When the Jeremiah Wright connection was brought up months ago now, I felt that the sound bytes played over the airwaves were not as “shocking” as everyone was trying to make them; they were just reflective of a mindset many people are not familiar with and frankly don’t know how to respond to except by “shock.”
When the Bill Ayers connection was brought up, it seemed like an attempt to “connect” Obama with events that occurred far too long ago to really have any meaningful impact today.
The guilt-by-association game is played often in political campaigns, and can really get out of hand. Jesus hung out with some characters that people of his day believed were pretty unsavory, so what do we make of claims that Obama “pals around” with “terrorists?”
But as this campaign has developed, and as the candidates have expressed their “plans” for America, it is not too difficult to connect the ideological dots. Its one thing to show up at a dinner where a few people happen to be there with whom you disagree philosophically; its quite another to engage in strategic planning with them on matters such as public education, for example–a place where ideologies are formed.
I don’t think anything more needs to be said about this than that. One need not “demonize” Obama for developing and implementing a common ideology with the people he has freely chosen to associate with, create and implement policy with, mobilize communities with, worship with. We all do this. We all choose what boards to serve on, what churches to attend, and most significantly what people to form synergistic relationships with within those circles, based on shared ideologies. Sure, we might hold differing opinions regarding the way in which we proceed, (for example, bombing is not as effective a way to make a statement as say, creating some other kind of chaos… ) but that doesn’t mean the general goal of those gathered is not the same.
If Obama would “come clean” about his associations, instead of continuing to make ”a guy in my neighborhood,” and “he’s just a college professor” statements as though Ayers has repented of his ideology, explaining to the American people honestly what has been (apparently) attractive to him in the past about hanging out with and gaining political advantage through people who have a good deal of anti-American sentiment (I’m being kind), at least Americans would have, then, the benefit of a well-informed choice between presidential candidates.
Until then, all we can do is connect the dots, and try to do it reasonably. No need to “demonize” — but we do have a duty to examine the evidence we have, so we can vote responsibly. These are serious times.