Politics makes strange bedfellows, and I do not refer exclusively to the odd pairing of Barack Obama and unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers. Larry Johnson, with whom I have had the occasional disagreement in the past, has a fascinating piece on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which leads us to believe that Obama has been repeatedly misrepresenting and misunderestimating the extent of his relationship with Ayers.
In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.
And who was the Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund in its early years and involved with until 2003? That would be Barack Obama. That is a cozier relationship between these two than we have formerly been led to believe [See, for example the Fox News transcript, in the UPDATE.].
Let me toss into the mix some additional research for my new main man Larry.
Here is a 60 page history of the first three years of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (and an overview here). Bill Ayers is mentioned repeatedly, but Barack Obama is only mentioned in a late supporting note, and it is far from clear what his role was [Jeralyn Merritt says, not much; Hot Air links to other "Not Muchers"].
And here is a bonus link (indirectly) between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers; both Obama and Ayers' father, Thomas Ayers, served on the “Leadership Council” of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund.
Interesting - Ayers made himself an authority on public education, and has advised Chicago's current mayor, so he and Barack may well have crossed paths many times. Why public education? To advance the revolution, or so I infer from the Ayers website:
This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.
Dare we ask whether Obama shared these values?
Stray Thought - wasn't Michelle Obama hired to work for Daley in some capacity [Yes, and thanks.]? Did she and Ayers also intersect? One wonders, since Mr. Johnson notes a possible overlap of Michelle Obama and William Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, at Sidley Austin. In fact, this post about Thomas Ayers and Obama is thought-provoking, especially since Obama seems to be conflating the father and son in his Fox News interview (see UPDATE below).
UPDATE: Here is how Obama described his relationship to Ayers on Fox News:
Now, Mr. Ayres [Ayers] is a 60 plus year old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was six or seven years old. By the time I met him, he was a professor of education at the University of Illinois.
We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education, who worked for Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley, the same Mayor Daley probably who when he was a state attorney prosecuted Mr. Ayres’s wife for those activities, I (INAUDIBLE) the point is that to somehow suggest that in any way I endorse his deplorable acts 40 years ago, because I serve on a board with him.
The board to which he refers is a bit of a mystery. Obama and Ayers both served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, but that was not "focused on education" and working for Mayor Daley. And I don't think it would be fair to say the Annenberg Challenge Fund worked for Daley.
On the other hand, the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund, noted above, seems to fit the description, but it was Ayers pere who was on the board.
The plot thickens. My take is that in this answer Obama is alluding to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, but inaccurately, while overlooking the well-known Woods Fund of Chicago link. However, if there is yet another board connection between Ayers and Obama, bring it on.
In any case, the circumstances of the Ayers 1995 fund-raiser for Barack become much more intriguing. Since Obama and Ayers worked together in 1995 as founder and Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, the idea that Ayers was just some guy from the neighborhood who happened to host a 1995 fundraiser for Barack is hard to sustain.
Obama also described his link to Ayers in the recent Philadelphia debate. First, let's note how little Stephanopoulos knew:
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
And from Obama:
SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about [i.e., a distraction].
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
The Hillary oppo research had done a better job than Stephanopoulos, but still missed the Annenberg education link:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
Times reporters also missed the Annenberg connection in their post-debate follow up, as did Fox News, and per News.Google I see that only Hot Air has a story on "Annenberg Obama Ayers", and that is 40 minute old.
OK, let's have a cheering thought - McCain has been pushing Ayers but not Wright as his Obama scandal of choice. One bit of speculation I saw (sorry for the no-link right now) is that McCain prefers to thump Obama on the white terrorist rather than the racially charged charged angry black minister. But suppose McCain's people (or the RNC) have done their homework and figure there is more to Ayers than has met the eye?
We already have Obama being very parsimonious with the truth during a nationally televised debate and in a Fox interview. What else may develop?
FISHING AT THE AYERS BLOG: I am just paging through Ayers' posts on education, and this caught my eye:
If an historian speaks about Palestinian rights at Columbia University today, for example, the call goes up for “balance.” If an Israeli diplomat defends Israeli policies at the same place, there is no comparable hue and cry.
Ayers is quite an admirer of Edmund Said (Surprised?) and has an extended discussion of some Palestinian issues.
Military recruiting in the high schools is discussed here (Ayers is opposed.)
Time does not permit, but these are education-related values and positions held by Bill Ayers, a one-time colleague of Barack Obama. Dare one ask, why did Obama choose to work with this guy?
The split in the democrat party is simply breathtaking!
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Careful, Maguire--if you get too close to Larry you may find yourself becoming dangerously fat and unattractive.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Johnson couldn't find his ass with his own hands--someone fed that tidbit to him. Does it help that he's been backing Hill all along? Oh, naughty me for suggesting that.
Posted by: clarice | April 27, 2008 at 01:42 PM
He and Joe Wilson have been huge Hillary backers throughout the campaign. I honestly believe they thought they might get jobs in a Clinton administration. If the next prez is anyone other than HRC, Larry will go back to being a security-guard wannabe like he's always been.
And I eagerly await Joe's being frog-marched out of court by the D.C. Circuit.
Anyone know the status of that appeal?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Stray Thought - wasn't Michelle Obama hired to work for Daley in some capacity?
"In 1991, the death of her father [a Dem precinct captain] from complications related to MS caused Michelle to re-evaluate her life. She left corporate law to work in the public sector, first as assistant to Chicago mayor Richard M. Daly, later as the assistant commissioner of planning and development." link.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 27, 2008 at 01:52 PM
if you know anything about Chicago, you know the amazing failure of the Chicago public schools. if this is an example of the Ayers/Obama synergy, get ready for a disaster.
Posted by: ed | April 27, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Did Obama ever attend an American public school? Are his daughters still in the private U of C school?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 27, 2008 at 01:58 PM
IMO, Ayers would not consider it a failure as long as he can present his Anti-American agenda to students and get converts.
Posted by: pagar | April 27, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers. The right-leaning Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872 and which endorsed McCain in the Republican primary, has published several Ayers pieces over the years.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Mr. Johnson notes a possible overlap of Michelle Obama and William Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, at Sidley Austin.
That is a facinating tidbit, if true, because Dohrn was apparently hired, but then let go by Sidley Austin because she couldn't be admitted to the Bar in Illinois due to her citation for criminal contempt in the case where the two police and one security gaurd were killed. If Michelle Obama was there when that happened, then she presumably knew that Dohrn (and probably Ayers too) had serious issues that would be a political liability for Barack when he entered politics.
It also leads one to think that, rather than the way it has been presented (that Barack and Ayers are friends because they have crossed paths on these public endeavors), in fact, they partnered up on the public endeavors because they were already friends.
Posted by: Ranger | April 27, 2008 at 02:26 PM
This is not the relationship that BrockO described when he was asked about his association with Ayres.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers.,/i>
Only one running for President. (This from a right leaning republican)
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 02:32 PM
oops
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers. The right-leaning Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872 and which endorsed McCain in the Republican primary, has published several Ayers pieces over the years.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Yes, Old Man Ayers' money and power certainly purchased young Billy and his Wife a lot of forgiveness in Chicago. As the chairman of the board of Commonweath Eddison, the main electricity utility in the Chicagoland area and the chairman of the Board of Trusties of Northwestern University, he had a lot of both. As one member of the Northwestern Law faculty noted, the hiring of Dohrn due to her father in laws influence ammounted to the "laundering of evil."
Well, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter how many times you launder it, it is still evil, and those who have willingly done the wash for it, will carry its stain as well.
Its also interesting the way so many on the left now jump to defend Ayers and Dohrn. I though the kind of old boy networks and interpersonal relationships that were used to grease their way into positions of power and comfort were exactly what the lift is always fighting against.
Posted by: Ranger | April 27, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers
It's not the crime, but the cover up that concerns me.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers.
Looks to me like Ayers wrote several articles about Chicago Public Education (which he is apparently well-informed about), and the Trib published 'em. How that is compelling evidence others worked with him (or redeems his political [terrorist] past) is beyond me. And Larry Johnson was actually informative about something. A first!
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Here is a 60 page history of the first three years of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge
PDF created 9/15/1999
modified 9/29/2004
Bill Ayers is mentioned repeatedly, but Barack Obama is only mentioned in a late supporting note, and it is far from clear what his role was.
And who was the Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund from 1995 to 2001? That would be Barack Obama.
does not compute, how can Obama be the inaugural Chairman and not be mentioned in "The First Three Years"?
wayback machine on the websites?
Posted by: windansea | April 27, 2008 at 02:50 PM
(or redeems his political [terrorist] past)
It doesn't redeem Ayers' past, but I do think it's useful perspective when assessing how (un)usual it was for Obama to have some affiliation with him or whether it was a truly grave error in judgment to associate with him.
Do you want to argue that his association with Ayers reflects very poorly on Obama but the Trib's association with Ayers does not reflect poorly at all on the Trib? Is Ayers a guy that's supposed to be shunned by polite society, or isn't he?
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:02 PM
"The right-leaning Chicago Tribune...has published several Ayers pieces over the years."
This is supposed to prove something? The New York Times regulary publishes David Brooks and William Kristol. The Wall Street Journal has published George McGovern and Alan Dershowitz. National Review has published Garry Wills. The Boston Globe and the Washington Post have published William F. Buckley, Jr.
Please, Foo Bar, tell us what it all means.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:02 PM
does not compute, how can Obama be the inaugural Chairman and not be mentioned in "The First Three Years"?
Well, it could have been a purely cerimonial position being "President of the Board of Directors." If so, then it was given to him as a plumb to pad his resume for future political endeavors. In fact, that is exactly what I imagine it was, because administering a 50 mil grant is a big deal and might actually show some executive experiance. The fact that he doesn't mention it means that there probably was minimal actual work involved in the position.
Posted by: Ranger | April 27, 2008 at 03:03 PM
"Is Ayers a guy that's supposed to be shunned by polite society, or isn't he?"
Of course he's not, Foo Bar--he's as mainstream as apple pie. Keep hope alive.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:04 PM
does not compute, how can Obama be the inaugural Chairman and not be mentioned in "The First Three Years"?
Cover-up?
To me, it seems that Obama has not been forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Do you want to argue that his association with Ayers reflects very poorly on Obama but the Trib's association with Ayers does not reflect poorly at all on the Trib?
What association does the Trib have with Ayers? He apparently founded one of the education funds, and advises the Mayor on education. Should they not publish his pieces on a topic in which he is obviously expert? Isn't that a perfectly ad hominem argument?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Do you want to argue that his association with Ayers reflects very poorly on Obama but the Trib's association with Ayers does not reflect poorly at all on the Trib? Is Ayers a guy that's supposed to be shunned by polite society, or isn't he?
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:02 PM
I think it reflects very badly on the Chicago Tribune (which, by the way, is far from "right leaning" and paved the way for Obama's Senate seat by going to court to unseal Jack Ryan's divorce papers).
The fact that Daddy Ayers' wealth and power was able to "fix" things for Bill and his wife is a shame on the entire Chicago political and social system (one of many I may note).
Posted by: Ranger | April 27, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Please, Foo Bar, tell us what it all means.
Your analogy doesn't work. If Ayers were merely a guy with far-left views with no history of violence, this wouldn't be much of a story. Brooks, Kristol, etc., are not ex-terrorists.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:14 PM
For some reason Foo Bar wants us to know that the Trib has published Mr. Ayers, but makes no mention of the fact that the New York Times has done so as well. (It also published the Unabomber.)
Could that have anything to do with the fact that in his NY Times piece the mainstream Mr. Ayers regretted not having set off more bombs?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Should they not publish his pieces on a topic in which he is obviously expert?
Right, Ayers is an education expert. Should Obama have not worked with Ayers via this Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, which was about reforming public schools?
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:19 PM
scrub a dub dub
I've got terrorists in my tub
Posted by: windansea | April 27, 2008 at 03:21 PM
It appears that FooBar, The Chicago Tribune, and Barack Obama have all forgiven Ayers.
I do think that is an example of bad judgment.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Lots of folks have worked with Ayers.
Lots of folks have run for President, too, but the two circles seem to overlap with just one person. And that one person seems to be pretty hazy about what his relationship with Ayers has been (see the Fox transcript or the recent debate). Where there's smoke and a guy with a fire extinguisher, there may have been a fire.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2008 at 03:22 PM
If Ayers were merely a guy with far-left views with no history of violence, this wouldn't be much of a story. Brooks, Kristol, etc., are not ex-terrorists.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Ironically, you hit the nail directly on the head.
"If Ayers were mearly a guy with far-left view with no history of violence, this wouldn't be much of a story"
This is a man who attempted to commit mass murder at Ft. Dix the same way the Tim McViegh and Terry Nicholes did in OKC. The fact that his cohorts blew themselves up with the nail bombs before they could plant them does not erase the fact that the intent was there, and that, to this day, Ayers has not admitted any regret at all except that they didn't succeed at killing all those NCO and their wives and girlfriends that night.
So, yes, the calculus is different, and this is a story because of his violent past and his refusal to repent for it. Do you think that if Terry Nicholes prosecution had been preveted by government action, and he went and got a PhD in education and wanted to publish something on school reform, anyone would touch it regardless of how well thought out or written it was?
Posted by: Ranger | April 27, 2008 at 03:25 PM
How about working with him to give a hefty donation to a racist pastor's church?
Ayers's "expertise" is manifested in his November, 2007 remarks describing the US as a place of "great stress, and oppression, and authoritarianism," and bemoaning "a kind of rising incipient American form of fascism."
Foo Bar is exquisitely correct in noting that the persons I identified, unlike Ayers, are not ex-terrorists. They are simply people who get published in organs that disagree with them editorially, an event that happens every day.
If you think Ayers's views of today's America are mainstream, go ahead and say so. And say so as often as possible from now until November, and we'll leave it up to the electorate to decide.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:26 PM
(It also published the Unabomber.)
Kaczynski's terrorism was ongoing at the point, he hadn't been caught yet, and the Justice Deparment recommended that the NYT and WaPo publish the manifesto out of concern for public safety and with the hope that someone would recognize his writing style and help catch him.
That's completely different from the Ayers situation. He was a prof at UIC and hadn't been considered dangerous for decades. The suggestion, though, is that decent people should not have associated with him.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Larry's blog does provide some entertaining
Reading
"The truly scary part is that Obama stands for, essentially, nothing."
"Obama stands for Obama."
"His entire campaign has been premised on creating a cult-like adoration of him as a transformational figure."
"The issues be damned."
"That worked incredibly well for a rather long time. As po’ Barry himself has complained, this campaign has gone on so long that babies have started walking and talking since he began running for president."
Posted by: pagar | April 27, 2008 at 03:39 PM
Right, Ayers is an education expert.
With no association with the Trib.
The suggestion, though, is that decent people should not have associated with him.
Yep.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2008 at 03:41 PM
I'm thinking that either another shoe will drop on the Ayres connection, or somebody will come up with a racial angle and say we can't discuss it.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 03:48 PM
I came across a tit bit on a Dem site today (I'd have to look it up) that through various foundations and boards Bomber Ayers was Words Obama's boss for 8 years.
Might have been a different thread on the Larry Johnson site.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 27, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Lots of folks have run for President
Now that I have your attention, I wonder if you would be willing to fix your McCain/maverick post to reflect that fact that McCain-Feingold got eleven Republican votes in the Senate, not one, as you incorrectly recalled. I don't know if you maybe meant "got one Republican vote" as some sort of humorous exaggeration, but I'm sure it was read literally as your recollection of the facts by the majority of readers.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:51 PM
With no association with the Trib.
Decent people shouldn't "associate" with him, but it's fine to publish him in the leading paper of one of America's largest cities, thereby increasing his prestige and influence. OK, then.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Did Obama ever attend an American public school? Are his daughters still in the private U of C school?
It is called the Lab School. They still attend.
BTW the Trib hasn't been right leaning for years.
They traded places with the Sun Times. (which is nominally the South Side [black] paper)
The Trib now leans liberal and the Sun Times leans conservative.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 27, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Most vets will tell you that tail-chasing is nothing to be alarmed
about in a very young dog...
But when older dogs chase their tails, this may be a sign of
anxiety, boredom, frustration, canine compulsive disorder, or physical
problems such as fleas and irritated anal glands. The tendency toward
tail-chasing behavior is sometimes genetic in certain breeds
(including bull terriers, fox terriers, and Jack Russell terriers).
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 03:57 PM
"The suggestion, though, is that decent people should not have associated with him."
Not if they want to be president of the United States. Not close. Obama will suffer for this association, and he should. Just as McCain should suffer if he'd had a long association with David Duke or Pat Robertson. G.W. Bush was pilloried for a single appearance at Bob Jones University. The idea that Obama's associations with these nutballs ought not be discussed is simply ludicrous.
And if it were merely an effort to associate with those holding a wide range of disparate views, we'd have a list of his associations with conservatives over the years. We don't; there are none. Pressed to come up with one recently, the best he could do was to call Senator Coburn--whom he met in 2005--a "friend."
He's an oily fellow with a bad habit of hanging out with fringe loonies. Go ahead and tell me that's off limits in a presidential campaign.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Poor Foo Bar is still hung up on Maguire's innocent typo.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 03:59 PM
. . . but it's fine to publish him in the leading paper . . .
He was advising the (Democrat) mayor on education. Pretending that there's something wrong with publishing his views on the subject--or that that constitutes a right-wing endorsement--is silly. (The mayor working with him in the first place displays some questionable judgment, however.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Poor Foo Bar is still hung up on Maguire's innocent typo.
sometimes genetic in certain breeds
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 04:02 PM
"To me, it seems that Obama has not been forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers."
BHO's not exactly "all in" wrt his candidacy, is he? Gotta keep the Chicago wheels greased if he doesn't want to repeat Carol Moseley Braun fantastic single term performance. That is, unless he's already awaiting indictment for some Rezko (or other) indiscretions.
One might think that he already knows what's written on the last page of this farce pretending to be drama. He should.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 27, 2008 at 04:06 PM
BTW the Trib hasn't been right leaning for years.
Their endorsements for other offices aren't entirely predictable, but they endorsed GWB in '04, and they haven't endorsed a Dem for president since 1872. In any case, the relevant time period is the period over which Ayers' pieces were published. That goes back at least as far as 1988.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 04:15 PM
BHO's not exactly "all in" wrt his candidacy, is he?
Yup, and it's not just passive omissions. Obama seems to have been actively obfuscating on the Ayres connection.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 04:16 PM
He was a prof at UIC and hadn't been considered dangerous for decades.
By whom?
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 04:32 PM
I want all those who are in an uproar about Ayers to state their position on Oliver North -- whose prosecution was similarly stymied for technical reasons.
North, while no terrorist, was certainly willing to sell arms to a terrorist nation. And, last time I checked, he is being hailed as a hero in certain right wing precincts (not here, to my knowledge). North is now worth millions and giving speeches with the sponsorship and the support of the US marines.
So, how do you feel about that, folks?
Oh -- as for Ayers -- you can take the measure of a leftist's sincerity and intelligence by whether or not he openly supports Hugo Chavez. If he is a Chavez supporter, he is either not capable of thought, or too anti-american to bother with it. As for Obama's association -- it still feels far more tangental than hsi association with Wright, and far more explicable.
Posted by: Appalled | April 27, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Obama says "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago..."
So when did a certain amount of time make someone's evil acts okay? Would Obama have said that about Hitler if Hitler came back to life and served on a Chicago board with him? Would he say, "oh well, Hitler... yeah he did some bad stuff, but that was soooo long ago, before I was born, and we are just friendly, serving on a board together, it's no big deal," and then expect to be elected President?? I doubt it.
Posted by: sylvia | April 27, 2008 at 04:43 PM
Perhaps I am reading it wrong but the pdf for the Chicago Education Fund seems to list the two as donors to the cause and not as members of the Leadership Council itself.
Is there an earlier pdf reflecting actually being in those positions?
Chicago seems to have a love affair with ex social radicals since Bobby Lee Rush was founder of the Ill Black Panther Party who is currently serving in the House defeated Obama in the 2000 primary for that seat before Obama ran for the Senate in 2004.
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 27, 2008 at 04:57 PM
He was advising the (Democrat) mayor on education. Pretending that there's something wrong with publishing his views on the subject--or that that constitutes a right-wing endorsement--is silly
I'm not claiming that publishing Ayers amounted to an endorsement of his views.
You seem to be suggesting that if Ayers was advising the mayor then the Trib had no choice but to give Ayers space on their Op-Ed page (which is clearly beneficial to Ayers) as opposed to merely reporting on Ayers's influence with Daley in their hard-news education coverage.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 05:03 PM
I think Oliver North was convicted (later overturned because of an immunity agreement) of destroying documents and accepting a security fence around his house. He apologized for his crimes and said he was ashamed of the mistakes that led to them.
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 05:09 PM
link
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 27, 2008 at 05:15 PM
North was guilty as sin.
His note book was full of stuff about transporting kilos. No doubt rice and beans. His associate Blandon had few good things to say about what he was involved in.
And funny thing all that Iran Contra stuff is no longer on the 'net.
The CIA for a very long time has been involved in arbitrage - guns in one direction - drugs in the other. No dead heading for them.
Air America.
OTOH. I think it would be good if we stopped all price supports for criminals. i.e. end drug prohibition.
BTW after the furor died down the CIA admitted obliquely that Gary Webb was essentially correct although he got some details wrong.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 27, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Now that Chavez's name has come up, I have a conspiracy theory for the day. Is it possible that Chavez has anything to do with Obama? We know that Obama is a closet leftist, we know that Chavez loves to meddle in elections and has mucho bucks, we know that Chavez probably would love Obama to be Prez. We know Chavez is conected to companies with internet voting. Hmmm.
So, all these massive internet donations Obama got.... He got all these donations from the kids apparently, but they haven't really bothered to vote in much larger numbers. Do the kids really bother to send that much cash online? Just a crazy thought, but how hard would it be to mask donations from one wealthy source as coming from various sources on the internet? Something to ponder.
Posted by: sylvia | April 27, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Foo bar,
WTF difference does it make what the Tribunes position on all this is. It is a distraction.
We are talking Obama's relations with Ayers.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 27, 2008 at 05:18 PM
It's a shame Daley was advised by Ayers. It is a shame the Trib published his writings. It is a shame that Ayers has become respected by many on the left.
For whatever reason, Obama has been hesitant to discuss his association with him. At one point his campaign denied there was evidence of any connection (I'm looking for that cite).
He could do something to demonstrate that he understands why many are bothered if they do indeed have a relationship, but instead he chooses to obfuscate.
The whole "I was 8 years old!" thing doesn't work.
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2008 at 05:20 PM
I want all those who are in an uproar about Ayers to state their position on Oliver North -- whose prosecution was similarly stymied for technical reasons.
Appalled, my position is that if you think North's involvement in selling weapons to Iran is in any way equivalent to Ayers' multiple felony murders and attempted bombing murder of civilians as well as members of the military, then you are a moral cretin whose opinion is only interesting in a vaguely clinical sense.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 27, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Just a crazy thought, but how hard would it be to mask donations from one wealthy source as coming from various sources on the internet?
Sylvia, just as a technical point, in my professional opinion as a computer security expert, it wouldn't be hard at all.
I have no evidence that it's been done, but I can easily imagine technical approaches that would make it possible.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 27, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Why do we keep refighting the Viet Nam war after all these years? Although I was part of it, I'm getting sick of "My Generation" and its endless, pointless obsession with 40 year old battles. It's not 1968 anymore, people. No wonder the Barackers want to move on.
Posted by: Jerry Bowles | April 27, 2008 at 06:10 PM
There were some interesting things going on in Chicago's public schools in the mid-nineties:
I'd guess Ayers wouldn't have like Vallas style and would have been opposed to his regime.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 27, 2008 at 06:30 PM
North, while no terrorist, was certainly willing to sell arms to a terrorist nation.
Oh, please. Do you really think Ollie made the decision to sell arms to Iran? (And "terrorist nation" is an oxymoron.)
You seem to be suggesting that if Ayers was advising the mayor then the Trib had no choice but to give Ayers space on their Op-Ed page . . .
Not quite. I'm saying that Ayers was news. And it was perfectly legitimate to report his views, especially as he was counseling the decisionmaker. Choosing him as political ally is an entirely different subject.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 27, 2008 at 06:34 PM
What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 06:40 PM
"No wonder the Barackers want to move on."
Actually, considering how leftwing he is, no wonder MoveOn wants the Barrackers.
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Trust me, TM, if you keep scratching the Ayers connection, you'll find a connection to the Palestinians. I can almost guarantee this.
A lot of Lefties in Academe who are not Jewish find their way into anti-Zionist politics, usually starting with attendance at a Palestinian Land Day Event. It's only a short jump from there to fundraising for Holy Land and other Al Quds and Hamas terrorist money laundering fronts.
There was a reason that Obama's arab friends were scrubbed from his website; they give money to the Fedayeen. Some of that Fedayeen money makes it's way to Palestine, and I would not be surprised if we found that a whole lot of that Fedayeen money makes it's way to places like Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Nineveh provinces. Radioactive city....
Posted by: section9 | April 27, 2008 at 06:52 PM
I'm saying that Ayers was news. And it was perfectly legitimate to report his views, especially as he was counseling the decisionmaker
Right. It would have been one thing for Ayers's quotes to appear only in hard news stories. That would be reporting the cold, hard fact that this guy, however terrible he may be, had Daley's ear.
It was something else entirely to give him Op-Ed bylines. A paper like the Trib obviously publishes a wide variety of viewpoints, but anyone who's allowed to publish an op-ed in their pages is afforded a certain level of respectability as someone worth reading, i.e., not someone to be shunned.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 06:53 PM
And, my guess turns out to be a good one:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 27, 2008 at 06:59 PM
pages is afforded a certain level of respectability as someone worth reading, i.e., not someone to be shunned.
So the newspapers decide who should be shunned? Is that what you are trying to say? Or are you saying it isn't Obama's fault he had bad judgment on this, he was just following the Trib's lead?
Posted by: MayBee | April 27, 2008 at 07:01 PM
"It's not 1968 anymore, people."
It wasn't 1968, it was 2001, when the estimable Mr. Ayers expressed his regrets about not having exploded more bombs. And it was 2007 when he declared the US a fascist nation.
It is my fervent hope that the Foo Bars of this world will continue to trumpet for the next six months their belief that Ayers is "mainstream," and that the oleaginous Mr. Obama's relationship with him is of no concern.
And trot out the innocuous Reverend Wright, the "biblical scholar," just as often as your please.
More cowbell! More explanations! Wa-HOOO!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 07:07 PM
So Appalled wants to equate Ayers, a terrorist bomber in the U.S. who considers the U.S. a terrorist state with Oliver North, who was involved in an arms deal to support the Contras, sanctioned by his superior. We are really getting surreal here in Obama's defense, and someone actually questioned the other day as to whether Appalled qualified as an Obamabot.
"So, how do you feel about that, folks?"
I think its fine Oliver North is doing well..I don't think of him as a hero, but he is a patriot and he does a great job supporting the military. And that has absolutely NO parallel to the Ayers story.
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 07:07 PM
On March 1, 2001, CNN published Osama bin Laden's praise of the people who attacked USS Cole. Welcome to the mainstream, Mr. bin Laden! You've been published!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 07:11 PM
"Past crimes and present friendships"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-ayers-obama_thinkapr27,0,676479.story
Posted by: Ayers Hearts Bombing | April 27, 2008 at 07:11 PM
This just in: Since 1979, Houghton Mifflin has been publishing a tract entitled "Mein Kampf," by one A. Hitler. Which goes to show that Mr. Hitler should certainly not be shunned in polite society.
Welcome to the mainstream, Mr. Hitler!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 07:15 PM
"Welcome to the mainstream, Mr. bin Laden! You've been published!"
Right, and that other mainstream guy, the Unabomber, didn't he get published?
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 07:16 PM
So the newspapers decide who should be shunned? Is that what you are trying to say?
Rightly or wrongly, in reality they certainly have considerable influence in shaping perceptions about who is beyond the pale vs. who is sufficiently mainstream to be given Op-Ed real estate.
Or are you saying it isn't Obama's fault he had bad judgment on this, he was just following the Trib's lead?
I'm not claiming that my point about the Trib is utterly devastating for critics of Obama re:Ayers. I just think it's useful perspective when trying to gauge whether Obama's association with Ayers was truly egregious, shocking bad judgment as opposed to a relatively minor and commonplace bit of bad judgment. If you were following the story casually you might have gotten the impression that it was only Obama and far-left kooks who had anything to do with Ayers, and any folks with the "good sense" to endorse GWB would know enough not to give Ayers the highly valuable privilege of a Trib Op Ed.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 27, 2008 at 07:19 PM
The writer of this article was trying to analyze and perhaps find a link between Michelle and the term "education" Obama used.
I remembered seeing Sidley within the information his article provided so this is what I came up with. I hope it helps. It also shows this goes back many more years than Obama admits.
Michelle Obama worked for Sidley Austin, I found this here: http://womensissues.about.com/od/influentialwomen/p/MichelleObama.htm
Professional Career: After graduating from Harvard Law School, Michelle joined the law firm of Sidley Austin as an associate specializing in marketing and intellectual property. In 1988, a summer intern two years older by the name of Barack Obama came to work at the firm, and Michelle was assigned as his mentor. They married in 1992.
In 1991, the death of her father from complications related to MS caused Michelle to re-evaluate her life. She left corporate law to work in the public sector, first as assistant to Chicago mayor Richard M. Daly, later as the assistant commissioner of planning and development.
In the PDF file in the article, which is: http://www.cpef.org/pdf/annual_report01.pdf I found that Members of the Fund's Leadership Council included Sidley Austin Brown & Wood is listed on pages 9 & 10. The on e on page 9 displays it related to Virginia Aronson Managing Partner, the other on Page 10 is they are on the investor's list.
The Members of the Fund's Leadership Council It also includes Mr. John Ayers Executive Director of Leadership for Quality Education and Mr. Thomas Ayers Retired President & CEO of Commonwealth Edison.
The Annenberg Foundation was a "Regent" 1,000,000. and above Investor (page 10). We already know Obama was related to this in a big way.
Side note:
Pritzker Cousins Foundation is also listed as an Investor. There's the relation to Penny Pritzker of the Obama campaign.
Also, is the Wood in Sidley Austin Brown Wood the Wood in Wood's Foundation? I believe so.
Posted by: Tricia, Charlotte, NC | April 27, 2008 at 07:19 PM
"He was a prof at UIC and hadn't been considered dangerous for decades."
An educationalist is probably more dangerous than an incompetent terrorist.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 27, 2008 at 07:23 PM
"a connection to the Palestinians"
" The letter was published on the "Pastor's Page" of Sen. Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, by an activist named Ali M. Baghdadi. Originally printed March 6, 2007, in the Palestine Times, a "pro-Palestinian newspaper published in London", Ali M. Baghdadi "labels Israel an 'apartheid' regime and claims the Jewish state worked on an 'ethnic bomb' that kills 'blacks and Arabs'," Klein wrote."
"Who would have guessed that the same Ali M. Baghdadi who published the Arab Journal, and who wrote the vile letter published by Sen. Obama's anti-American, hate-spouting pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would turn out to be a good friend to Tony Rezko, currently on trial in federal court for corruption?"
"Who would have guessed that the same Palestinian-American Ali M. Baghdadi, who accompanied Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to Mali in 1997, and served as his Middle East advisor, was only one-degree of separation from Sen. Obama?"
"On April 26, 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times published a list of people who helped to bail indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko out of jail a week ago. On that list are Ali M. Baghdadi and Darlene Bagdadi, who put up a "two-story retail building in Chicago" as surety."
Article
Posted by: pagar | April 27, 2008 at 07:24 PM
"I want all those who are in an uproar about Ayers to state their position on Oliver North"
Would have made a great president.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 27, 2008 at 07:31 PM
"trying to gauge whether Obama's association with Ayers was truly egregious, shocking bad judgment as opposed to a relatively minor and commonplace bit of bad judgment. "
Yeah Foo Bar, interesting quandary...and just two months ago we were discussing whether Obama was truly illuminated by a burning bush, was he the uniter, the supra-racial, the chosen one.
Now its about the degree to which he consorted with terrorists and America haters.
Different playing field, huh?
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 07:31 PM
"Sylvia, just as a technical point, in my professional opinion as a computer security expert, it wouldn't be hard at all."
Ah hah! I don't do hardly anything financial on the internet, so I don't even know how this donation business is done. But I imagine just generate a list of fake credit card numbers and take the money out of thousands of fake accounts in Venezuela shell banks in which the fake accounts are generated, transferred $2,000 money in, transferred $2,000 money out, and then destroyed and then repeated. It's all just running a simple computer program. This could be done without the Obama campaign knowledge even. Could be weird but it's also weird if Hugo is just sitting back and being passive in this election. I wonder what the laws are that would allow the Feds to investigate just whose credit card donated to whom.
Posted by: sylvia | April 27, 2008 at 07:41 PM
D(o)T,
"It is my fervent hope that the Foo Bars of this world will continue to trumpet for the next six months their belief that Ayers is "mainstream," and that the oleaginous Mr. Obama's relationship with him is of no concern."
You can fold or play the hand you're dealt. It's all they got at this point.
PeterUK,
"An educationalist is probably more dangerous than an incompetent terrorist."
A "typical" wackademic, in other words.
FooBar,
Are you a paid Messiah op or serving an internship?
Posted by: Chris | April 27, 2008 at 07:44 PM
"...commonplace bit of bad judgment."
Yeah. Altogether too commonplace for this strange poseur, and altogether too commonplace for any aspirant to the presidency. And the increasingly strained contortions of his groupies in defending his radical left-wing connections is becoming more comical by the day.
Alert readers will no doubt inform us of the US publishers of such other mainstreamers as Che Guevara, Karl Marx, Daniel Ortega, Lyndon Larouche, David Duke and a host of others who should never, ever be shunned by polite society--get yourself published, and enter the mainstream of American political thought.
Foo Bar, where were you when Barry Goldwater and Robert Bork needed you?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 07:45 PM
"He was a prof at UIC and hadn't been considered dangerous for decades."
By whom? Is there a dangerousness meter and/or expiration date for terrorists? Is it published? Does he have a certificate?
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Glen Greenwald locates the mainstream for us:
"This leads to an obvious and overarching point: If Robert Bork was so far out of the mainstream in 1988 as to be unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, how can Sam Alito be in the mainstream in 2006?"
Robert Bork and Samuel Alito: outside the mainstream.
Bill Ayers: in the mainstream.
Bring it on...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 07:51 PM
"Is there a dangerousness meter and/or expiration date for terrorists? Is it published? Does he have a certificate?"
Uni Professor,11 on the Dangerometer.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 27, 2008 at 07:56 PM
He'd make a good (likely?) Secretary of Education for Obama.
Posted by: Chris | April 27, 2008 at 07:56 PM
More on Obama's "new type of politics"
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/patriotroom/2008/apr/27/obama_got_8_000_per_month_in_return_for_political_favors
Someone better qualified can make into a real link
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 07:59 PM
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/patriotroom/2008/apr/27/obama_got_8_000_per_month
_in_return_for_political_favors
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 08:00 PM
My goodness, Fox News is showing a demented Jeremiah Wright singing and screaming at the NAACP dinner. He's incomprehensible. Compare him with the 60 Minutes interview I just saw of Scalia, and you will never take a left turn again.
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Ok last try..or go to redstate
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/patriotroom/
2008/apr/27/obama_got_8_000_per_month_in_return
_for_political_favors
Posted by: ben | April 27, 2008 at 08:07 PM
http://www.scottfish.com/barack-obama-internet-donations/
"Here’s some important stats:
-Obama had 385,000 new contributors for a total of more than 1 million donors.
-
-All told, Obama has raised $193 million during his yearlong bid for the White House.
-The Obama campaign said it raised $45 million through the Internet in February ($55 M total).
-Clinton reported raising $6 million online, and a total of $34 million for the primary in February. "
So some facts. "The NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) gives the number of first-time freshmen enrolling in fall 2004 as 2,630,000. This includes both 2-year and 4-year colleges." So guessing about 10 mill students total. One mill donated to Obama. One out of 10 donating to Obama? When many students can't even be bothered to take half their exams? Of course add in the non-students and African American voters, etc. But I don't know. Seems a little high to me.
Posted by: sylvia | April 27, 2008 at 08:11 PM
"Why do we keep refighting the Viet Nam war after all these years? Although I was part of it, I'm getting sick of "My Generation" and its endless, pointless obsession with 40 year old battles. It's not 1968 anymore, people. No wonder the Barackers want to move on."
No one I know wants to refight the Viet Nam War. What I and most of the veterans I know want is for every every single American to know that we did our job; the US military and our allies did not fail. We were sold out by Anti America Americans like Jane Fonda. Ramsay Clark, Walter Cronkite and John Kerry. There is no chance the North Vietnamese would have been declared the winner of that conflict without the aid of the Anti America Americans.
The efforts of the Anti America Americans continue today at an even strong pace. It is no accident that John Kerry supports Obama.
They both have the same goals.
Posted by: pagar | April 27, 2008 at 08:13 PM
What happened to the old Obama? He was a new style politician who transcended race and partisanship. Remember the Obama who was going to heal our souls and change our mindset? He was a magical politician who could bring people together just by talking to them.
Where did this slimy snake oil salesmen with all the scumbag friends come from?
Posted by: MikeS | April 27, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Jane--I'm watching/listening to Wright on Fox and what he is saying is indeed "different".
He just set back Brocko another ten points.
Posted by: glasater | April 27, 2008 at 08:18 PM
The revelation is just beginning, MikeS. This is gonna be lots and lots of fun.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 27, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Wright is going off the deep end. Holy cow! Sounds like carefully couched separatism.
Posted by: Chris | April 27, 2008 at 08:25 PM
The most interesting thing about Wright's speech is that he preaches how blacks are different, and need different education, and different understanding, etc etc - while his protege is preaching one America. Or he used to. How did that come about.
Maybe it's the "different is not divisive" thing - except he is so divisive.
Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 08:37 PM