For someone with a PhD, you'd think she would see that the NYT put that story out to kill off any offensive. That's a classic Clinton Warroom tactic, as I recall. Go watch wag-the-dog. There are so many questions about Barry that I sincerely doubt he could pass a security clearance. Affilition with underworld types, racists, anti American terrorists, etc will not get you a security clearance.


>Almost the entire media is pro-Obama, Tamar. Even when they're not they are afraid of being labelled racist if they dare question his background. Ayers and Obama were close enough if Obama knew of his background. And, of course, he knew. And then there's Wright....and Rezko.....any of these sort of associations would have been screamed to the skies by the media if it involved McCain or Palin.
>
>Be careful with that word "debunked". I don't think it's warranted, rather, I think the proper word is "unaired".
>
>I am just flabbergasted that some of you are so anti-Bush and pro-change that you'll accept a deeply flawed man who - potentially - is the most anti-American Presidential candidate ever.
>
>But...hey...believe what you want. Don't research, listen to the pablum.
>
>>>Mike, you're being thin-skinned. The NYT being pro-Obama to an extreme is not news to anyone. In fact, their loss of objectivity is probably why the subscriber numbers are plummetting as they are losing the trust factor.
>>
>>Is the AP pro-Obama? They've debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers were close (that is, "palled around") as well.
>>
>>Tamar