Did you not characterize his defense against such slander as strong arm tactics to silence critics? And then imply that the fact that he was so vigorously defending himself meant that there must be something to it?
No, I characterized his attempt to shut people up about it as strong arm tactics to silence critics. I would have thought it appropriate and presidential had he stood up and said something like, "This guy
is lying through his teeth and here is why. . . .and then laid out the case for why the criticism is false and unfair, etc." In fact Obama has done that effectively in numerous cases in which he has been accused falsely. He isn't doing that this time. He's trying to shut people up. Why?
You are the one who says it is slander. Can you make a competent case for why it is?
If Ayers were currently some outside of the mainstream radical, such association would be a reason to raise eyebrows. But he is not. He is a mainstream, active member of many non-controversial groups advocating for education, of which he is a professor. He is doing a lot of work (I'll leave it up to someone who knows to determine whether it is good work) and is connected with many, many politicians other than Obama. So the answer to your question is no, it's not a reason to raise eyebrows because such interactions would be normal for an Illinois and US Senator. If Obama were connected with him when he WAS an outside the mainstream radical, then sure, you could raise those eyebrows.
Frankly my dear, I think this is pure bullshit. You may correct me on this, but I think that you darn good and well have not and will not forgive McCain for associating with controversial figures such as Hagee, Falwell, et al, and I think it is fair game to bring up such associations. I think they have been brought up and allegations that such people have had any role in forging McCain's philoosphy and/or fortune have been effectively put to rest. If he did--I'm not trying to start any rumors here--I don't think you would think it okay for McCain to accept a fund raiser thrown by David Duke so long as McCain wasn't part of David Duke's KKK days. I certainly wouldn't. If that happened, I too would see it as a cause for close scrutiny and, if the McCain campaign then started trying to strong arm radio stations and contributors to shut up such scrutiny, I would suspect there was more to it than the fact that Duke seems to be an okay guy today. Wouldn't you? Remember that Ayers is on the record that he is unrepentent and unregretful re his terrorist days. He is on the record as saying he wished he could have done more.
And the more people refer to Obama supporters as "disciples" the less and less seriously I can take them. The Ayers charges have been answered, directly and truthfully, more than once. There's nothing there except your desire to see something there. Clearly Obama is connected to many, many people, of which Ayers is just one. Heck, I found that he and McCain are both linked to some of my own coworkers on Linkedin. I'm sure that doesn't make him a software developer, though it might make him a software developer sympathizer. Why would he associate himself with such Mountain Dew drinking fatsos? Seriously, the Republicans like the Ayers thing because it fits a narrative of Obama as an angry black radical that they know will fly with a certain segment of society (ahem).
I'm sorry. I try to limit my cheap shots to calling the more radical Obama supporters 'disciples'. But the rock star, messiah "We are the ones we have been waiting for" image is just too compelling for even me to be magnanimous about it.
Has the Ayers issue been satisfactory answered and truthfully? Or is that what you want to believe? See the difference is I don't presume to tell you what you think or want as you do me. I give you a chance to clarify that.