"There is no record of Obama having done anything improper, and people who sincerely believe in their own moral and ethical foundations ought to be able to admit to that. He needs to be defeated on the playing field of ideas, not of smears."

what should be mentioned is that Obama has done nothing improper "YET!" get with the reality, Mccain has done nothing improper "Yet".

either candidate can do anything, and for the life of me, I fear that OBAMA can be the next precursor to the antichrist. I'm scared that he'll suggest we should join the EU as a nation, that perhaps that would make the economy so much better.

seriously, is that all the democrats and far-left leaning liberals (like Obama) think about; MONEY, ECONOMY…ahhhh! God is one day going to look at our greed and the radicalism in democrats with their (gay rights, and abortion issues) and GOD Will say, "SON, it's time to harvest my followers".

what will you say about how great the world will be, or that obama has done nothing improper…perhaps Mccain will be in the whitehouse when you hear that trumpet sound. I can't wait!!!!

plus, who cares about the wasted time debating all this, God has a plan. SHUT your WHINING ASSES up, and go vote for who you agree with. God has the master plan anyway, so the best we can do is voice our opinion.

May the God of Abraham save us all (not the Allah of Barrak Husein obam-ra-ham)

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

There's a big difference between serving on an athletics board and dispensing $100+ million to further an education agenda that apparently had nothing much to do with conventional measures of scholarly achievement.

And to be picked to serve as chairman must show a higher degree of ideological agreement because if they just wanted his lawyering skills they could have had him on the board as an ordinary member, not chairman.

Ayers recently supported Chavez. In between that he was closely associated with Obama – enough that Obama's political career was launched from his house! Is it an open house? How many other Democratics or Republicans have launched from the Ayers' place? You don't just launch your career from anyone's place. If you're smart you'll launch with help from a powerful patron.

Obama is smart. He's also deceitful because he knows that mainstream America wouldn't accept him if they knew who he really is. So he talks to the middle class as though he's their friend when he is actually very far to the Left of the middle class.

They'll discover it to their detriment, I'm afraid. The US is in for another Jimmy Carter, only this one will be far more devastating. I hope the Republicans can pull someone good out next time. They need to find an orator. Smooth-tongued Republicans should be mandatory to counter the Democratic spin. Unfortunately, Huckabee's politics weren't right for most people. He would have been good at tearing down Obama though – with a smile!

Obama's past associations are a reflection of his future and God forbid that this man should take office.

If nothing else, he is the US version of Neville Chamberlain and we know what a mess this gross appeaser and weakest of British PM's left behind for Churchill, FDR and later, Truman to sort out!

Finally, Obama enjoys the backing of 93% of blacks, which is a level of support even Sadam Hussein would have been impressed with. The trouble is, this makes it the most racial of all elections in US history. Come Nov.4th, the backlash in the ballot boxes would shock even the most rabid of right-wing pollsters!

Yes, I do believe all those things that you mentioned, and I've made those points here as well. However, I believe one strong piece of evidence that this is so is his long association with Bill Ayers. Ayers is a personification of the folks Barack Obama chooses to have around him. You can say the same for Bernadette Dorhn, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, et. al.

Ayers just happens to be the one he's lied about.

Regarding Ayers, the question is not whether he has blood on his hands or not. I don't think there is any debate there. The question is whether or not that blood should stain Obama by distant and indirect association. I see nothing to support such a view.

In my first comment, I asked you to point out any indication of any wrongdoing. You didn't answer that. I asked you to point out any indication that Obama shares any political opinion with Ayers. You didn't answer that either. Every day politicians find themselves getting donations from people they don't necessarily agree with, being at dinner parties with people they don't necessarily agree with, sitting on a board with people they don't necessarily agree with, and on and on. EVERY politician can be attacked on the basis of these kinds of innuendo "relationships". For that matter, pretty much every American could be attacked in such a way from some degree of separation. I have members of my family, for example, whose political and religious views are embarrassing to me personally, and probably vice versa. Does that mean I share their views? Hardly. It also doesn't mean that I will no longer associate with them. We can root for the same football team while voting for different people and parties.

What we do know is that Obama has specifically denounced Ayers' radical activities, while McCain specifically has praised Liddy. I find the latter more troubling.

Now, do I think that means McCain really supports Liddy's extremism? No. To me, it's just more flaccid pandering. Typical politician stuff.

But surely Obama cannot be accused of worse than McCain. Obama's involvement with the board helped boost his political career. Okay, he's a politician. McCain's pandering to Liddy or to, say, Hagee, or any number of other unsavory individuals is calculated for gaining political points as well.

Is there anything truly radical in the vision of either of these men? No. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise, just as it's ridiculous for your first commenter to fall into the pathetically weak rhetoric of pointing out that Obama's middle name is Hussein. The man is not a terrorist, he's not anti-American, he's not a crazy radical, he's not a Muslim, etc. He's a fundamentally patriotic, decent, and intelligent guy, just as is McCain, who is getting ripped to shreds on the basis of a fear and hate agenda fostered by political handlers who don't give a crap about anything other than winning the election. The politicians aren't really the bad guys, it's the handlers and the lobbyists, on both sides, who will shed their ethical compass in order to win, because their job is not to fix America, it's to… win.

We need to focus on the candidates positions, not on this silly innuendo nonsense. Are you worried that Obama is too left-leaning and would promote socialist policies outside the normal range of American policy? That's fair game. Do you think he has the wrong idea on Iraq vs Afghanistan? That's fair game. Do you think his diplomatic emphasis is the wrong approach to dealing with foreign policy? That's fair game.

The rest is pure garbage with little or no foundation in reality, as investigation of unbiased sources makes clear enough (e.g., factcheck.org), but if one is predisposed to see Obama as the devil incarnate, and all that person reads for "verification" are similarly inclined sites, right wing radio, and Fox News, then the constant exposure to that bias just builds up an irrational basis for objective discourse.

Thanks again for listening.

That the court system let him off on a technicality does not remove his pride in his terrorism now his desire to have caused more death and destruction.

Any other terrorists you want to excuse while you're here?

wrong again!

you are smearing with supposition. Ayers was cleared over Prosecutorial misconduct. he was freed. found "not guilty".

next point?