The So-Called Khalidi Controversy

Well, I'm sure I'm not going to convince you, Brian, but honestly I don't see the same barrel full of fish that you do (looks more like a barrel with a few dead fish floating in it to me.) I watched Frontline's piece on Obama and McCain last night- highly recommend it, BTW- and the colleagues you mention in the Senate were clearly seeing opportunism in Obama from the moment he set foot in the Senate, and he similarly was looking for ways to stack up some chits to be cashed in later. I didn't see a whole lot of guys going "Now here's a really great guy who can help us craft some bipartisan legislation" but rather a craven attempt to keep him out of controversial legislative fights and position him in a few key areas where he could quickly gain some cred. Tom Daschle pretty blatantly admitted to this.

And besides, Tom Daschle isn't exactly a friend/colleague that would sufficiently reassure me as a conservative that Obama's working relationships are balanced. ;-)

I'll grant you Hagel, I guess, but he seems like an outlier among more moderate and conservative Senate colleagues.

The Harvard Law Review guys I'll also concede- I've been wondering why we hadn't heard from them and a few of the conservative guys there did appear in the Frontline piece. They praised the fact that Obama went out of his way to avoid favoritism toward the liberal faction of HLR. I will admit this was something I found reassuring, but at the same time wondered why this was the first time I'd heard actual evidence of someone with opposing ideological views (not just someone center left, but an actual conservative) expressing that opinion of Obama's reach across the divide.

On the Ayers thing, I find it odd that you'd expect to find photo evidence or something neatly packaged up to use against Obama in that relationship. I spent a good bit of time digging through the CAC papers that are available online and the picture I got was of Ayers being a puppetmaster by design- partly due to the need for arms length transactions to avoid charges of self dealing (his small schools project received a good bit of grant money) and probably also in part to protect those on the board from guilt by association with him. I know the media likes to report that he's completely mainstream in Chicago circles and in the education community, but apparently a lot of people are still well aware that he isn't accepted in other circles (there was an interview with Ayers in a Communist party publication where Ayers was complaining bitterly about being left off the invite list of a prominent education roundtable, and he quoted from the letter he was sent which clearly indicated that the organizers respected his views but needed to keep their distance from him.)

So, basically I don't see reason to dismiss the closeness of the working relationship based on the lack of photo ops. Ayers was one of three people who submitted the proposal to Annenberg, and he would have had to have been involved in choosing the operating board. The claim now is that three other foundations were selected to nominate the board members, but Ayers legally would have had to have tasked them with doing so and thus the claim that Ayers didn't select Obama doesn't ring true. And, people who know Ayers say it's laughable to suggest that Ayers would have secured this huge grant and then bowed out to let others run the show- in fact after recusing himself from the board of the CAC itself, he set himself up as chair of another organization which served as the financial arm of the project (how that didn't raise red flags of self dealing, I have no idea, although we are talking about Chicago.)

Obama and Rezko were closely associated with now-failed Chicago development projects from Obama's "community organizer" days. I documented that here months ago. How quickly you forget.

Fortunately, not being a moron, I have the brainpower to know that there are many, many, many others.

Leaving the initial assertion and unproven assumption aside, go right ahead and name them! Shouldn't be that tough, should it? Certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's also VERY certainly nothing remotely resembling proof of presence, and your entire argument is predicated on presence. And your argument there is....

If you think I'm going to waste time finding individual names so that you can tell me why they don't count, you're dreaming.

ROFLMAO. "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" You can't show any exculpatory fish from the pre-Senate barrel, so you cast aspersions on the motivations and arguments of others instead and rationalize the lack of evidence of presence. Gotcha. Pretty substandard, Brian. (See "pounding on the table.") You should know better.

I agree with you about the effectiveness of Sen. Obama's campaign. My last sentence even notes that, "..., for whatever reason,...". Certainly, your hypothesis could be the reason for his not addressing those attacks and makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence though. I think he drove off some potential voters (how many, who knows) by not responding to those issues.

Yawn. More of the same, with extra ad hominem. I'll pass on responding in kind. Adversus solem ne loquitor--homines libenter quod volunt credunt.

Bucyrus, I have never looked for actual footage. Not worth the trouble or time.

Wiring bombs? Co-authoring a leftist plot? Wow, did you ever over read what I wrote. I suggest you slow down and reread my initial post. Just to save you the time though,

"Again, you might disagree with the pattern put together by the Right, I certainly have a few issues with it as well, but there has been a pattern woven. And this pattern is being displayed to the Voters. Now, whether the Voters buy into this, well, we won't know for a few more days.

I wasn't specifically making any sort of persuasive argument or sniff test. And no, I didn't fail as I was not making a persuasive argument.

Is Obama a liberal, yes, I believe he is. Is he an uber-liberal, well, the proof will be in the pudding. Unfortunately, given his lack of a substantial record, continual use of voting just "Present" in the Illinois senate (roughly 130 times), it's damn tough too tell.

The fact that he has rarely reached across the aisle to work on legislation with the Right (and no, I do not count working with the conservatives to get a US postal stamp authorized as "working across the aisle) leads me to believe that he is not very close to the center. That his voting record in the US Senate is reported as being more liberal than Pelosi's, leads me to believe that he is far from the center. In 2007 he was the most liberal Senator in his voting.

He was wrong on the Surge. It worked and he cannot and did not give credit to our troops or commanders. It was extracted from him grudgingly in his O'Reilly interview and even then, he didn't actually give, by name, the US forces credit. His vote on the war I consider circumspect as he wasn't in the US Senate where his vote would have actually counted. It's relatively easy to place a No vote in a state senate when you have only your immediate constituents to mollify. Much different than being on the national scene.

His inability to protect the rights of infants born alive after botched abortions I consider to be shocking. Even Sen. Boxer was able to support it. I consider that position to be quite far from the center and even far from the left of center. And, no, I have not personally taken a side on the abortion issue. I do however think that if someone is born alive, on US soil, they should be given the same rights that I enjoy and those children of illegal immigrants as well.

He want's to Spread The Wealth. Missed that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Last time I checked, the money and property I earn should be mine. In fact, are mine. I don't see anything in the either document that says I have to give up my valuables for someone else. And no, I don't make 250K, 200K, 100K, or whatever dollar figure Obama/Biden have lowered it to now. I make significantly less as a matter of fact. It's the principle. It's not right and antithetical to the premise of what our country was built on. Sorry, but for me, Sen. Obama's position is left of center.

So, with out examining his friends, past or present, without leveling accusations at you and your conclusions, and looking at what I can find out about Sen. Obama, I am forced to conclude that he is in fact Liberal. Uber-Liberal? Your call but don't put your conclusions or assertions in my mouth.