Something I noticed in the recent Penn. debate was that Obama, when questioned about domestic terrorist William Ayers (lets not get into ABC bashing here, please; actually, nevermind, I know it'll happen awyway), Obama equated his association with Ayers as comparable to that of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who suggested that those who provide abortions be chargeable with a capital offense. Now while I'm sure a large portion of this nation would strenuously disagree with Coburn on this issue, I think it should be reasonably apparent that Coburn's suggestion, while offensive to many, did not resort to terroristic tactics by attacking targets who operate inside the law. No, his suggestion (no matter how disagreeable), was to lawfully change the law to make certain behavior criminal, giving fair notice to potential lawbreakers, so that they could have the opportunity to comply. Domestic terrorist he is not. An apt comparison would have been Eric Rudolph, the bomber from Atlanta who attacked the Olympics, abortion clinics, and lesbian night-clubs, but I don't think Obama would ever be found associating with him. In fact, my guess is that Rudolph has very few associates at all, considering he's locked up in a supermax. Obama's explanation is a rather unsound argument. I've been hesitant to make much of Obama's association, since it doesn't seem that he's had much connection with him other than at the occasional Chicago liberal meet-and-greet. The real question is why is Ayers a respected professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and why is he still accepted and given any consideration in the Chicago liberal community? He is an unrepentant terrorist. He should be treated as such. In my mind, one cannot make a credible direct connection between Obama and Ayers. The real issue is that those he associates with have never bothered to distance themselves appreciably from a terrorist. And because of that, he fails to see the radical differences between people such as Senator Coburn and William Ayers.