> Obama has done far too much covering-up of his
> past. That just shows really poor judgment on
> his part.

He is spinning his past to accentuate the positives and de-accentuate
the negatives. Imagine that!  It is almost as if he is a professional
politician.  And he is being cautious knowing that anything he says
will be distorted by the right.  At worst he is being cagey. But to
try to use these associations as proof that Obama is somehow a secret
terrorist (which is on many of the emails I get from conservatives)
goes against the spirit of truth.  His associations are not a big deal
and neither are his desire not to get dragged over the coals for
working with a diverse group of people.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
> > <willytex@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis wrote:
> > > > Ayers was not convicted of any crime, 
> > > > but claims to have set bombs near 
> > > > buildings when no one was around to 
> > > > get hurt.  It was in protest of a war 
> > > > which many American patriots believed 
> > > > was illegal and immoral.  
> > > >
> > > You seem to have missed the point: it's
> > > not so much what Ayers and Bernadine did
> > > in the past, it's that Obama said he 
> > > hardly knew them. Appreantly you know 
> > > more about Bill and Bernadine than Obama 
> > > does.
> > 
> > I'm sure he parsed his words pretty carefully.  We are in the area
> > where spin and reality meet.  I can understand that Obama might
> > minimize his association with controversial people.
> 
> Had he been open about his association with Ayers
> from the get-go, Ayers would have been much less of
> a problem for him. Same with Wright, for that
> matter, and Rezko as well.
> 
> As they say, it's not the crime (or other awkward
> situation, in this case), it's the cover-up.
> 
> Obama has done far too much covering-up of his
> past. That just shows really poor judgment on
> his part.
>


Reply via email to