Obama and American Terrorists

Captain Ed has a good post on Obama's ties to 1960s terrorists:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious – and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

...

Have Ayers and Dohrn repented of their violent past? Hardly. Ayers told the New York Times that he didn't regret setting bombs and using violence to intimidate people into adopting their demands. Indeed, he regrets not planting more bombs to effect the change he desired. Both Ayers and Dohrn have written about their continued support for the political terrorism of the 1960s.

Which brings us to the visit of Barack Obama and the apparent blessing he received from Ayers and Dohrn. This doesn't mean that Obama professes the same support for political violence as the Weather couple, but it does show a lack of backbone in rejecting those that do. If Obama can't stand up to two discredited American terrorists in Chicago ... well, you get the drift. What does it say about Obama's politics that Ayers and Dohrn approved of him, and what does it say about Obama that he felt he needed their blessing?

Let's also look at the mainstream media disinterest in this story. Imagine what the media would report if John McCain had met with Timothy McVeigh in 1995 to secure his blessing for re-election to the Senate, or if he had met with Eric Rudolph the following year. After all, both men planted bombs to effect political change in which they completely believed. Rudolph killed about the same number of people as the Weather Underground did. None of these people ever repented of their actions.

Would the media be as understanding? Would it fall to Politico to report it, or would the New York Times have it in a two-column, front-page spread next to a picture of a smiling Barack Obama?

The last qwuestion answers itself. The Times has run an unsourced story about a "romantic affair" mcCain is rumored to have had with a lobbyist a decade ago. McCain has denied it and the Times is backpedalling furously. But there will be no front page story about Obama's ties to unrepantant terrorists on the MSM.

Frank J. at IMAO:

Apparently Obama used to like to hang out with '60s terrorists... unrepentant ones at that. This may seem bad, but if you look at the record of Ayers and Dohrn, the only people they ever successfully killed with their bombs were their own members. That makes them heroes.

Anyway, this seems about right for Obama: He's too squishy to advocate violence, but he's a dumb enough lefty to think its cool to hang out with those who do.

So where does hanging out with '60s terrorists fall: Is it hope or change?