Now about those friends of Obama...

[fpb]

To me, the most curious and interesting thing about William Ayers is this: how does one parlay an adult life experience that can be summed up in twenty years hiding on a demonstrably criminal and murderous cause, then a few more getting a degree in education from a very minor New York City college - how does one parlay this into a full professorship in education at The University of Chicago - probably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League - and a permanent place among the great and the good of America's third city? I'd really like to know. Because, you know, I rather fancy an academic career, and I don't think that my CV is any worse than that of Professor Ayers when he set out on his.

Another point: how does one get away, like his consort Bernardine Dohrn did, with completely refusing to cooperate with a criminal trial into the violent death of two policemen and a guard, in spite of serious grounds for suspicion; and why should a judge then send her free even from a measly sentence for contempt of court?

These two things cannot be explained unless the Dohrn-Ayers couple had pretty serious friends somewhere in the very "Amerikkan" establishment that they as terrorists planned to destroy. And that certainly makes Obama's friends as interesting as Obama himself.

P.S.: Obama was also an admirer of the execrable Edward Said, who was a professor at Columbia at the same time as Obama was a student. There is a photograph, I gather, of the two of them together. To anyone who remembers what I think of Edward Said, this is another interesting friendshiop.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You did not follow what I said. What I said was: whether or not Obama was an admirer of Said, what the LA Times is trying to conceal is the extent to which he was, only two years ago, an admirer of the Edward Said Professor of Arabic Studies - a PLO mouthpiece whose ultimate goal, to those who know such things, is the destruction of Israel. That is what that tape was supposed to show. And if the LA Times have not released it these last five days in spite of a hammering of negative publicity, it is certain that they will not release it unless compelled. And it is certain that they have good reason to do so. As for the mediatic enamourment with Obama - where have you been? Not that I hope to convince you, but if that notorious bastion of right-wing thinking, the Pew center, informs us that coverage of Obama has been consistently favourable and coverage of McCain not only consistently unfavourable but increasingly bad as the election date came closer, I suppose you will see that as evidence of flawless impartiality, too? You will not find one McCain or Hillary supporter who does not think that the media coverage of any opponent of Obama's stank to high heaven. I am surprised that you even find it odd that I should make such a point.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Actually, I believe your exact words were "Obama was also an admirer of the execrable Edward Said."

I don't think I ever denied the existence of media bias. In fact, I don't think—and I don't know anyone who does think—that the media has been some kind of impartial arbiter of the news during this election or any other. I think their coverage has, by and large, been more favorable to Obama, among many other pathologies. I think many in the media realize this, sparking among other things this very interesting apology (in both senses of the word) from Harris and VandeHei at Politico. I encourage you to give it a read. (Deborah Howell also had a piece acknowledging the existence of bias in the Washington Post.)

I think it's a far cry from that to believing that the media will deliberately lie and go through hell and high water to support Obama. Not that I hope to convince you, either.