[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]
Barack Obama’s still veiled relationship with the unrepentant 1970s terrorist Bill Ayers is the oddest narrative in the Presidential campaign. Will it yet prove fatal to the candidate?
He is reacting like a cheating husband who hears his angry wife stomping up the stairs.
On at least two occasions this week, while the rest of the country was distracted and tuned in to the Democratic convention, Mr. Obama’s operatives employed a strange form of fury that was both suspicious and extreme.
From the first, the candidate has behaved peculiarly in trying to discourage inquiries into his connections with Mr. Ayers, dating from 1995, when they served together in a mysterious foundation in Chicago, to the present.
Misleading Answer
Mr. Obama has said on numerous occasions that he was but an unworldly lad 35 years ago when Mr. Ayers and his wife and fellow terrorist Bernadette Dorn were attacking the Capitol and other high profile sites.
It is a remarkably disingenuous rejoinder for an academic, as if the question were, Do you like pickles? And the response is, We are going to the opera tonight.
When a conservative group produced a fairly unremarkable television ad the other day, recounting only what is publicly known about the Obama-Ayers relationship, the Obama camp immediately went ballistic.
One of his lawyers said the U.S. Justice Dept. would be asked to investigate. Boys, I promise the Culver City Police Dept. will investigate before Justice does.
Talk About Overreaction
Last night in Chicago, a respected scholar you probably never have heard of, Stanley Kurtz, was scheduled to be a guest on a popular and long-running talk show on WGN radio, hosted by Prof. Milt Rosenberg.
Mr. Kurtz is investigating the Chicago portion of Mr. Obama’s life, and a main focus is on the Ayers’ link. Prof. Rosenberg is known for his non-partisan approach, and he invited an Obama spokesperson to appear opposite Mr. Kurtz to offer an immediate counterpoint. The campaign declined, but not for long. They whirled into action in a way that I find scary. With only several hours’ notice, the Obama people emailed supporters and directed them to bombard WGN with calls and helpfully provided a talking-points memo that emphasized name-calling and reputation-smearing. I listened to the first of the two hours.
What is so intriguing is that neither the lawyer in the forepart of the week nor the campaign yesterday cited any factual errors. Both times, the offered only bluster. They were vile. They were vicious as thugs. Their reactions were stunningly disproportionate. They may not be panicking, but they sound that way.
Hitting Back to Avoid Repeats
The second oldest practice within politics is for one side to make a claim and the other to shoot back even harder.
That prosaic scenario does not appear to be what is going on here.
The Obama camp was not merely answering. These were fist-doubling acts, undisguised attempts at intimidation.
Is this what an Obama presidency would look like?
