You're devoting a lot of time to Mr. Ayers here.

1) The election is over and your guy lost.

2) Apparently, #1 bears repeating: The election is over and your guy lost.

3) Ayers wasn't/isn't running for office. I'm not here to defend Ayers, but what do you hope to achieve by attacking him? Nobody is denying his past misdeeds. He did some really bad stuff. A long time ago. It's over. Done.

4) If it wasn't for the Right's frothing at the mouth over this washed-up terrorist, he'd just fade into the past. Why do you insist on keeping his legacy alive? - Ayers is more popular now than he's been in 30 years, thanks to the Right.

5) Do you honestly believe that Obama is guilty of every single thing that Ayers has done? Bear in mind that those are two (2) different people.

6) Also bear in mind that guilt-by-association is a game anyone can play. Here's an example - Why did John McCain give money to the Contras (a.k.a. terrorists) in Central America in the 1980's? John McCain must be a terrorist-lover!

Cheers.

"As for Ayers, the bomb that killed his comrades was full with antipersonnel artifacts like nails and it was destined to be exploded in a dance for soldiers and their dates. That it did not kill hundreds of them was purely providential, that day God had mercy on the innocent.

Now the media, including the interviewer from Salon, is silent about that."

Silent? Everybody knows about this, including you. Why would the interviewer waste time asking questions about an event that was very accurately documented a long time ago? Plenty of information is available about the event. Use the Google. Has it occurred to you that it wasn't the point of the article to discuss that event?

And if you really believe that innocents were spared due to divine intervention, then isn't it also fair to say that the same omnipotent/omnicient diety prompted those individuals to create the bomb in the first place? There! Nobody to blame but God! Boy, that was easy!

Read the comments of Lotus Feet and Juan Enrique. You only need to read a few, because they're all pretty much the same. All they can come up with are some juvenile names to call people, some talking points that they don't fully understand, and a very loose (if any) grip on the facts. (But, facts are liberal, so who needs them anyway when you all you really need is a good dose of self-righteousness?)

These are the voices of today's Republican Party. Keep on keepin' on, guys.

"I say that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Shapiro in this article presents Ayers in the best possible light and did not ask him about their plans for killing soldiers and their dates at a dance with a nail bomb that exploded and killed some of the Ayers’ accomplices."

- Ayers is not sorry for many of the things he did 35 years ago. Nobody is arguing that he is. The specific bombing incident to which you refer had nothing to do with the point of this article, which was to examine the realtionship between Obama and Ayers, the effects of Ayers on the campaign, and the campaign's effects on Ayers. The event to which you refer took place long before those two ever met (when Obama was a child), and is out of the scope of the interview. Do you understand what I mean by "scope?" You want the article to be about something that it is not about. This would be like me being upset that an interview with John McCain regarding his time as a POW didn't focus on McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 - while the Keating 5 issue is a worthy topic, it has nothing to do with McCain's life as a POW. The bomb incident in the Village has been examined at length in numerous books and other articles, all readily available for public consumption. Shapiro didn't wast time on doing, yet again, work that has already been done. If you want to learn more, get off your lazy ass.

"I further say that this interview is an attempt to whitewash both Ayers and Obama."

- Whitewash Obama? Of what? What crime is Obama guilty of? Please be specific. I once had a roomate who got a DUI. Guess what - that didn't mean that I automatically had one too just because I "palled around" with the guy.

"We are heading into an idyllic America under the rule of Obama, The Messiah, where unrepentant terrorists become “distinguished” professors."

- The ONLY people who refer to Obama as some sort of Messiah are ignorant, frightened Right-wingers. I have never heard anybody outside of the Right refer to him as such. Just because you want to think that everybody who voted for Obama is a raving lunatic doesn't make it so. Oh, and Ayers became a distingushed professor long before Obama became a presidential candidate, so what's your point?