As for asserting that past elections should set the standard for this election, I meant no such thing. However, one can’t argue that Clinton was more qualified than Bush Sr. in 1992, or that Bush Jr. was more qualified than Gore in 2000. In both cases, the less qualified candidate won; nobody will seriously assert the opposite. While my statement that Dole in 1996 and Kerry in 2004 were more qualified than Clinton and Bush Sr. may be open to question, a good case can be made to prove that I am correct. Looking back at past elections is a highly imperfect study, but it can be illuminating.

Furthermore, Obama’s drop in the polls has no definitive cause behind it, but it could be largely due to dissatisfied Hillary supporters. Again, i have heard nothing to support that Ayers is a major or minor factor in the changing mood of the voters towards McCain, which is why I question the wisdom of making it a major deal. Is it a point against Obama? Yes, but it is 1 of 100 that could be made, not at all a knockout blow. (Aside from the Reverend White, Obama has has no potential campaign ending moments.)

Michael B., who has less qualifications; a man with 6 years as Texas Governor, or a man with 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 4 years in the US Senate? Exactly, so give us a break on Obama being the least qualified candidate in history! At least, it is debatable subject.

Finally, the USA has indeed been too close to the House of Saud since 1945; I don’t forgive ANY president for that association. We have done so much for these disgusting people, (I don’t mean the people of the KSA, just their rulers) and we are being screwed royally by them. However, Bush Jr. takes Saudi love to a whole new level; he and the entire Bush family have been tight with them for decades, and our foreign policy these past 7.5 years reflects that. I am hopeful that Obama or McCain will change our relationship with them, but am sadly confident that we will remain too close for comfort with the KSA for many years to come.

If Ayers were the only skeleton in Obama’s closet then this line of ‘attack’ would be weak indeed. There does seem to be a pattern of Obama’s ‘poor judgement’ relative to his ‘past’ associations. It seems your problem is with the ad Obama is currently trying to have squashed - I think the more interesting point of Rick’s post is what Obama’s response to it reveals about him. The quality or efficacy of that particular ad is another issue (I haven’t seen it, so I can’t speak to it’s lameness or awesomeness).

Like I said, there are much more convincing and meaty arguments against Obama - and many of them more directly point to his poor judgement than bringing up Ayers.

A more valid argument against bringing any of this up is … Obama’s past associations and political machinations won’t matter in the end. Such issues didn’t keep Bill Clinton from getting elected, twice. Obama’s sparkling personality is all that matters, to enough people, to get him elected.

Republicans talking about Ayers in the same sentence as Obama has the exact same (and very much intended) effect as saying, “Obama associates with terrorists and if he loves terrorists so much how can he protect America from them?”

It’s a lame attempt to sway independent voters, like myself. When I hear this non-equating equating, the only thing that comes to my mind is, oh, the Republicans think I’m retarded. What else is new. If I wanted to feel like I was being spoken to like a child, I would go to youtube and listen to some speeches from GW Bush.

Being an independent is awesome because I can vote for whomever I want. If you really want to sway opinion, start talking about what it took to buy half of the Senate Democrats votes in the Telcom Bill, including Obama. Or, follow Obama’s campaign donations. Or, talk about Bidens views on personal privacy. Hell, he’s the primary reason for PGP for Christsake.

With this Ayers crap you guys are DOING IT WRONG. You’re making yourselves look like condescending hypocrites. I know your brain is screaming “but but but Ayers! Terrorist!” But my brain screams Saudi Arabia and George Bush when I hear about Ayers.

Try focusing on something that actually matters. Something like privacy rights, personal liberty, and money. I know it’s hard because the Ayers story seems SO tasty, but it’s just not. Sorry.

Logical fallacy? I’m not equating Ayers with Obama - what I am saying is that it’s legitimate to question a candidates motives and principles who would knowingly and willingly associate with someone like Ayers. You know, Obama’s vaunted JUDGEMENT. Does this association automatically ‘disqualify’ Obama - no, but it sure does make me ask questions.

So why did Obama have such a close public relationship with Ayers? I doubt Obama shares the same outlook as Ayers on America but Obama’s is probably closer to Ayers than my own. That or his relationship with Ayers was politically expedient at the time and it simply didn’t bother him that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist - which would paint Obama as someone willing to do whatever it took to forward his political career and not as the pure idealistic political crusader who will reform our government and nation.

Obama’s association with Ayers is certainly not the end-all-be-all argument against voting for him - nor is it one of the best arguments - but I don’t see how considering it as a factor is crazy or unfair.

More importantly, I believe that you are dead-wrong in your assessment that independents and undecideds don’t care about the Ayers relationship, and Obama’s poll numbers dropping speak to the veracity of that.

Finally, the relationship to the House of Saud is one that has existed since 1945, so a whole bunch of presidents have been forgiven for that association. What other terrorists are do you refer to?