Obama and Ayers, Part 2

Briefly put, there are two main reasons why the Obama-Ayers connection is relevant, and neither one of them has to do with the absurd implication that Obama is a terrorist since Ayers is.

1) It goes to judment. Much has been made of judgment already in this campaign. Obama was mentored by Rev. Wright, a close acquaintance of Farakan. McCain showed poor judgment in continuing the war strategies of George W. Bush. Obama shows poor judgment in wanting to withdraw troops right away. And how about this one, McCain has shown what type of judgment he has (read: bad) in picking Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I argued regarding Obama's Rev. Wright connection, one need not say that the Democratic contender espouses racist ideas or hatred because his pastor does. Similarly, one need not say that Obama is a terrorist because he had multiple interactions with Ayers, a terrorist. However, it does demonstrate his judment. Someone might say that it doesn't reveal much if his interactions were merely accidential of no substance. Perhaps, but that is precisely what needs to be determined. What were the nature of those interactions and what might they reveal about Obama.

2) Maybe even more important, the connection needs to be investigated and explicated because of what it reveals about Obama's chosen narrative for himself. Obama presents himself as a force to bring people together, not as exponent of partisan politics. We have very little to go on in terms of his Illinois Senate voting record (other than "present"); we do, however, have a decidedly liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Now, maybe Obama would not deny that he's liberal; perhaps he would just suggest that his liberal politics are exactly what would bring people together. This would be clever semantics and perhaps convincing to some. However, I think Obama wants people to believe he is not a far-left liberal and that he intends more than anything else to bring people together and to usher in a new era of pragmatic politics. his narrative--which Obama has written--is why it's important to dig further (or better explicate further) into his associations with Ayers. I suspect that at the very least they will reveal what his Senate voting record suggests, namely, that he is a thorough-going commited liberal.

One last comment: I've heard some say that Obama only worked with Ayers because Daley introduced the man as his "point man on education." Perhaps this is true. Again, though, this very fact would dispel the myth that Obama is post-party politics. If Obama were part of the renowned Daley Democratic machinery in Chicago, falling in line as necessary, what would this reveal about his potential as a politician to bring people together? It seems to me that we have on the one hand, Obama's voting record and known associates, and on the other, how he portrays himself. For clarification, I have no problem, necessarily, that Obama has plugged in thoroughly with his party's leadership and walks in line with liberal ideology. It's just that he's trying to present a different case. Obama's "Ayer connection" helps make this case.