I ran across this article from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review by Ralph R. Reiland, who is listed as a columnist. His brief bio states that he is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur.

In his article, Reiland praises Obama for his speech on race during the primaries, and then proceeds to call Obama a hypocrite for not walking the walk with regards to Ayers. His article is a nice indictment of Ayers himself, but fails, in my view, to make a real point about Obama, though he tries to do so by association.

He writes:

Obama served from 1995 to 1999 as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), the brainchild of Ayers, an organization that funneled some $100 million into the hands of community organizers and activists, including ACORN, in order to radicalize Chicago's public schools.

He fails to offer any proof about the CAC's radical agenda, so I guess we're supposed to assume it from other writing by Ayers, such as this third-party quote from Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

"Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression," reports Kurtz. "He believes teacher education programs should serve as 'sites of resistance' to an oppressive system."

This doesn't prove that the board on which Obama served was intent on creating such "sites of resistance," though sometimes that might not be so bad to resist racism and oppression, but in no way does it resemble Obama's current education policy as far as I can tell.

And the whole tenor of the attacks on Obama vis a vis Ayers is that a man who could do the things he did is totally incapable of doing anything good. That's a false premise, and there are plenty of examples of people who did terrible things in their younger days, only grow wiser and to change their ways. Even Lee Atwater had a deathbed conversion, though that was too little, too late. (My favorite story is of Milarepa, the Tibetan who went from murderer to saint, which for me is a great parable for redemption.)

Reiland concludes:

The question: Why do Obama's deeds contradict his words? Is anyone in the mainstream media curious?

Reiland left his email address at the end of the article, so I wrote him. This is what I wrote:

Mr. Reiland,

You have presented a nice indictment of Ayers, but not really a clear indictment of Obama. Does Obama stand for radical terrorism? Does he espouse bombing or endorse Ayer’s actions, which occurred when he was a child?

 

One thing you seem to forget is that there is room, under the First Amendment, for people of different views, including you and I, to express our opinions, and even to teach different points of view. The law is clear, however, on setting bombs and destroying property or injuring people.

 

Your claim that Obama is a hypocrite by serving on the board of a foundation created by Ayers essentially asserts that no person who has ever done bad deeds is capable of doing anything good. You also seem to be asserting that opposing oppression is a bad thing, but it’s truly a pity that the German people didn’t oppose it in the 1930s. Maybe millions of people would not have had to die.

There is a place for radical thought, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t think Obama has a radical thought in his head, and neither do you. What you are trying to do is to link the actions of a terrorist, who has since that time paid his dues and settled into a life that, as far as you and I know, has been free of criminal activity, as a teacher. And the CAC was not, apparently, an attempt to incite rebellion or to commit acts of sabotage, but an effort to provide reform in our education system – something that I think is needed. The Annenberg So whether you or I agree on the CAC’s charter or the direction they took, in no way was it a Weathermen type of organization, and lots of perfectly respectable people were involved in it, including Barack Obama.

 

This kind of spurious guilt by association tactic is hollow and unseemly. Ayers did bad things. Maybe you did a few bad things in your past, too. I doubt that you were an angel sent to earth to rid us of all sin, but a boy who grew up testing authority and possibly even breaking the law sometimes. Certainly, I doubt that you ever did anything as radical or violent as Ayers did, but the fact is, people who have sinned can be saved. People who have committed terrible crimes can sometimes become heroes. The black and white thinking of your argument, however well documented with facts and figures, misses the central issue – that the Ayers that Obama has known is not the man who was setting bombs, and there is absolutely no evidence that he infected Obama with any radical thoughts whatsoever.

 

And while we’re throwing stones, let’s not forget that every person in our congress has had dealings with criminals – John McCain, notably and on the record. Association is a dangerous path to go. As far as I know, Obama never accepted an expense-paid trip to Bermuda.

 

Cheers,

Of course, we expect to see this again and again, complete with dates and figures and facts, but the one fact that's missing is any real link between Obama and anything radical or criminal. The same can't really be said for McKeating or Sara Troopergate (though the latter isn't proven, but she sure has been fighting it tooth and manicured nail).