Interesting criticisms. I was certainly not intending to be circular, empty, false, or irrational.

I am trying, first, to do a probability analysis. I think it most likely that Palin believes if harsh character/association type criticism is verboten, it will lead to new bad legislation like McCain/Feingold. I would place a 50% possibility on that scenario. I also think it possible that Palin did not really mean the First Amendment, but free discussion generally; i.e., if we can't criticize without getting attacked for doing so, what does that mean for free discussion? I would put a 49.9% likelihood on that. Third, there is, I guess what we can call it the Salon position, which is that Palin is under the mistaken impression that the text of the First Amendment protects politicians from being criticized by the media. I suppose, to be charitable, I must assign that a possibility of at least 0.1%, but certainly nothing more.

Second, I am trying to gauge whether there is any validity to Palin's overarching concern - that the media is going too soft on Obama. On one hand, I think she's right. On the other, so what? That's life. If we're going to criticize Obama, let's talk about why 40% of Americans who pay no income tax will receive government hand-outs under his plan, or why he will federally fund abortion for the first time in our history. I wholeheartedly agree that the "issues" are more important than Ayres.

Finally, someone asked if I am a Salon writer -- I forget her name now - initials are C.P. No, I have made some of my identity clear through prior postings, which would exclude her. All of my statements have been factually correct, including how I voted (you folks should be happy - it had a lot of Democrats along with John McCain and Sarah Palin).

Thanks for the link. I read the NYT article on line when it was issued.

You know, speaking of Ayres, there are a couple of things I have always thought would be interesting to know. First, how exactly did Obama come into contact with this guy? If memory serves, the NYT fudges a bit and speculates on the time line, but I do not believe they had specifics directly from Obama or Ayres.

Second, who sought out whom? If Obama sought out Ayres, did he know the guy had a violent past, and did he regard him as a kind of romantic warrior from the Vietnam era? People have asked me from time to time, as someone who has a conservative bent, what would you do if you came into contact with an abortion clinic bomber (or, like Ayres, a former bomber)? Short answer: run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. It's like an offer to have a pet rattlesnake; if you're at all normal, you don't want anything to do with it. So, back to Obama, did he know Ayres was a bomber, and did he care?

Third, how close were they really? Quantifiably? How often did they communicate through the years? Did they socialize? Here again, the NYT fudges and concludes they were not apparently close, but without talking to either of the sources. And speaking of silence, why wouldn't the NYT pose these questions directly to Obama, and then start a "countdown" for each day that he refused to answer them.

Why all the questions above? Well, it would help us get a true feel for whether there is anything to be concerned about. I did not get such a feel from this press coverage, and it was similar to the experience I felt watching Jeremiah Who?, the pastor who went from surrogate father to stranger in the blink of an eye, with a short interregnum as crazy uncle on same moral playing field with Barack's *typical* white grandmother.

I wish we knew more about Obama, for the benefit even of his supporters, and I say that with at least 50% sincerity. There is a lot of Obamamania out here, and unwillingness to even countenance bad news about him. Better to hear it all, in my opinion, and then jump on board. Eyes wide open are generally better than eyes wide shut.

You mention the rich who may "decide to leave." This brings to mind Michael Manley's famous statement that a plane leaves for Florida every 20 minutes.

Here, unlike Jamaica, the rich have no place to go. I believe Obama, and Barney, and Nancy, will in fact impose punishing taxation, and not just on the 250K crowd. It will go much lower than that, and the percentage increases will go much higher. It's inevitable. The debt must be paid; new programs must be financed; it's easier to hit the top than the bottom or the middle.

Some will say - the howling and protest would cost the Democrats future elections, should they do that. It might. Or, the majority, once it begins "supplementing" its income with rebate checks they receive from others, might just grow accustomed to such checks, and ask that they increase. Majority rules, after all.

Obama is unique because he is running on a platform not just of progressive taxation, or higher taxes to pay for programs, but on redistribution (i.e., tax "cuts" for the 40% who pay no income tax to begin with). And by the way, I am not trying to infuriate you by pointing this out. Some think it just. I think it resembles the late Roman empire, and is a symptom of societal decline. That's why I oppose it.