IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 175DOBBS: And — and Ayers. Others?
MCCARTHY: Well, there’s Rashid Khalidi, who was a recipient of some of the largess that
Obama controlled when he was on the Woods Board. He is somebody who was –
DOBBS: He was on the board with Ayers?
MCCARTHY: Yes, when Obama was on the Woods Board with Ayers, they gave grants to
Rashid Khalidi, and his work.... (Lou Dobbs, CNN, April 18, 2008)
We note once again in passing that the primitive analysis which is typical of right-wing
observers insists on viewing figures like Ayers as authentic radicals or revolutionaries, rather than
the cynical foundation-funded intelligence community operatives which they actually are. In any
case, we can see here that a future President Obama would have a hard time bringing the executive
agencies of his own regime together, quite apart from his grandiose promises of bringing together
the majority and the opposition in Congress.
OBAMA FANATICS WANT THE AYERS QUESTION DECLARED TABOO
Even while the Philadelphia debate was continuing, there was much wailing and gnashing of
teeth among the Obamakins squatting in the outer darkness. The shrillest of the effete snobs that
evening was probably Tom Shales, the television critic of the Washington Post, which had long
since joined in the swoon for the new messiah. Shales howled that the debate “was another step
downward for network news – in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia
and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in
shoddy, despicable performances...Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and
gossipy trivia that has already been hashed and rehashed.” Shales mocked Gibson for “looking
prosecutorial and portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class.” Obama had brought
“refreshing candor” into the debate. The moderators could only be compared to “dogs.” (Tom
Shales, “In the Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser is ABC,” Washington Post, April 17, 2008)
The center-right oligarch David Brooks, by contrast, found that the ABC questions were
“excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions,
contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each
looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault. We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah
Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W.
Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will
respond to these sorts of symbolic issues. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a
big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his
background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own,
but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright
and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades: ABC: A; Clinton: B; Obama: D+” (David Brooks, No Whining About the Media, New
York Times, April 16, 2008) The ABC questions, far from representing a modern Torquemada
treatment, had barely scratched the surface concerning Obama’s relation to Ayers.
THE JOYCE FOUNDATION AND RULING CLASS PLANS FOR GUN CONTROL
Larry Johnson has reported that for eight years, Obama sat on the board of Chicago’s Joyce
Foundation — earning $70,000 in compensation — an influential board that ‘funneled almost $3
million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights,” according to Politico.com reporter