allowed” and isn't, and he controls everything. Meanwhile McCain released an ad that said that Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners about sex, wants to raise everyone's taxes (heck if I were them I'd release ads saying that he should raise people's taxes and is dumb for not proposing it…because he is based on what he wants to do.), etc. that are just plain distortions and then complains when the media is spending all its time pointing that out instead of looking into Obama.
It's ironic because the charge against Democrats is that they never could get what they stood for into a soundbite and that's what Republicans could. Now that Democrats have one (and Obama keeps doing the traditional Democratic way too) and the Republicans don't have one, they are complaining that subtleties aren't being investigated….even though they are directly responsible for helping to foster that atmosphere!
Reminds me of the old observation that Democratic scandals got more play because they were about sex, drugs and literally taking money from undercover agents, while the Republican scandals were just as big if not bigger, but involved knowing very intricate details of laws in order to get upset. It was only after the Republicans started having sex scandals as well that they were hurt.
Look if there is one thing that's clear to me based on the last 7 years (both Bush's term and letting Clinton's settle) it's that governance is only as good as the system. If Obama is held to account for everything he does, he'll be bad, it's just that simple. Heck the more I learn about FDR the more I believe that we could have been really messed up if not for the war.
You show me someone that is actually trying to do this, and I'll be the first to spread it just as I vigorously complained a lot about his support of the agriculture bill and that Georgia should be made a NATO member. But I read a lot of that link you sent yesterday and had a hard time even understanding what it was talking about, as most of it was just about Ayers theories and detailed political battles and then innuendo that Obama was like it. No proof of any actual fraud or anything. Heck, no explicit accusation of fraud or anything.
So on one hand you have a couple of candidates fostering (well continuing to foster) an environment that is highly emotionally charged and depends a lot on an “us vs them” mentality (as an aside Obama is also really bad about this and I hate it), then explicitly connecting “terrorist” to Obama and it dovetails perfectly into my greater fears about how economic strife is ripping the social fabric of the country apart and it'll only get worse. On the other you have an accusation that Obama may have done something wrong, or at least incompetently. The first is getting 95% of the play, while the second is getting 5%…so while I appreciate your valid concerns I don't see how you could honestly think that the way they are presenting it is serving good.
Mikkel, it's not that I think the way they're presenting it is the best way to do so, but that I don't see that they have any choice, and I certainly don't see that it's as bad as some here are making it out to be.
As far as what the Ayers/CAC thing is all about- first point is that we really don't know yet because the records were just finally released!
Second point is that they're not necessarily even about fraud or anything illegal, and I certainly don't think there's any indication that Obama is a Manchurian candidate who will allow his allies to blow up the Capital. What does appear to have happened though, is that Obama has tried to cover his tracks for what was a pretty far left agenda and use of a political cronyism system of Chicago to foster his career. A lot of money changed hands and went to people who helped him get elected, and Ayers' fingerprints are all over it.
You may not see anything objectionable about the education issues involved, but shouldn't the information about the projects be allowed to see the light of day? Ayers (as well as many other people involved in those projects- including one of Obama's education advisors) DO have a very liberal agenda, and they're on record discussing their theories of promoting that agenda through the classroom. People have the right to know the details and decide for themselves.
To try to create a hypothetical if it were the other way around: what if Palin really had pushed for Creationism to be taught in Science classes? And then the minutes of meetings where she was expressing support for this agenda were blocked from being released to the media? Would people on the left be upset about that?
It's not necessarily about fraud (though I do think a legal form of graft was quite possibly involved.) It's about transparency, and the appearance that there was probably quite a bit that is politically unpalatable to people outside the Chicago bubble, which needed to be surpressed.
I am just flabbergasted by the lengthy, tortured, rationalizations made by some –I repeat, some–of the McCain-Palin supporters on this development.
OK, it is not even certain that the “KILL HIM” comments was really made.
So, how about just a comment to the effect of, “If such a comment was really made, it is a comment that Republicans would frocefully condemn and distance themselves from.”
Oh, and I meant to add, I don't know why you brought up complaints about distortions in McCain's ads against Obama when both sides have been guilty of that- Obama's use of “100 years in Iraq”, his misrepresentation of McCain's social security plan, healthcare plan, taxes, energy plan, etc. They've both done this (as every candidate always does.)
D E: I already did say that such a comment would be terrible- in fact the gravity of it is exactly why I feel it's important to have some verification. If someone did yell that out, I would certainly hope that the Secret Service would be on top of it.
I agree with everything you say except the first paragraph. To me what they are doing is like saying Obama might be a Muslim, and that they had no choice to say that except to bring up legitimate gripes about his foreign policy.
They are saying Obama might be a terrorist…or at the very least won't protect you from terrorists because he's friends with them. They are just doing it in a way that they have plausible denialibility.
It's like saying that Palin is a crazy right wing Dominionist End of Dayer when if you listen to her opinions on governing she brings up a lot of legitimate issues about the limits government power on different lives. She seems to be a creationist and I hold that against her because I find that they tend to not, shall we say, pay attention to science. But when I heard her argument about the role of the government in ciriculum I had no problem with it. So if she demonstrated scientific acumen in things she'd actually control then I think it's completely pointless to care what she thinks about creationism.
And yeah I'm aware that they are using that impression to try to manipulate people, especially in Florida. That's wrong too.
Mikkel: Who said the things you are claiming that they said?? When did McCain, Palin, or anyone actually associated with their campaign say that Obama's ties to Ayers mean that he might be a terrorist or that he's a terrorist lover? Everything I've heard from the two candidates has been pretty straight up and factual about Obama having had his first campaign fundraiser at Ayers' home, for instance. Why should it be off limits to say that??
Well you're obviously going to disagree, but I have watched the in context stuff about 100 years in Iraq repeatedly and I have no idea how people claim that's not what he meant. Especially because he explicitly talked about Germany and Japan where we still are.
(You can say he only meant staying there long term in a similar role, not active combat and that's the misrepresentation. But there is no plan that will actually work long term in Iraq that has been proposed.)
As for the other stuff….
His SS plan, same thing..what McCain has proposed at times would destroy how it works or at least doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure what his plan is these days it keeps changing…but if he's still tlaking about private accounts then yes that doesn't do anything. (I just joined TMV and am going to be doing posts that focus on math and science and how not understanding how things works leads to bad policies and misconceptions. One of them is going to be about how the stock market works….because all sides are missing the obvious.)
The health care plan IS a distortion depending on whether his plan is for a “deduction” or “credit.” I've read credit meaning that what the Obama camp is saying is wrong. Economists have argued it's wrong because they are lying about how wages will be affected (i.e. if they drop benefits wages will have an equal rise), but that relies on wage models that I don't think work for a myriad of reasons. But as long as the companies keep the benefits and people can apply the credit towards their income, then what Biden is saying is wrong. If the credit can only be applied towards paying for health care benefits explicitly, then it depends on whether you believe the wage models or not (which I don't). At the very least, it would put a lot of people into the individual pool and their rates would increase, although I'd personally get a lot more money under the plan. So it's a toss up based on how the credit is structured.
Taxes? Well Obama is lying about only on those that make $250K because of increased payroll for everyone, it hurts people that own their own companies. Also he is lying when he says that McCain gives nothing to most people, as the average tax cut is almost identical McCain just gives a lot more to the top 1% instead of increasing their taxes, and has a greater deficit than Obama does even with Obama's programs.
Energy plan? Well Obama does lie about McCain's and McCain lies about Obama's. That is where they are worst.
Anyway I feel like we're clogging this thread so this is my last post.
I'll try to cut it off after this too because obviously we could go round and round. As far as the lies though I have to quickly just rebut by saying that your explanations for why Obama's ads were actually true are the mirror image of someone on my side saying that McCain was accurate about the sex ed (he did vote for sex ed in kindergarten, and the bill itself was ambiguous in the language even if it's true that Obama's intent was to only include programs to guard against sexual abuse of young kids.) What I'm getting at is that these things are almost always defensible in the way you defend Obama's ads, but if we're all honest about it we can see how a 'true' statement really does twist the intent of what the opponent really said or meant.
And one other area where Obama's lying about their relative tax plans is when he keeps repeating that he'll give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. That number includes something like 45% who DON'T PAY ANY INCOME TAX- so they can't possibly be getting a tax cut but will instead be given a credit. That's a spending program, not a tax cut, but Obama chooses to frame it that way so that he can claim one up on McCain for giving tax cuts.
PS on your PS part, mikkel….
I don't completely disagree about ignoring the context that is used as propaganda method, but I find your analysis of it in the current situation disingenous (though I don't think you're doing it intentionally, just that it's one of those things that always looks worse when you see the other side doing it.)
The Ayers issue goes directly to a problem with transparency of Obama's history and record. If the concern is that this association is being hinted at as worse than it really is, then the Obama camp deserves some blame for that because they haven't been open about it (even some of Obama's close associates are admitting that he's tried to keep the relationship under the radar screen.) Now, you can complain that this is because the public is unnecessarily or inappropriately biased against such types of relationships, but again I'll point out a hypothetical if a GOP candidate were associated with a Dominionist and tried to hide it. The left would be completely unglued over that.
I'm getting off topic though because what I wanted to point out is that you generally are willing to admit that the Dems fearmonger in certain ways but you aren't really calling Obama and Biden out on that, but you are specifically deriding the GOP candidates for fearmongering on their own version of the “us vs. them” theme.
Well, this comment thread has held together pretty well, but to kinda return to where we started, tensions are extremely high and there is a palpable sense from talking to my Republican sources that the game is over bar the shouting.
This is exactly the environment in which some crackpot could do something really bad. It is incumbent on John McCain and Sarah Palin to state unequivocally that hateful outbursts will not be tolerated and do not reflect their views.
Perhaps Rick Moran can lead that effort over at his Rightwing Nuthouse. What say you, Mr. Moran?
I await word that they have done so.
Frankly, I'm just impressed that Palin remembered the name of a newspaper she read.
That is a big step forward for her!
CStanley:
The topic is someone screaming KILL HIM, referring to Barack Obama. But since you brought a different topic up, has anyone shouted KILL HER????
christoofar,
Hahaha!
What Mikkel said here needs to be repeated:
The implication is clearly that Obama is a terrorist or loves them or something along those lines.
Let's keep in mind that this was the same group of people that crucified for Bill Clinton for saying: 'It depends on what your definition of “is” is'
D E: just so I can be clear here, what exactly is the standard your using before you will denounce a repugnant action or incendiary words against a Republican? It has to be the exact same event, with a man in Clearwater FL at an Biden rally has to yell out “kill her”, or what?
The event I described is that Sandra Bernhardt said that Palin should come to NYC to be gangraped. I maintain that this is somewhat of a parallel because of someone being whipped up into an irrational state of advocating violence because of rhetoric that has been over the top and that demonizes a political opponent.
So, should Democrats denounce this, or do we have to get into some kind of precise equivalence before you can have the decency to do that?
Inferrences are not the same as implications, Chris. Or if you believe they are, then by that logic you'd have to acknowledge that the constant “McCain is out of touch” meme by the Obama campaign implies that he's senile.
Of course I don't say that that's the case- and neither is it the case that McCain and Palin questioning Obama's judgment and potential sympathy for far left radical politics is meant to actually imply that he's a terrorist.
CS, I think you may be kidding yourself a bit here. If McCain and Palin are content to let their supporters draw whatever conclusions they like, isn't that in turn tantamount to implying the worst? I think a pretty good case can be made for it. As for the “McCain is out of touch” meme, there are many, many politicians who are out of touch without being senile. McCain is one of many such.
I don't think that McCain and Palin are encouraging anyone to draw whatever conclusions they like, they're just saying that there are open questions about this association and anyone who asks them gets shouted down. The coverup itself of this relationship is significant- if there's nothing to hide then why is the Obama campaign trying so hard to keep it all under wraps?
What complete and utter BS. How many times has Palin described Obama as “palling around with terrorists”? OTOH, even Republicans work with Ayers now and have done so for years as this quote shows.
Here is a link to a Time magazine article very critical of Ayers and Dohn but that is honest enough to point out that in fact much of the establishment in Chicago of both parties has ties to them at least as strong as Obama's. Yet it doesn't even occur to CS that just maybe she and other Republicans who condemn Obama and say that there are still huge unknowns about their “relationship” are just plain wrong. The truth is that Kurtz got access to those papers. Whine all you want, at the end of the day he did get access to everything. What shocking news did he come up with? That in fact Ayers was one of five people on the committee that invited Obama to join the CAC board.
Embellishing, exaggerating — even telling the opposite of what happened — it's all OK as long as the “real message” gets out and into susceptible people's heads. That's assuming it's not just a cathartic or Sixties-style “therapeutic alienation.”
Don't forget Obama and ACORN, a notorious organization.
Hey, Jim…check the soles of your boots, because you are right about that odor your smelling but my shoes are clean.