My critique of Obama’s speech produced an avalanche of hate mail, and some sharp reactions from Obama-supporting journalists.
My friend E. J. Dionne Jr. is “disappointed” with my comment about Bill Ayers, which he calls “absolute rubbish.” I am genuinely interested to know which of my assertions Dionne disputes: 1) that Ayers was a terrorist, 2) that he is unrepentant about it, 3) that Obama has been willing to associate with him, or 4) that this association, among others, suggests that he follows a no-enemies-to-the-left policy?
Jonathan Chait, also a friend, writes sarcastically: “Like Ramesh, I’m shocked that Obama flouted the normal practice of introducing yourself to the public by invoking the craziest people you’ve ever known, including those whose radical views you don’t share and never have shared.” Well, I wasn’t demanding that Obama spend his whole convention speech apologizing for his past indulgence of radicalism—although I would look on the prospect of an Obama presidency with more peace of mind if at some point over the last two years he had said that he used to be a lot more left-wing than he is today but had changed his mind. I do think that he should have been more straightforward in presenting his liberal views on some of the matters I mentioned.
I have never believed that Obama genuinely shared all of Ayers’s views or the Rev. Wright’s. I do think that his associations with them are an indication of how far left he really is (or at least was). My point wasn’t that Obama didn’t talk about those associations; it was that they are an important part of his political career that do not fit with his self-presentation.
Finally, Andrew Sullivan calls my criticisms of Obama “vicious and surreal” as well as “paranoid.” Raising questions about Obama’s ties to Ayers and the like strike me as perfectly legitimate. “Vicious and surreal,” on the other hand, seem like the perfect words to apply to Sullivan’s attempts to convince people that McCain has been lying about his POW experience. Indeed, the words “vicious, surreal, and paranoid” would make a good motto for his site.
Sullivan adds that my line of criticism was used against Obama by Clinton and did not work for her. Really? I was unaware that Clinton had described Obama as a left-winger and partisan Democrat pretending to be a moderate or that she had attacked him from the right on abortion. It certainly seems like a strategy that would be more likely to work in a general election than a Democratic primary.