FEBRUARY 24, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ben Smith and my colleague Jamie Kirchick have made some fair points in response to my item about Obama's alleged connection to the former Weather Underground members William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, which was the subject of a piece Ben published on Friday.
First, Ben and Jamie say I'm playing down the crimes Ayers and Dohrn committed as Weathermen. I don't mean to do that. I think they're seizing on an analogy I draw to a once violent anti-abortion activist, where I imply that the Weathermen "attempted, but never succeeded in" bombing various government installations. That was imprecise. As Ben and Jamie point out, the bombing attempts succeeded in doing plenty of damage. They just didn't kill or (I think) injure anyone, other than some members of the group when a bomb went off at their (ostensible) safehouse.
Anyway, my point isn't to dispute the facts surrounding Ayers' and Dohrns' past. When you look over my abortion-activist analogy, assume all the relevant details of their records match up.
Second, Jamie disputes my statement that "Ayers and Dohrn have tried to rehabilitate themselves," citing Ayers quote to the Times in 2001 that, ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'' I think quoting my full riff here will shed light on what I was getting at: "Since then [their Weatherman days], Ayers and Dohrn have tried to rehabilitate themselves, and have succeeded in at least becoming semi-respectable figures in liberal Chicago circles, though they still make a lot of liberals (and non-liberals) uncomfortable. Ayers teaches at the University of Illinois-Chicago and is some sort of progressive education advocate; Dohrn is a law professor at Northwestern." The point wasn't that Ayers and Dohrn had become moral exemplars; just that it was possible to be associated with them for reasons other than their violent pasts. I stand by that assessment.
Third, Ben quotes me saying that "the only conclusion that would be interesting — that Obama supports political violence — strikes me as completely implausible." He responds: "I think, when you're trying to learn more about someone who could be the next president, the bar for relevance is lower than proving that he's a violent maniac."
I agree. I actually conceded as much in my private e-mails to Ben and should have been less glib in my original item. I'd put it this way: In order for the Ayers/Dohrn connection to be relevant to Obama's campaign, one of two things would have to be true: Either Obama endorses their violent past, which we agree is not the case, or he's implicitly excused what they did by way of his association with them. The latter is a little murkier, and reasonable people can disagree about it. But I don't think the case has been made that there was an implicit apologia. As I just noted, there were legitimate reasons to have occasional interactions or a vague association with these people. (Even if, given the atmospherics, it may not have been wise for an aspiring politician. But that's a separate question.)
Which brings me to my final point: A vague association is different from a bona fide friendship. If the latter were true, then I do think the story would be relevant. Deciding to befriend someone is a statement of affirmation, after all. I just don't think we have evidence to support that claim. (At least not yet--it could certainly exist.)
In his defense, Ben says he interviewed Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime Hyde Park leftist who claimed to know both men, and who told Ben, "I know they are friends." I don't doubt that Young said this, but it feels a little glib to me. It's not clear what Young meant when he said he "knows" Obama and Ayers. Hyde Park is small enough that someone vaguely active in politics there (and Young would have been in his 70s by the time the association came about) could plausibly claim to know someone else vaguely active in politics there without having much insight into their thoughts. Nor is it clear to me what Young meant by "friends," which can be a pretty vague and elastic term.
I'm not saying Young is necessarily wrong. But I'd be much more comfortable if he'd spoken concretely--e.g., Obama and Ayers used to meet twice a year for dinner, or whatever. Instead, Young seemed to clam up when Ben asked him for specifics--adding "that he thought, but wasn't sure, their relationship was connected to the Woods Fund, a charity on whose boards both sat at a time."
--Noam Scheiber
13 comments
"In his defense, Ben says he interviewed Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime Hyde Park leftist who claimed to know both men, and who told Ben, "I know they are friends." I don't doubt that Young said this, but it feels a little glib to me. It's not clear what Young meant when he said he "knows" Obama and Ayers."
That is exactly why Ben's piece is like the NYT's piece about McCain.
Again, I want a reporter to look into if any current Republican major has political relationships with those who advocated abortion clinic bombings
I also want Ben to do a piece on the Clinton's Weathermen connections.
- jpbps
February 24, 2008 at 2:13pm
Noam,
I think your analysis has gotten over-refined and tortmented in the interests of minimizing the issue for Obama.
The relevance of the issue is simple: Obama sought political support from extreme-left elements of the Democratic party. Hillary has not. That may be fine in Hyde Park, but it won't play well for Obama on Main Street against the Republicans.
- Eos
February 24, 2008 at 2:52pm
Just by way of background for those unfamiliar, Quentin Young is and has been one of the most highly respected members of the Chicago progressive community, fighting the good fight most particularly on health care issues for decades. Withou saying that he's right or wrong on this particular assertion, it is without doubt to be taken seriously. My hunch is that he may be focussing on Ayers and Obama's three year relationship on the Woods Fund board, a not insignificant local foundation. As a general matter, board members get to know each other pretty well over three years, though I understand the Woods Fund says it has no records of frequency of board meetings, board social events or other board functions that would have placed the two together.
And as a slight aside, wasn't it Dr.Young who in the original Politico piece forgave Obama his Iraq funding votes because he understood that potential presidential candidates need to act centrist? I wonder if he would extend that same consideration to those Senate Democrats considering a presidential run who voted for the certain to pass authorization back in '02 back when Obama was representing the most liberal district in Illinois and speaking out safely.
- schrek2000
February 24, 2008 at 2:59pm
jpbhs,
while you're waiting for those reports you asked for, here's one that raises the issues about the Rezko-Obama homestead with clarity and force:
www.nypost.com/.../print.php
Note the lines in the article about the list of those Rezko pushed for state jobs (including the real estate agent who arranged the sham deal on the Obama-Rezko land) and the people whom Obama recommended for state jobs.
- Eos
February 24, 2008 at 2:59pm
Are you serious!? What did he do wrong again . . . he recommend his real estate agent for a job!? . . . oh and I suppose you have never done any real estate business if you are calling this a "shame deal"
What an ill-informed assumption. You dont know any of the zoning ordinances (evidently the reporter doesn't either) so its not at all clear why the land wasn't able to be developed or that it was know before the sale of the strip that it would render the land not developable (the strip was only 10 feet wide!).
I suppose its all you got, now that the owners of the house have come forward to say that Obama's offer was the best one that they had . . . so you cant say that Rezko got him a discount.
Ha, ok well you guys try that one. It wil be all light an no heat. Another Micro-Storm but not damaging.
Maybe kind of like the Rick Renzi story, aye?
www.latimes.com/.../la-na-renzi23feb23,1,5969880.story
- jpbps
February 24, 2008 at 3:23pm
Oh, pc, you are so un-transformed! You actually think there are going to be any hit pieces on the Number 1 liberal in the Senate, endorsed by Petraeus/Betray Us Moveon.org, tax and spend , lapel pin-hating pro-choice young guy from Daley's Chicago?? And that they might actually make an impression on the 70% of the swing state voting population that ignores politics until, oh, October 1st?
But Obama and his people are good, I'll grant you that. And he may just pull it off, especially when he tacks hard center should he win the nomination (as his rather unsettllng pro-gun statements after the Northern Illinois University shootings suggest is a certainty). But I still believe he's a long shot against McCain, though I hope and will work to prove I'm wrong.
- schrek2000
February 24, 2008 at 3:26pm
As to the Post article, note that the late February trial date is wrong. It was continued to March 3rd or 4th at the request of defendant Rezko. So the jury pick and opening statements (which should be barn burners) won't happen until after Ohio-Texas. How lucky for Barack!
- schrek2000
February 24, 2008 at 3:39pm
Where the Weathermen connection comes in is as a part of the as-yet-unreleased GOP whisper campaign to connect Obama to terrorism. Expect to lots of "Barack Hussein Obama" talk and mentions of his Muslim father. This Ayers story just dovetails with that...
- marcellusw101
February 24, 2008 at 6:34pm
"Obama sought political support from extreme-left elements of the Democratic party. Hillary has not."
Um, is this a punchline? I should be laughing at the witty irony, correct?
At least as far as I'm aware, Obama has never actually sold political favors or pardons to convicted extreme-left terrorists for cash. The Clintons, of course, have done exactly that on at least two well-known occasions.
Also, the most active Hillary canvasser in my neighborhood before the Virginia primaries was a drug felon recently released from his second multi-year stint in state prison. Should we hold this affiliation against Hillary's campaign, or should we perhaps act like grownups and recognize that just because a citizen supports a candidate, the opposite is not necessarily true?
- rhubarbs
February 24, 2008 at 6:35pm
rhu,
forgive me the personal comment, but your defenses of obama often = ignore the point + randomly insult or attack Hillary.
- Eos
February 24, 2008 at 9:36pm
And what is the point, exactly? That Obama (or anyone else) should have called the FBI in Chicago and had a background check done on everyone who was likely to be at an open (or at least informal) meeting for people involved in local Democratic politics? We happen to live in a democracy -- although that appears to really irritate some people -- and part of the price of that is that you can't monitor everyone who's at every meeting. No doubt there are many Republicans who might get an acid taste in the mouth if they really went through every guest/participant at every gathering of theirs.
The only way to handle this is to go on the offensive and say that there are indeed many different people involved in political and community action in Chicago, and that everyone is entitled to their participation in the democratic process -- even people who once upon a time wanted to destroy it. We don't hold people's pasts against them in America, if they've dedicated themselves to peaceful forms of action, and if they were not convicted of a crime then we shouldn't go around trying to make up for the lack of a criminal conviction by treating them as if association were enough. Thoughtcrime is not an offense, yet.
- ironyroad
February 25, 2008 at 12:43am
Yup. more than we wanted to hear. Be sure to let us know if an actual story breaks out here.
Can we argue about real stories, like Ralph Nader's absurd candidacy for President, or whether Obama's response to the silly "questioning his patriotism" whispers was strong enough?
- JEFF FREY
February 25, 2008 at 1:48am
Ironyroad said:
"We don't hold people's pasts against them in America, if they've dedicated themselves to peaceful forms of action, and if they were not convicted of a crime then we shouldn't go around trying to make up for the lack of a criminal conviction by treating them as if association were enough. Thoughtcrime is not an offense, yet."
This is the kind of argument President Dukakis made when GHW Bush attacked him on ACLU membership, willie Horton furlough, etc., etc. Whatever you for a living, Mr. Road, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the real world. Let me guess--an academic?
- petelush
February 26, 2008 at 6:06pm