Of course the Obama campaign has a dynamite response: Keating. Or Hagee. Or any number of crazy wingnuts McCain has associated with in his career.

Does McCain really want to risk reminding voters of the last time he was involved with corruption in the banking sector? Let's hope so!

They could simply say that McCain and Kissinger are good friends.

No one is responsible for more foreigners being blown to bits than good 'ole Henry K.

Major Asshole that Henry

What, precisely, could Hon. Sen. McCain do, beyond what he has already, that would be considered "really stupid" by the press?

Of course it will work. Because there is no there there. This Ayers thing is basically a bubble, an item worth one debating point or a single attack ad, which has been blown into a fantasy that makes the Protocols of Zion look like sound history.

In the same way that George W Bush seems unconcerned about being the worst President in living memory, John McCain seems unconcerned about running the worst Presidential campaign in living history.

Into Thin Ayers.

Oh, please. "The old guy"? Shall we start calling you "the young twerp"?

Yeah, they have a response all ready. I just don't know who they'll choose? Keating? G Gordon?

Is this the same Obama from the primary? Is this the guy we were saying "kumbayah" about? Is this the campaign that completely lost their cool when Hillary started the heavy mindgames with them?

I'm smiling today, that's for sure.

Palin's rallies remind me of seeing a Nazi rally with her in the role as a female Hitler. The way the crazed mob chants and sing-songs her name over and over again -- Sarah, Sarah, Sarah! In a very dazed, fevered and crazed way, almost like being hypnotized! A crowd who would do anything for her, maybe even Kill for her!

Yet this is the very same Palin who is so illiterate that she is unable to go on Meet the Press, like every other vice presidential candidate who has gone before her. Palin a/k/a Hitler, who could be a heart-beat away! Scary...dangerous, scary!

gordonminor: Sure, you can call me that. But only for a few more days, since I turn 50 next week. Better get your licks in right away!

They have a more direct response: that board that Ayers and Obama was on? The Annenburg family, big Republicans, supporters of McCain, were the ones who chose Ayers for that board. Just ask John McCain when he plans to disavow the domestic-terrorist-loving Annenburgs and return all of their money.

To elaborate on what I just said: if Ayers does come up, it has to be answered first, before Obama pivots and counterattacks. Ayers was chosen by a respected Republican to be on that board; at the time Obama had dealings with Ayers he knew him only as a college professor and had no idea what he'd done when Obama was eight years old, but McCain, on the other hand, knew full well what he was up to when he shilled for Charles Keating and confessed as much in his own autobiography.

I'm sure the Obama camp wants him to bring it up. McCain needs an economic game changer. If he talks about the economy and mentions Ayers, which will the media talk about for 24 hours? Obama gets to cut ads with McCain talking about Ayers and pointing out that he is not talking about the economy. McCain is boxed in and the best thing the Obama camp can do is spend the next week all but calling him a gutless bastard and try to provoke him to talk about it. If he doesn't, the talking heads will spend 24 hours talking about how McCain won't confront Obama and casting doubt on the sincerity of the Ayers charge.

Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory — and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him. Or....um.....you get the idea.

Seems like a good time to recall that Obama's gambling game of choice is poker, a game where such "second-level thinking" and higher often is a tool in a successful player's arsenal. McCain, not so much. He goes for the games with the thrill without much thinking.

In general, you don't want to think more than one level ahead of your opponent. So maybe McCain's campaign is on 0th-level thinking ("MUST... CONTROL... NEWS CYCLE! AYERS!!!!") and 2nd-level is too much to outsmart them.

Oops, forgot to take credit or blame for the poker comment.

McCain obviously never played basketball. At least not the way Obama plays it.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee--

Bring it!

It isn't hard to play mindgames with McCain. There's a reason he finished 894th out of 899th at the Naval Academy. It wasn't just because he was too busy getting drunk and, as he often puts it, chasing tail.

The only display of shrewdness I've ever seen from him was getting everyone to somehow think he is a reformer. When someone like George W. Bush can play you like a fiddle, you aren't too bright.

If you put a bowl of antifreeze soup in front of McNoddle and told him if he ate it, he would win the election...he would lick the bowl dry...

I don't think Obama even needs a dynamite response if McCain goes for door #3.

I assume that McCain is laying low at the debates because he realizes that it's a different audience, one that he would be more likely to antagonize with his smear talk. If Obama can goad him into treating the next debate like a party rally in southern Ohio, then I think Obama gets one more chance to point up the contrast between his own presidential qualities, and McCain's descent into Yosemite Sam-like spasms of incoherent anger.

Anybody heard the words Vicky Iseman recently? 527's, where are you?

Anybody heard the words Vicky Iseman recently? 527's, where are you?

Response: McCain's association with a convicted criminal. Charles Keating. Keating 5

I think Obama was ready to ambush McCain on Tuesday, probably with some still as yet unexplored unsavory associates of McCains (and there are rumblings of Mafia connections with the McCain liquor franchise in Arizona involving dead bodies) and he was disappointed. Calling him out (and I was more sure this was the case when Biden did it too) will make sure it comes out next week:

"Yes, Senator McCain, guilt by association can be troubling. What do you have to say about your family's personal fortune being built on extortion and murder?"

"MINDGAMES"? Surely you jest!

Fourth, the stock market has fallen several thousand points and the Obama team can basically bite the heads off chickens and still win, as long as McCain continues his current strategy.

When your opponent's brain is rotting, playing mindgames is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I expect McCain will be indistinguishable from Corky Thatcher once the third debate rolls around.

I think Obama was ready to ambush McCain on Tuesday, probably with some still as yet unexplored unsavory associates of McCains

You don't win an exchange like that by jumping down into the mud with your opponent. You win it by using the opponent's attack to make him look small and tawdry. Which I'm guessing Obama could bring off.

BombIran may be right that the economy could trump everything. Kevin is wrong in that any discussion of Ayers at the debate is not good for Obama.

But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he served with Ayers on a couple boards/foundations, started his political career with a fundraiser in his home, and praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?

Admiral Harold Raynsford Stark to Admiral Ambassador Nomura Kisaburo: "If you attack us, we will break your empire before we are through with you." (Humor me: it's an analogy)

It's not that they have a secret knockout response, it's that it's petty to bring it up at all while the economy is melting down so it's a win-win proposition. It's "Does this terrorist make my campaign look fat?" There is no good answer.

But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he served with Ayers on a couple boards/foundations, started his political career with a fundraiser in his home, and praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?

I refuse to believe you're this stupid Brian. I don't buy it.

I don't mind KD being at Mojo (though Mojo itself didn't interest me after looking it over for a couple of weeks).

But I am really getting tired of all the nasty images on the left margin. The kid in the KKK suit is particularly annoying.

jake,

intelligent response. i'll count your vote as feeling it reflects well on obama that he associated with the scumbag Ayers.

McCain's father-in-law, Jim Hensley, who helped engineer McCain's rise in politics in the 1980s, worked for reputed mobster Kemper Marley, an Arizona liquor dealer who was implicated, among other things, in the 1976 murder of Arizona Republic investigative reporter Don Bolles. (See Phoenix New Times story at http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/1)

Hensley was convicted in 1948 of seven counts of making false entries in federal liquor records and conspiracy with his brother, Gene, who was convicted of 23 counts. In 1952 the brothers bought a racetrack in Ruidoso, N.M., with Teak Baldwin, a Phoenix gambler. The Helmsleys sold the racetrack in 1955. Jim, a cash-strapped ex-con, somehow secured the exclusive right to distribute Budweiser in Phoenix. (See http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0fd7470d-a41f-4d9e-9328-fd079b476a0a&p=3)

jimBob's got it. Bringing up Ayers at the debate will backfire on McCain. Basically all Obama has to do is shake his head in disappointment.

Brian, Ayers is a non-entity. No one would know or care anything about him if the McCain campaign wasn't trying to make him an issue. There's no reason to have any opinion about the guy. He just is not that important.

As for the idea that serving on the board with the guy reflects on Obama's judgment--that's just silly. A lot of Republicans served on that board. Should young Obama have hired private investigators to look for skeletons in all of their closets before agreeing to serve with them?

As for praising the guy's book and letting him host a fundraiser--whatever. Really, there are more important things to worry about.

This is the book by Ayers Obama praised.

Seems to have gotten a rise out of Brian for some reason.

i'll count your vote as feeling it reflects well on obama that he associated with the scumbag Ayers.
Yes, go ahead and do that, won't you?
While you're at it I'd like to hear your thoughts, Brian, about how such an association reflects on the Annenburg family and Foundation. Who not only recruited Ayers to serve on their boards, but also promoted his ideas?
You know, the McCain supporters?

Waitaminitt.
Do you suppose that's got anything to do with McCain's choice of a VP nominee with ties to a secessionist America-hating Alaska Independence Party.
Maybe Palin was properly vetted!?!
Just not for the normal stuff like integrity and basic competence ...

he realizes that it's a different audience

I don't think he does. He's used to fishing from a stocked pond in his Republicans-only town halls. He mugged and made his lame jokes expecting to get laughs but the audience was skeptical undecideds who'd been told not to respond.

there are rumblings of Mafia connections with the McCain liquor franchise in Arizona involving dead bodies

They're not "rumblings." His father-in-law was a bootlegger and convicted felon.

Kevin wrote: "I guess they must be really sure they have a dynamite response ready in case McCain decides to unload next Wednesday."

The Obama campaign has this response if McCain mentions Ayers:

One of the main "connections" that the McCain campaign points to between Obama and Ayers is that they served on the board of the Annenberg Challenge Project, a program of the Annenberg Foundation.

The president and chairperson of the Annenberg Foundation is Leonore Annenberg.

Leonore Annenberg was the second name on a list that the McCain campaign released this week of 100 former US ambassadors who have endorsed John McCain. She is the widow of ambassador and philanthropist Walter Annenberg, and served as chief of protocol at the State Department under Reagan.

If McCain starts in about "palling around with terrorist" Ayers during the debate, Obama can simply point out that he and Ayers served together on the board of an education reform organization headed by one of John McCain's most distinguished supporters, and ask McCain if he is also accusing Mrs. Annenberg of being a terrorist sympathizer?

It's a very smart move on Obama's part. McCain simply cannot benefit in the next and last debate from bringing up Ayers in the midst of an economic meltdown without looking absolutely foolish. And McCain's campaign knows it.

So there's no downside whatsoever for Obama to mildly taunt and trash talk him about it for the next two weeks. But, even if McCain doesn't bring it up, Obama will. He's not going to let McCain and Palin trash him on the stump without confronting McCain about it face-to-face in the debate.

He's going to find the right opportunity to call him out on it. He's going to invite him to tell 50 million people what he has been saying behind Obama's back to small crowds across the country. And after McCain angrily fumbles through his pathetic attack -- and audience reaction flat-lines -- Obama is going to look at the audience and tell them that, in the midst of all their economic hardship, this is what the "Straight Talk Express" has come to: character assassination.

Or something to that effect.

I think Kevin is right about the possibilities.

I think the "say it to my face" taunt is very smart. Very smart.

And I think all three possibilities are about equally good for Obama. The first two are self-evident.

But given that the Ayers smear is getting a lot of attention, I think McCain bringing it up at the debate is a very good option for Obama. And I bet he isn't bluffing. He's ready. I don't think Barack does empty bravado.

I don't think McCain has the guts to do it.

McCain will look petty. Desperate. Trying to change the subject.

Obama will have a chance to repudiate Ayers in front of a huge audience. I imagine he'd really like to do that. And he's ready. He's practiced. Stick a knife in this once and for all.

I just don't see how Obama can lose - unless he tries to say something like "yeah, but McCain has some bad friends too." I think that would be foolish.

Rob Mac: "Ayers is a non-entity. No one would know or care anything about him if the McCain campaign wasn't trying to make him an issue."

That's not true. The city of Chicago gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on the Annenberg project. Ayers is well-known and respected in the education reform community in Chicago.

Ayers has never been convicted of any "terrorist act". The federal case against him and his wife for their alleged activities as part of the Weatherman organization in the sixties was thrown out due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutorial misconduct -- the kind of misconduct that was all too often directed at peaceful, as well as violent, opponents of the Vietnam war in those days.

I don't endorse or condone Ayers' endorsing or condoning violence forty years ago. But he was right to oppose the Vietnam war, and he was right to say in 2001 that he wished he had done more to oppose it. We all should have done more.

Rob Mac,

You may be right that Ayers will not make much difference in the election. If so, Obama becoming president after years of hanging arount with Ayers, Wright and Rezko is an amazing story. I think Obama would have lost with the economic crisis.

Yglesius has a link to a very interesting analysis that argued idealogical realignments were mostly a matter of chance and timing, like Roosevelt in 1936. If true, then the dems and liberals might be about to get very lucky.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/the_political_impact_of_the_depression_in_comparative_perspective.php

Econobuzz:

That's a pretty good post.

It should be obama would have lost without the economic crisis.

Hey that sounds like it would work just fine. Think you could work a "goldarn whippersnapper" in while you're at it? ;)

Er. That should have been addressed directly to Mr. gordonminor. Yeeeh, I've been up doing these derivative systems too long :)

Socrates:

BMTA

So even if Ayers has been a model citizen for 20 years or whatever, that argument will never work for Obama.

I think the only thing that's going to work with people who are concerned about this is to condemn Ayers' violent past clearly and unequivocally. Which is something Obama would do honestly, right?

Trying some sort of nuanced argument about Ayers will be deadly for Obama.

I think it's much simpler than Kevin's double double double-cross scenario. I think they've figured that they can make it so there's only bite at the guilt-by-association apple, they'd rather fight it out on the weaker of the two cases. These taunts put all the focus on Ayres and make that the test case for this whole gambit. If McCain fails there--and I think either using it or not using it at the debate is, in its own way, an epic Fail--then it's much more difficult to try and have another go using Wright. Which I think is the more difficult one for Obama. They're both pretty vapid, but Obama did attend that church for a long time, and it's already established CW that Wright's ravings are anti-Murican reverse racism. Whereas the Ayres association is just so weak on so many levels and the CW is already locked in that there's no there there. So it's a smart move: these taunts establish Ayres as the field of battle, eclipsing Wright.

Who gives a fucking shit about Ayers? Obama in Chicago knew more people than there are characters on the Simpsons. It's absurd to even discuss this.

I don't think that one can assume that Obama wouldn't win sans the economic crisis. McCain got his only lead of the presidential race because of his post convention bounce. Sarah Palin was enjoying immense popularity then. The poll numbers were already starting to shift towards Obama before the announcement of the bailout bill. And Palin was just then beginning to be a liability to McCain at that point.

The polls have shown decisive victories for Obama and Biden in the debates, and McCain has and continues to run a miserable campaign. What kind of stupid do you have to be to have a surrogate announce to the world that the McCain campaign is going to go negative on Obama because they don't want to talk about the economy? You don't announce that kind of thing.

None of this matters, because here in reality, the economy is tanking because of the kind of economic philosophies that McCain espouses. Either way, Obama was going to win the election, but with the economy the way it is, it's going to be a rout.

But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he served with Ayers on a couple boards/foundations, started his political career with a fundraiser in his home, and praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?

Do you concede that it reflects poorly on McCain that he associates with convicted criminals like Gordon Liddy? Do you concede it reflects badly on him that he is deep in the pockets of the Gaming lobby? Do you concede that it reflects poorly on him that his campaign manager has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac, who paid cash into his company's coffers simply because of his association with McCain, in return for no other service? I could go on, if you'd like.

If you want to play guilt by association it cuts both ways. I'd just as soon not play that game on either side. McCain is not losing because of his associations, or even because of the economy per se. He's losing because he's losing because he's running against positions he himself held only a few months ago, because he made a rash and disastrous decision in appointing Sarah Palin as his VP, because he's running a desperate anger- and fear-fueled campaign, and because he has demonstrated an erratic and impulsive temperament that scares people in these perilous times, where Obama has demonstrated graciousness and steadiness under fire. He's losing because he is, in a word, incompetent, just like the current Krew of Bozos your party put in power. You are losing because you DESERVE to lose.

"McCain is boxed in [on the Ayers issue] and the best thing the Obama camp can do is spend the next week all but calling him a gutless bastard and try to provoke him to talk about it."
Posted by: BW on 10/09/08

Isn't it amazing that without discussing McCain's POW experience those images still come to mind with regard to other issues.

McCain is boxed in.

One can only imagine a McCain presidency where McCain is boxed in by the press, Democrats, even Republicans and foreign enemies and unseen enemies and who knows who else.

Obama IS the one.

Brian @ 8:21,
But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he ... praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?

Hi, Brian, good to see you.

From what I've heard about George Stigler (who must be something of a hero to you -- assuming that you have heard of the man), he was a thoroughly obnoxious asshole. Does it reflect badly on me that I still think he was a superb writer and a great economist?

I have yet to see Obama make a move where he didn't have all the bases covered. I suspect he doesn't mind if McCain raises the Ayers connetion in the debate, and has a play scripted if it comes up.

Hey, Kevin, could you shout out to your IT guys? The first 20 or so posts are obscured partially by the ads on the side and no measure of increasing the screen seems to fix it, they are glued there.

I just followed a comment link to Ayer's recent book...and what surprised me was not the book, but the fact that there were only two reviews. Evidently, Ayers is genuinely so obscure that even the wingers haven't managed to go slime up his Amazon page -- or else, Amazon is very carefully vetting any reviews and only allowing serious ones through.

Don't count your chickens, folks. It ain't over yet. Watch out for the October Surprise. My money (what's left of it) is on Israel hitting Iran about a week before the election.

You remember that anarchist whose associations with Roosevelt almost caused him to lose the election in 1932?

Me neither.

Brian to answer your three part question...No. I think Ayers is a first rate a**hole that deserves to be in jail, but he isn't. He got off because of Government malfeasance and is now a toothless ex-radical that serves as an expert on education in Chicago. I don't agree with what he did, though I haven't heard him directly take credit for bombing anything. I get that the 60s was a pretty crazy time, but that type of behavior is extremely reckless, dangerous, and unwarranted.

But what now? I really can't muster the outrage. I have the same feelings about Ayers that I do about Robert Byrd in the Senate. He is an ex-Klan member. The Klan is undoubtedly a domestic terrorist organization. I haven't heard anyone in the Senate trying to run him out of office because of his affiliation decades ago.

Same thing here...what about the Annenburg family? They funded the group and allowed Ayers to be on their board. Do they support domestic terrorism? Ayers' students...he has been a professor for decades and has probably taught hundreds of students. The faculty...did they start a petition to get Ayers kicked out of school? The administration? His neighbors? Other people that have served on charitable boards with him?

My point is the list can go on and on. As despicable as Ayers was 40 years ago, he has been firmly established in Chicago society for awhile now, and anybody who tries to act otherwise is full of it.

So no, while I don't agree with Ayers did in the 60s, I just can't bring myself to ignore the fact that many people, especially elected officials, have close or loose associations with all kinds of people.

Jassalasca,

Thanks for the friendly greeting.

I have no idea about Stigler's personal side. The problem with Ayers is not his personal side; it is his terrorist activities, his hatred of America, and his attempt to radicalize education.

Actually, Ayers didn't push to put Obama on that board. Check your facts instead of regurgitating talking points.

The reason Obama got on that board is pretty much happened his whole career: he was and is considered a big freakin' deal.

Example 1: Sidley and Austin is a prestigious law firm that rarely hires first year law students. But guess what happened? One of Obama's law professors bragged to her dad, the partner of the firm, about how brilliant Obama was and he got a position as a first year law clerk.

Example 2: Obama gets another recommendation from one of his professors to people at the Univ. of Chicago. He gets a book deal and an offer to teach at the law school--and eventually tenure. Another rarity based on his reputation and the fact that he was the President of the law review.

As to the debate, and you folks who hypothesize about Obama having some great comeback, maybe he will, but these politicians seldom came up with a good line in the debates. Obama has done about 25 during the primaries and general election. Anyone even remember a good line from him? Or, for that matter, from McCain or anyone else? I always surprised that with all the advisors and thought devoted to debate preparation, the candidates supply such mundane answers and seldom effectively question the other guy.

I wish Bill Ayers would blow up this thread.

Here's something more pertinent to consider:

"I have been more than a tad concerned about near-paralysis in the money markets and imploding equity prices. But this e-mail, from a well connected international investor not prone to alarm or (normally) the use of capital letters says that the banking crisis is staring to bring international shipping to a halt..."

""At the end of the day, if every counterparty is bad then you don't have a market and you don't have an economy. I spoke to another friend of mine this afternoon, whose father has been in the shipping business forever. Pristine credit rating, rock solid balance sheet. He says if he takes his BNP Paribas letter of credit to Citi today for short term funding for his vessels, they won't give it to him. That means he can't ship goods, which means that within the next 2 weeks, physical shortages of commodities begins to show up. THE CENTRAL BANKS CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN OR WE HAVE NO ECONOMY, LET ALONE A CREDIT SYSTEM.""

www.nakedcapitalism.com

The obvious response would be along these lines, and would be designed to make McCain lose his temper.

"These are serious times. We owe the country a serious discussion of the issues. That is our duty, John's and mine, as presidential candidates. Instead, he has chosen to run a campain of lies, half-truths, distractions and gimmicks. I expected a differnt John McCan, a better one. I can understand why he doesn't want to run on the issues. They're no on his side. His stand on the issues is not on the side of the American people. Go ahead, imply--or say, as you have practically been doing--that I'm basically a scarey foreigner. Pander to the audiences that call me a terrorist, or scream out, "Kill him!" with no response from you. That campaign your choice. But it's not a patriotic campaign, as I understand patritism." That response would be apt, and seem essentially moderate. And McCain would go livid.

Brian, thankfully Obama's biggest concern isn't coming up with snappy one-liners. Bumper-sticker leadership hasn't been a screaming success for America these last eight years.

Obama's rope-a-dope with McCain on the Ayer's issue can only fail if independent voters in swing states choose fear over hope. My gut tells me the majority of them have enough of the former and would like some of the latter. Obama's calmer, more thoughtful demeanor in the debates feeds those voters' needs better than McCain's fidgety bluster. At this point, Obama could read aloud The Constitution or a Chinese takeout menu and do better than McCain would if he brought up Ayers.

If McCain brings up Ayers in the last debate all Obama has to do is look into the camera and say "I think people are facing tougher issues than John McCain wants to talk about. People have lost $2 trillion of their retirement savings. The Dow is at it's lowest point in 5 years. I want to talk about that. John McCain wants to talk about radicals from the 1960s."

Everyone knows by now that Brian is a first class moron who thinks terrorizing the people of Iraq is a perfectly good way to spend our time. So his complaint against Ayers isn't that he's an ex-(suspected)terrorist, it's that the targets weren't brown people far away.

Ayers never hated America the way assholes like Brian do. The Brians in this country gave us the corrupt and deadly Bush administration. They would saddle us with the even more corrupt and even more deadly McCain administration. That's true hatred of America. Sending its children off to murder for the entertainment of sick fucks like Brian.

too funny..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4Z6L4u8E4

I've been waiting all campaign for #2.

Please, please, please.

Calling McCain [as much as] a coward not only goads him, but has a subtext: It punctures his image as a brave war hero. Coupled with the acknowledged fact that McCain sang like a bird for the Viet Cong, it could knock him on his ass. But I really think Obama wants to goad him enough that he implodes in front of a national TV audience. That would be scary.

Here's something more pertinent to consider...

Jesus, Lampwick, that's damned scary. It's hard to know where the bottom of this thing is going to be found. Anyone obsessed with Obama's supposed ties to William Ayers is scaring themselves with ghost stories while a real monster lies outside the door.

Lucy, I'm sure that Brian hasn't read it. Too busy drooling over his Sarah Palin photo gallery.

McCain may have sung like a bird, but it wasn't to the Viet Cong. He was held captive by the North Vietnamese; the VC were in South Vietnam.

Every prisoner who returned home was at one time or another broken by North Vietnamese torture, and made propoganda statements against the US, military, etc. A very few were able to resist and refused to break, and they all died from the torture.

John McCain should be commended and honored for what he endured as a POW. That in no way should have any effect on his run to be president, or on Obamas.

Brian,
The problem with Ayers is ... his attempt to radicalize education.

Okay. So you've read his book. And you were about to tell us what is unacceptable in the man's current thinking. That, and why Barack Obama should have picked up a subtext that Walter and Leonore Annenberg missed. But you were rudely interrupted, and left us with the mistaken impression that you were just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

But it's okay. As I mentioned earlier, I've already voted, so that won't affect me.

bob5540,

He didn't sing for the Viet Cong.

You know, there's something to be said for actually living through the times that constituted the Vietnam War. All you younger pups can sit back and Monday morning quaterback the whole thing, but you weren't there when our sons, our dads, our husbands, our boyfriends, were being drafted to fight in an immoral war. You cannot imagine the sense of loss of control and the rage that it produced in many, otherwise rational people.

Here we have a war that the poor people of this country are fighting voluntarily (or at least we delude ourselves that is the case). It has absolutely No connection or comparison to what was going on in the late 60's early 70's. I knew a guy who dropped out of college when his girlfriend got pregnant, who washed in Tide for two weeks so his exzema would be at top form when he went in for his physical. The brother of my college roommate dieted to way under ideal weight to get out. The sense of that ball and chain was so damn strong. You didn't have a choice. I remember the night of the first lottery and how my then-boyfriend agonized over whether to throw his number in the hat. It was 282. And the guy who got blotto because his was no. 1. This war is kid's play in certain respects compared to the meat grinder that was Vietnam.

Willie Horton is white this year?

I'll be damned.

A guy on Air America radio had a great idea - at the next debate, Obama should turn to McCain, look him directly in the eye and ask "John, do you think I am a terrorist?"

It would be a delicious moment in American political history to hear McCain's response.

Having read through this entire thread, one thing is quite apparent.

Commenter "Brian", like McCain and Palin themselves, is a sleazy, cowardly, despicable liar who deserves nothing but contempt and derision.

I think Obama recognizes that conservatives vote for forceful individuals and this shows McCain to be wimpy.

There is a reason republican strategists paint their opponents as wimpy wafflers. It is influential with their base.

Come to think of it, Obama has been using words like "inconsistent" to mean "flip-flopper" lately.

He is calling McCain a wimpy flip-flopper and activating their own theme against them.

I like it.

Can't anybody here play this game?

One of the best indicators of somebody who is really good at what they do, is that their opponents turn out to really suck. Just so with Obama and his campaign.

But just consider what a Republican opponent who was good at it would have done with Ayers in the FIRST debate:

"Of course I don't blame you for Professor Ayers' bombing the Pentagon and US Capitol, for trying to burn a judge and his family to death, when you were 8 years old. I was in a prison camp at the time, and I hope you don't blame me, either.

'But I can blame the main stream media for having utterly failed to do their job. Where somebody comes from, how they came up, who they think is okay and who they can't stand, means something.

'If I, as a Republican, had gotten my start in politics running for state office with a fundraiser hosted by a guy who had belonged to the Ku Klux Klan in the 60s, who bombed black churches and bragged about it -- well, I don't think I'd have become a state senator. Do you, Senator?

'If I had a supporter who told the NY Times on the morning of the Oklahoma City bombing that he just wished he'd bombed more churches, well -- I don't think I'd have been endorsed by the newspapers who have endorsed you. I don't think Republicans would have backed me in the state legislature and opened the doors for me, that Chicago Democrats opened for you. And I bet you know better.

'So I can't blame you, as a Democrat, for accepting so easily that someone who firebombed a judge in his home -- where his family, Senator, including a 9 year old boy were sleeping -- had 'obviously' rehabilitated himself. That's how your party was raised, so to speak.

'But I think the American people ought to expect more independence from the main stream media. This double standard doesn't reflect American values -- and with all due respect, Senator, neither do you, or you wouldn't take it for granted that associating with that guy, shaking his hand, taking his money, being introduced to his friends, is okay.'

I'm just sayin' -- always better to figure your opponent just might be competent, even at this late hour.

"I'm inside yer OODA Loop, eatin' yer cycles."

The best response wouldn't be another smear attack. If I was Obama I would first mention that he was 8 years old when these things happened, he only knew Ayers through an education board funded by Republicans and staffed with Republicans.

But mainly he should tell the story of South Carolina in 2000, what Rove did to McCain, and how sad it is that McCain is now employing those same shameful and dishonorable tactics.

Ayers ads have been up in PA since August. Didn't seem to help McCain's numbers there, even before the economic collapse.

anonymous commenter imagines "a Republican opponent who was good at it" saying:

"So I can't blame you, as a Democrat, for accepting so easily that someone who firebombed a judge in his home -- where his family, Senator, including a 9 year old boy were sleeping -- had 'obviously' rehabilitated himself. That's how your party was raised, so to speak."

To which I imagine Obama might reply:

Well, Senator, I accepted that Bill Ayers was rehabilitated because he was serving on the board of an organization headed by Leonore Annenberg, a close friend of Ronald Reagan, who served in the State Department in President Reagan's administration, and who in fact is one of your most distinguished supporters in this campaign. I assumed that she wouldn't have Mr. Ayers on the board of her organization if he had not been rehabilitated.

And as you no doubt know, the Federal prosecutor who prosecuted Mr. Ayers for his activities said in a letter to The New York Times this week that he himself is "very pleased to learn" that Mr. Ayers "has become a responsible citizen."

As you know, I have repeatedly denounced the acts you described -- which Mr. Ayers committed when I was eight years old -- as reprehensible.

But let me ask you this, Senator McCain: Do you believe I am lying?

Do you believe that I am a terrorist sympathizer?

Do you want to tell the American people to their faces, right now, right here on this debate, that you agree with what your supporters are shouting out at your rallies, that I am a terrorist who should be killed?

And in that moment John McCain will stand naked before the American people, revealed as a sleazy, cowardly liar.

I think Obama could give a response that good, or better.

I don't think McCain could do as well. (but that doesn't mean Obama shouldn't prepare for his best shot)

"Bill Ayers was prosecuted for his crimes. Since then he has applied his talents to education. I worked with him in his capacity as an educator and an organizer. I am proud of the work we did on the Annenburg Challenge. While I was aware Ayers participated in the Weather Underground, I didn't consider it a big deal b/c nobody else participating considered it a big deal. I wasn't going to miss out on doing something productive to help young people to insulate myself from some future political attack. Politics is about making a difference in people's lives. I made a choice that I was going to be involved and help young people better their lives through education. It would have be cowardly to not get involved because I was trying to protect myself from future political attacks by avoiding an individual, who had, after all, be prosecuted for his crimes."

I think it's not so much that McCain can't make the accusations to Obama's face as that he doesn't want to make them in person in front of a "mixed" audience. The debate will be viewed by people who are moderately conservative and by independents. These people will just think he's nutty if he goes on about Ayers in that forum. His base will vote for him even if he refrains from this attack, but the attack would turn off independents and might even change the minds of moderate Republicans.

Nyberg tries to ghost: "While I was aware Ayers participated in the Weather Underground, I didn't consider it a big deal b/c nobody else participating considered it a big deal."

FATAL. Thank G-d Obama isn't as stupid or morally obtuse as Nyberg.

First, the fact problem: Ayers wasn't "prosecuted". Federal charges against him and his co-conspirators were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Second, the subject: He was guilty.

Ayers' girlfriend at the time was killed when a Greenwich Village townhouse blew up, where his friends were assembling a nail bomb. Think about that.

A nail bomb is intended to kill PEOPLE. Ayers' tried to claim in his memoirs that his gf, Diane Oughton, had been trying to stop the bomb's construction, which is at best a mite self-serving.

Likewise with his own characterization of having the charges dropped: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird".

Third, the spin: Nyberg's take is EXACTLY the way Republicans would want Obama to react -- easily and accurately paraphrased as: 'so what if this guy bombed the US FRIGGING CAPITOL, if his friends were building a NAIL BOMB when he took it on the lam: no big deal....'

Whaddayanuts?

Did you see McCain talking to Charlie Gibson?

Gibson asked him about the "say it to my face" comment.

After a very nervous laugh, McCain said no one has ever doubted his courage.

So McCain is upping the stakes.

Man, did he ever step in some doo.

Obama is a genius.