You asked me to support my prior statement that Obama supports individual terrorists such as Ayres, but not terrorism per se.

Briefly, I don't think it is in dispute that Ayres is a terrorist. If you can believe what you read in the papers, he and his group were involved in bombing the Pentagon, Capitol, attempting to kill a judge and his family. At least one cop got killed. You could quibble about whether this is terrorism, Bolshevik revolutionary activity, or something else. Seems fair to call it terrorism, to a point.

Second, is Ayres a present or past tense terrorist? Again, if you can believe what you read in the papers, he said in 2001 that he had no regrets about past conduct and wished there were more -- by that, I assume he means more bombing, killing, whatever. I think that supports a present tense connotation.

Third, if you can believe what you read in National Review (I may lose some of you here!), Ayres' people set up Obama as the head of 100 million dollar grant organization in Chicago very shortly after he finished his education (good gig if you can get it), and Obama in turn supported Ayres' groups as well as Jeremiah Wright with substantial grants. As I said earlier, Michelle Obama was given a chance to distance herself from Ayres on Larry King, but instead spoke warmly of him (dare one say "supportingly"?), calling him a respected educational reformer and defending his moderation by saying some of the foundational money came from a Republican. Obama reportedly has been in contact with Ayres as recently as 2007, and like his wife still seems to speak fondly (dare one say "supportively"?) of his erstwhile friend and mentor.

So, that is what I meant by saying Obama supports terrorists on an individual basis, while condemning acts of terrorism per se.

Thanks for the earlier defense. I'm not sure I wrote anything to defend people calling for Barack's head. Assuming the protestor's video on youtube is legitimate, and anyone on there called for his head, I am not in any way defending it. See my subsequent post on overheated politics. (As a long time watcher of Michael Moore films, I know one must be careful with this sort of thing - are you seeing something real or what the producer wants you to see?).

Guys, guys, guys. You need to stop attacking me and listen to what I am saying.

First of all, I asked what is the "probability" that a youtube video by a protester in Pennsylvania reflects actual Republican sentiment, vs. some sort of Michael Moore set up. I am convinced by the responses that there is apparently some genuine scary rage out there, so you all have answered my question. The scariness appears to be real.

Second, I pointed out that the Limbaugh/Hannity types are whipping up -- if not violent rage (I don't think they are), but at least intense sentiments and frustrations on the right. On the other hand, people on the left like Matthews, Olbermann and Campbell Brown are not whipping rage on the air -- they are evincing it themselves. Some of these Obama broadcasters are losing their sense of perspective.

Third, I pointed out the undeniable fact that Obama has some admittedly strange connections in the south side of Chicago. Rezko, Ayres, and Wright each have their own stories. If you pick up a paper in Detroit or northwest Indiana, you will see similar casts of characters -- housing scandals, contractor bilkings, casino charity fund managers under indictment. Throw in an aging pipe bomber with ties to endowment money and you can call it a party. Mr. Obama chose to reside in, and profit from, such a neighborhood.

Finally, what does it all mean? Well, remember Nixon had his first break-in back in law school and his last one in the White House. Clinton was a sex fiend in Arkansas, and could not control himself as president. Truman got his start with a Kansas City crime family and nearly was drive out of office when he dragged some of these people with him to D.C. Past is prologue, as Biden likes to say. I have said many times I don't think Obama is a bad guy. He's just made some controversial decisions -- which are very likely to follow him going forward.