annoyedWhat Palin fails to mention is that:
1. Ayers' activities (including non-fatally bombing government buildings) occurred when Obama was the ripe old age of eight.
2. (Gee, I sound like Biden...) Ayers was protesting an unpopular, bloody war. Unlike Iraq, people were being drafted into this war. It was ... Vietnam.
Ayers avoided imprisonment because the charges had to be dropped because of the way the FBI collected evidence. His activism since the Vietnam War seems to have been non-violent. Based on the dubious moral ground the United States was on in fighting the war in the first place, I'd be willing to give Ayers the benefit of the doubt. I'm definitely not willing to label him a "terrorist" - perhaps I would in the past form. But extreme times call for extreme measures. To call him a terrorist without qualifying remarks is misleading and presupposes an attitude that governments are always the good guys. They're not. (Nor are the rebels.) There's a moral relativism here that needs to be recognized - Palin is justified in questioning the association, but she needs to give the American people credit for the gray matter between their ears and lay out the whole story, not just the shocking sound byte.
("Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists")