I knew about the Ifshin story (first from Michael Lewis, though I may be mistaken; it could have been you) and so immediately knew who you were talking about, and thought your comparison was apt. When I related the story to a friend, just last night, I said something like, "McCain really is, or was, a decent guy... Joe Klein just wrote about the very moving way that McCain forgave and befriended a guy who was, just like Ayers, an anti-Vietnam radical. I mean this other guy apologized, but McCain's behavior then and now is quite a contrast."

I mean, I'm not an idiot, or a genius, or a Moaz (Maoz?), so I didn't read anything into your column like a one-for-one equivalency between Ayers and Ifshin. I thought you were making the point that a man (McCain) who once showed the character and grace and kindness to forgive and embrace a man for his acts during the war -- even though those acts were a direct attack on McCain -- and now is trying to demogogue and condemn a similar figure, for political reasons... just as others once treated Ifshin.

But, uh, yeah. I think you were making an implied comparison between them. Perhaps not what you meant, or felt, but please believe that this charitable reader of your work saw it too.

this is the point. jews and many others should get it and not blindly vote for democrats and especially not for obama.

a man who would take a passing--and deeply irrelevant--acquaintanceship between Barack Obama and Ayers, and try to make it a central issue in this absolutely crucial campaign, with the accompanying canard from the Embarracuda that Obama had "palled around" with terrorists.

it isn't passing or irrelevant. obama got his political career started in ayre's living room. he gave money to acorn and ayres' favored groups. he wrote a blurb for an ayres' book. obama lies about his relationship woith ayres. obama stayed in wright's church and lies about what he knew re wright and the church. obama has been very comfortable with those who support palestinian terrorists and criticize israel.

But it wasn't, which is why Talking Points Memo and Glenn Greenwald and others have a permanent place in political news and commentary. (I'm being aspirational on your behalf.)

One other note: is my understanding correct that you don't read the Swampland comments posted by your fans like me but you read comments by people who call you "cretinous"?

Look at the lobbyists around him. McCain rails against the special interests that have gripped Washington, but he has no problems having lobbyists as his closest advisers, even those who have been taking payments up until recently or those who have been lobbying on behalf of companies that have business in front of McCain's committees. Look at his railing against Obama's (lack of) experience, yet he not only picked Palin as his running mate, he recently defended her by saying that she was the most qualified of an recent VP candidate.

McCain's sanctimony means that he always has extenuating circumstances why the standard doesn't apply to him, as though he's the only one capable of making those distinctions but no one else is.

Maoz is right about one thing about equivalencies: the relationship between McCain and Ifshin was close based on close friendship, but the relationship between Obama and Ayers was much much less. Only really knew each other from being on the same educational board. Not equivalent at all.

If you actually DID read Joe Klein's post about Ifshin there is no way you can come back thinking he was equivocating Bill Ayers to Ifshin. Hell if you go back and look at the comments you will see ALL of what you term his amen corner saying he should write about G Gordon Liddy whom IS an equivalent of Bill Ayers instead of continuing to get on the tireswing and yearn for the McCain of old. Of course its weird that you say you read this post then went to Maoz's post then looked at Joe's earlier post when as of late last night and this morning the archives still hadn't been brought back online here. I guess maybe you had a magic computer but it sounds like you are doing a bit of trolling. But if you are on the up and up and you DO have a magic computer, go back and look at all of Klein's posts recently and see how many of us you see amening him. Even the articles critical of McCain or complimentary of Obama. You see we use our own version of the fairness doctrine here. When we think Klein is beingn fair on in this case someone is being unfair towards him we say so. When Klein is unfair or somebody he brings into a post is being unfair we say that too. Now you are entitled to your own opinion for sure, but so are we. THATS the American I live in.

I don't believe Wurzelbacher is a plant. I see him as a small-time skinhead punk who saw an opportunity to bring the uppity n****er down a notch and gave it his best shot.

McCain, being the careless opportunist he is, has glommed on to Wurzelbacher as representative of the kind of small-minded, intellectually incoherent racists he'll need to have any chance of winning this race in the waning days, and is doing what he can to promote his association with these other dinosaurs.

Given the sort of enmity he has built up in the nation -- and in his own party -- I can't imagine how how he stays in the Senate much past Obama's Inauguration Day. Outside of the sycophants Liebermann and Graham, he won't have any friends left.

As for the Ayres thing. The rightwing is stuck in the 1960s. They probably think Nixon is still president and when they turn on their tv they look for Bonanza and cannot figure out why they can't find it and why everything is in color.
Most of them are still fighting the Vietnam war, still think hippies exist and that communism is still a threat.
That is when they are not seeing Terrorists under their bed and think it's raining Nazis outside.
They are so obsessed over things that happened 40 years ago and cannot let it go and move on.
They throw out the insult Pinko and we all scratch our head wondering if they realize it's the 21st century.
That is nice thing about Obama. He is post boomer and doesn't bring that baggage with him and why someone like Ayres is not a big deal to serve on a board with and be nodding aquaintence with. It was sooooooooo long ago and way before his time. sort of like a boomer would look at some bank robber out of the 1930s.
But, the right cannot get this. They think don't realize Obama came of age during the punk, new wave and Live Aid era. Things like Weathermen are just people giving the forecast and the 1960s is ancient history. so, while the right thinks it so important and such a big deal, people of Obama's age group look at that time as just so long ago and totally different era from them.
The right really needs to get out of the 1960s and realize Vietnam, hippies, Nixon and all that is just not relevant anymore.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/step-back-a-mom.html

Media Matters hit similar highlights:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810240017?newsref=www.eschatonblog.com

It's like they think if they turn up to 11 and then to 12 it will start working again.