“Palin says Obama ‘palling around’ with terrorists”
A few days back, in response to Jimmie at Sundries Shack and Stacy McCain of the Washington Times, I suggested that, from a strategic standpoint, the McCain campaign might have been waiting to use Sarah Palin as the key attack dog — the upshot being that she draws more elitist fire (jokes about breeder hicks seem to play poorly in Peoria), that the Obama campaign and their media arm concentrates their attentions on her, and that McCain gets to look “Presidential” by remaining above the fray.
At the time, this strategem seemed to some far-fetched, I suppose because they didn’t think Palin’s attacks would carry much weight given her unpreparedness for office.
But it seems her performance in the VP debate has restored both confidence in her abilities and the public’s faith in her competence — which allows her to go on the offensive thusly:
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is accusing Democrat Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists” for his association with a former 1960s radical.
Palin was referring to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. The group took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol four decades ago.
In remarks to GOP donors in Englewood, Colo., on Saturday, Palin said Obama seems to see the U.S. as being so imperfect that, in her words, “he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
Obama served on a charity board with Ayers in Chicago and has denounced his past activities.
Leaving aside the mitigation of the connection between Obama and Ayers as it is tacked onto the end of the story — and the mitigation of Ayers’ own terrorism (“nonfatal”; of course, Ms Dohrne practically threw a party for the Manson family, but we’ll let that slide, as well) — I suspect that, with Palin beginning to make public mentions, the press will be forced to cover the story (in such a way, as my last post indicates, that covers for Obama, as well).
Still, my guess is there are many voters who are only now really starting to pay attention to the election, and — unlike those of us in the blogosphere who have already decided how much importance to grant to Obama’s past and present associations — those voters will be finding out about some of these connections for the first time.
Everything the VP candidate says is news. So she can literally push these potential scandals into the news cycle. And wouldn’t that be gratifying, having herself weathered the storm of tanning beds and teenage daughters…
(h/t Spies, who has more over at the Pub, including a link to the “unspun” version of Palin’s remarks)
update: CNN’s take. Most of our concern trolls seem to be coming from there.
A CNN article on Sarah PalinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s criticism of Barack ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relationship to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers actually cites National Review as one of the publications supposedly debunking PalinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s point. How CNN can cite National Review this way is a mystery to me. Maybe weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to set up an NR “truth squad.”
I was very briefly on CNN immediately after the McCain campaign called for me to be given access to UIC library. A CNN reporter interviewed me, and almost every question was an attempt to challenge the significance of the Obama-Ayers link. I answered every query in detail. When the report finally aired, my points about the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection were cut. And now, CNN is actually claiming NR as an ally in its effort to undercut Palin. Incredible.
Well, in fairness, Rich Brookhiser and a few others have certainly helped them along in that regard, Stanley.