Follow your own advice, TB, and we'll call it a deal.

The National Review is about as establishment as they get, and they have been covering Ayers with remarkably little effect. I followed the links, as you suggested elsewhere, and now I know why. I see a lot of this kind of construction: "X says that Y says that Ayers had nothing to do with Obama. When we questioned Y, Y denied saying that Ayers had nothing to do with Obama, but claimed not to know anything about Ayers's relationship with Obama. Therefore, X was lying in its report, and we have our doubts about Y. The documents speak for themselves." Yet the documents (which I also read, although the scanned copies in places defied my glasses) are notable chiefly in what they don't specify about Ayers's role in the administration of the grant with which Obama was associated. The reporter jumps to the conclusion that this means Ayers was in charge of everything. This is obfuscation at its finest.

This entire issue is based on the claim that Ayers is not contrite about his past activities rather than based on his current activities involving education. Ayers has said himself that he does not regret opposing the Vietnam War, but he further clarified that that statement should not be construed as meaning he thinks the SDS should have set off more bombs, and he has expressed regret for past violence. This has been resolutely ignored by people who want desperately to say that Obama is connected with an unrepentant terrorist.