By Uppity at No Quarter:

So who is Bill Ayers, you ask? Nobody in particular if you are an Obama Fan. I mean Obama Rocks!!!! Yes We Can!! I mean all Ayers was is just the leader of the terrorist group the Weather Underground in the '70s. Ohhhhhhhhhh pooh pooh, Obama fans say! That's a longggggg time ago!!! Barack was 8 years old! Ayers is a nice guy now! He hasn't blown anything up lately or anything! Stop bothering our Messiah! All Ayers did was bomb a few buildings, right? Let's give him another chance! I mean so what if he helped Barack with his campaigns. Lay off the guy!

No.

I won't lay off the guy. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (now married to Ayers) were two of the most infamous domestic terrorists ever to be allowed to continue to walk the earth in America, thanks to a screw up in the surveillance. But that didn't stop Ayers from bragging on what he did.

"i don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough"
-Bill Ayers, September 11, 2001

Continue reading here...

[This and other Obama-focused thoughts are available and archived on http://blog.HopeAgainstTheMachine.com]

Many people ask me what I think about the Reverend Wright clips, and how they affect Obama's candidacy.

I think that Obama -- like most of us -- takes the good with the bad with people who he associates with. And, like most of us, he develops relationships on the commonalities, and tends not to focus on the areas where there are disagreements or incompatibilities. And, thanks to his relationship with Reverend Wright, Obama has developed a set of invaluable skills that we could only wish our current President had, and uniquely equip Obama to be an effective President of the United States of America.

I think that Wright is a complex, charismatic speaker who says incendiary things to make a rhetorical, emotional impact... but someone who also preaches some very inspirational, positive concepts like "The Audacity of Hope" -- an idea that Obama embraced and turned into a book and a campaign platform. Of course, we don't get exposed to never-ending sound-bites of his sermons about the Audacity of Hope... despite the fact that these positive messages were probably just as powerfully evangelized and staged. So, of Reverend Wright's two sides, his positive, inspirational were fully adopted by Obama, whereas his more troubling, negative views are nowhere to be found in or around Obama's campaign.

Honestly, if it weren't for Wright, I don't think Obama would have had the power and the confidence to become a serious presidential nominee.

Regarding Obama's judgment associating himself with Reverend Wright for 20 years, I think Obama decided he'd take the good along with the unsavory and negative. Obama used the good, inspirational aspects of Reverend Wright and took them to the next level with his own personal, positive charisma. The angry and negative aspects of Reverend Wright are clearly linked to the victimization and mistrust locked inside the older black community -- a era that Obama clearly understands, but did not experience first-hand. Obama relegates any victimization and venomous words to "the politics of the divisiveness" -- a type of politics that he is specifically running against in his campaign.

Obama acts as a bridge, if you will, between two defining generations. And just because a bridge links old, leftover anger to a new optimism does not mean the bridge is suspect. It's the responsibility of the bridge to enable each side to see one another, and providing a path from the old to the new. And for every problematic issue with Wright (be it his friendship with Louis Farrakhan or other unsavory aspects of his personality, style and rhetoric), I think Barack Obama has proven to America that we can trust his character -- that we can trust him to act as that bridge without being infected by the negative, hurtful aspects of the people he associates with.

Importantly, I think this relationship with Reverend Wright helps explain why Obama is so uniquely comfortable and confident in "speaking with our enemies" (i.e., Presidents of Iran and Syria). Think about it: In a way, dealing with a complex, polarizing individual like Wright may have provided Obama with the tools and experience needed to be in the presence of shocking speakers without being thrown off course by the distasteful rhetoric that America's enemies so often toss at us. And, more importantly, Obama seems to have developed the skills to find the good pieces in complex characters (including Wright), and act as an amplifier for the goodness in people, while subjugating the nastier bits to background noise. This is what great leaders do naturally. And this is how I believe Obama handled his relationship with Reverend Wright.

For instance, Obama clearly has the intellectual capacity to see the meat behind the rhetorical bones of phrases like "G-d Damn America." In this example, Reverend Wright linked that very phrase to the Bible, where it says in no uncertain terms, Thou Shalt Not Kill. The "G-d Damn America" phrase was specifically about damning America for bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese with two atom bombs in WWII. If nothing else, this is an interesting biblically-focused view into America's final acts during WWII -- a view that is counter to the culture of war that exists in America, yet should align well with the religious culture in America.

Drawing this parallel has its fans and detractors alike, but this was Reverend Wright's perspective on how America would be seen through the eyes of G-d based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. As a minister, that's actually his job. And as a minister in a church that serves an urban black community, theatrical phrasing and stagecraft are also considered to be part of the job.

I think Obama sees the complexity in what was behind this phrase, and like many reasonable people I know, would not be offended by the superficial emotional rhetoric. Like most, I think he would clearly be able to see through the throw-away rhetoric and actually be intrigued by the biblical viewpoint lying beneath the inflammatory words. I know that ever since I heard this sound bite, I have given thought to this alternative, non-mainstream viewpoint. I don't fully buy into it, but it has served to broaden my perspective of history from what is traditionally taught in high school. I think we would all benefit if we were open to more than one perspective, even if one of these perspectives was wrapped in a venomous context simply to create an emotional impact.

Too often, we find our current leaders reacting to rhetoric (i.e., Saddam saying he has WMDs, Achmadinijad calling America the Great Satan, Putin saying America is not a democracy, etc.) instead of understanding that the rhetoric is designed to serve an emotional purpose. The real meaning behind much of this posturing needs to be mined from beneath the emotional words and phrases. To this point, I think this country needs a President who can see past the packaging of sometimes unseemly rhetoric, and yet still be open to the underlying messages within.

Imagine a President that does not overreact to angry rhetoric, but looks between the lines for opportunities for negotiation. Imagine a President that can understand that a foreign leader can have both really bad and really good sides, and actually has the patience and demeanor to find the good sides of otherwise troubling characters, and amplify those positive areas to push progress. Imagine a President who seeks out the good where, on the surface, there only looks like trouble. Imagine where we'd be today as Americans if our current President was so lucky to have learned how to deal with complex people and complex situations better. Imagine where we'd be today if our current President did not hastily over-react to charismatic leaders who spout unseemly things just to make a point or to stoke an emotional response.

If Obama can sniff out the good in Reverend Wright and leave the ugly behind as excess baggage, perhaps President Obama would make our nation's foes famous for the good things they mean, and relegate the bad things they say to the footnotes of history.

Many Clinton supporters here at MYDD, and elsewhere, have parroted two talking points that Clinton loves using against Obama.

1.) He is all rhetoric and no policy
2.) He lacks the experience necessary to lead

Read this speech, delivered today, regarding our policies and the War in Iraq.

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-oba mas-iraq-speech/

If, after reading this speech you can honestly say that you still buy the anti-Obama talking points than good for you. I would venture to say that anyone who can say that either hasn't read it or doesn't really care though. And that just isn't intellectually honest.

Much of Barak Obama's candidacy has so far been based on his perceived superior judgment, especially with regards to the Iraq war vote. While he is not shy about pointing out that he would not have voted for the war authorization act, it is important to note that he was never in any position to have to make a clear stand, backed up by a vote. This is Monday-morning quarterbacking, but it is a valid distinction. Point for Obama...but the general question of judgment is not so clear. This week's admissions by Obama's campaign still leave many questions still to be answered.

With regards to his involvement with Tony Rezko, on Friday the Obama campaign admitted that Rezko "might" have been responsible for bringing in as much a $250K to Obama's previous campaigns. While they obviously tried to bury this new revelation in the Friday news dump, it still raises the question about what they knew about Rezko's fundraising, and when they knew it. Obama himself cited this as a lapse in judgment as reported by AP:

"This is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment, where I could have said 'No, I'm not sure that's a good idea." http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/O BAMA_REZKO?SITE=MALOW&SECTION=HOME&a

mp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

On top of that we have reports this week, however many years old they may be, of his Pastor's controversial comments on race and politics. But how many years ago these comments were made is a major point here. If Obama has been involved with this man for almost 20 years, how likely is it that he has no idea that comments like this were being made. On KO last night, he said that he had never heard those comments while he was "in the pews". Fine, no one should question the accuracy of that, but I have the feeling that many news organizations are now looking for tape of other statements that he made while Obama was "in the pews". Again, the question of judgment has to be brought up. I find it less than credible that Obama had no idea that someone who married him, baptized his children, and served as his spiritual guide and "brought him to Christ" had no idea about his other, more controversial views. If one assumes that he was aware, then where was his judgment? I applaud him for distancing himself from the latest set of controversial remarks that are at issue now, but why now, and why not longer ago? Obama knew over a year ago that these comments might come back to be an issue, but only now took a definitive stance on the Pastor's views, now that it is politically necessary to do so.  I think that Lynn Sweet had it right in pointing out that Obama has political conversions when it is convenient for him. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/ sweet_column_obamas_politicall.html#more

Update after the jump.

From Tim Dickinson: Pentagon Definitively Debunks Hillary Clinton's Pre-War Claim of Saddam/Al Qaeda Link:

An exhaustive Pentagon review has established definitively that there was no pre-war operational link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

So here's the question for Hillary Clinton. In the senator's war-authorization speech in October 2002, she claimed this:

Saddam "has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."

The National Intelligence Estimate at the time cast serious doubts on any Al Qaeda/Iraq link. But Clinton has acknowledged she did not read the NIE.

So what was her source for this faulty intelligence?

And why did Senator Clinton believe it credible enough to use as a linchpin justification for war?

Suppose you said that judgment is the most important quality, not experience?  How then do you get judgment?  by having some bad experiences, that's how.  You don't just have good judgment, it is earned through experience.  And you don't learn from success but from failures.  So it is such a stupid reach and do you know why?  Because Obama has no experience, but claims to have better judgment, but I dispute that he actually has this great judgment he is claiming to have.  How can a man who has such great judgment have a friend for 17 years and not know he is corrupt?  How can a man use his influence to get money for this friend, see that the work is not being done and still get more money for him to rip of his own constituents.  How can a man claim to have such great judgment that he would use that friend to acquire a property after he knows that the guy is under investigation to get said property and then casually say the it was a bone headed decision?  How does this prove this guy has such superior judgment?  Because he gave a speech where he didn't support a war that was supposed to find weapons of mass destruction?  Perhaps he had some inside information that told him that those weapons did not exist, maybe he did know they were not there, maybe he should tell us what that information was and where he got it because our intelligence agencies sure could have used it at the time.  Such great judgment that he would chose for his mentor in the senate one senator from Conn. who happened to be an independent who supported the very war he himself decries with such fervor now.  Same guy, same war, who now touts the support from men who also supported this war and voted for this war but then changed their minds, like so many Americans who have changed their minds about this war.  Maybe the same guy who claims than his judgment is so superior that experience of the other candidate means nothing, that spending 8 years in the WH gives her not one bit of experience to handle anything, no his judgment is supposed to outweigh hers why?  One vote in the senate?  Really?  How dross.

Now comes the claim that not only is judgment far better than experience but that his is better by far because he doesn't have any experience.  Is that right?  Because he has no experience that's better?  In fact, now that you mention it, being a first lady doesn't give you anything much to speak of, no you only had tea and crumpets with women, and we all know how unimportant women are in the world, they don't matter, so what if you were the wife of a president, doesn't matter, can't use that experience.  What if you have represented our country in other countries throughout the world, nope, doesn't matter, can't count any of that, but his experience in a state senate, now that's experience we can count on, wait I thought that experience didn't matter it was judgment we wanted, no in this case its experience, legislative experience, you see, its the number of years he has as a legislator, state senate is fine, counts, white house, not that doesn't count, you were not the president so you can't count that.  You see how ridiculous this gets?  What counts is what counts, right?  If you are talking about having experience, only his counts, because everyone knows that what a woman does representing her husband doesn't count, everyone know that right?

When you get right down to it, whatever Hillary Clinton brings to the table can be dismissed with a casual insult, but anything Obama does is well, great! right?  Right?  He's the ONE, right? O.K. then, pass the coolaid.  That stuff isn't spiked is it?  Cause I don't want anything that's spiked, gotta keep my wits about me.

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Hillary Clinton ran a new campaign commercial on Friday - asking who you want answering the White House phone at 3:00 a.m. when something happens in our "dangerous world."  The ad was indistinguishable from what John McCain did two months ago, and within 3 hours Barack Obama felt compelled to shoot a response.  For years, Democrats have been paralyzed by fear - believing they must pick a candidate who is "tough" on national security.  It's a false dynamic that cedes to Republican talking points - and as we learned from John Kerry in 2004, doesn't help Democrats win.  Fear is an effective tactic because it causes people to behave irrationally, which is why the right has used it time and again.  But at the same time, Democrats cannot just ignore it.

There is a worrisome thread that ties our election primaries with the election debacle in Kenya. The mainstream media seems content to avoid the connection. It is willing to allow the right-wing to sink its teeth into the story after Ted Kennedy crowns the winning Democrat with his laurel wreath. Why is that? Have we Americans become so provincial that we cannot make the effort that is necessary to fully investigate our candidates? Are we content to rely on revisionist autobiographies to make our decisions on their character and judgment?

We have heard part of the story of the Kenya election. The West has been shocked by the syndicated photos of the burnt church where 40-50 people, mostly women and children, fled to escape machete-armed mobs. The victims had gone to the church thinking it would be a safe haven only to have their former neighbors lock them inside and set the building ablaze. Unfortunately, the atrocities haven't stopped with that fire.  

To its credit, the media has highlighted the marauders that have killed hundreds and the many displaced Kenyans who have left their homes to escape the violence. Recent accounts have also told the tragic stories of Kenyan women and Kenyan children as young as two, raped by gangs of thugs that hope their savage acts against defenseless human beings will disgrace their victims' families.

There is much more to the story of Kenya's election, however, a part of the story that has an American connection.  That part remains untold since the media seems content to allow the Republicans to connect the dots. This is the largely untold story, and I relate it here.

Raila Odinga, the opposition leader, who claims that President Mwai Kibaki rigged his election victory, is Barack Obama's cousin. In a story reported by the BBC, Obinga celebrated his connection to the presidential hopeful by sharing his familial tie. According to Odinga, Obama's father was indeed his uncle.

If the family connection was all, it is easily dismissed because many of us have relatives we would rather forget. Sadly, there is more to the story. Mr Odinga's Orange Movement and its dominant Luo tribe have caused much of the violence in Kenya. The victims of the violence have been for the most part the Kikuyu, the Kenyan President's tribe.

That is not all.  Odinga has a pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum, a hardcore Islamic organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. Odinga has promised Muslim leaders that he will establish Sharia courts throughout the country once elected. He has also promised to impose Muslim dress codes for women, prohibit the sale of pork and alcohol, and ban Christian preaching.

There is still more, and it takes us to the very crux of the matter.  In the late summer of 2006, Barack Obama visited Kenya and vocally supported Odinga and his presidential ambitions. There are pictures on the web showing the two together.  During that visit, the Kibaki government likened Obama to an Obinga "stooge," an unfortunate moniker for a presidential hopeful.

Why would Obama become involved in the internal politics of another country? What should Americans make of Obama's political endorsements and stumping for Odinga in Kenya? Surely, these incidents raise serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment and his understanding of international decision-making. Surely, Americans of whatever political persuasion should be concerned that Kenya, one of Africa's most prosperous, pro-Western states, is being threatened with the same fate as Somalia. Is this how Obama plans to work with other countries if he should win the presidency? This is a question that demands Barack Obama's answer.

In January of this year, our government asked Obama to urge Obinga to engage in bi-lateral talks to resolve Kenya's political crisis. At first, Obinga agreed to the talks. He has since dissed cousin Obama and rescinded his offer. So, why did Barack Obama risk his political capital on Odinga in August, 2006?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/358174 6.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/397773 9.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/08/ 26/kenya.obama/index.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon21 2.htm
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/8/1 52220/5392
http://www.wideawakes.net/arena/viewtopi c.php?t=4976&sid=c4dd90953cce567c2e4 82f4dd97a8583