It is illogical to associate the Obama campaign with one of its volunteer campaign worker's support for Che (even with the flag displayed in the local OBama HQ.

It is, and I was right. Also, it wasn't actually at an HQ associated with the campaign.

But you can bash McCain for what his supporters say after one campaign stop.

I'm not sure what the reference is to, but if it's too Hagee et al, I have already repudiated those statements.

But when an Obama mentor, campaign advisor, the man Obama described as the one he goes to make sure his head is screwed on straight, who Obama dedicates a book to and Obama has a 20 year relationship, it is only tiresome and we shouldn't make a connection.

That's such a misstatement of my position that I don't even know where to begin except to suggest that you go and re-read my posts again without your preconceived notions. I've actively struggled with this relationship, which I think is complicated. I supported James when he suggested that Obama needs to repudiate Wright. I also think you have to be a complete idiot if you think that Wright's extreme views can be attributed to Obama without any evidence except "they're friends and have a mentor-mentee relationship." People's relationships with their mentors are complicated--ask Aristotle.

When a McCain advisor makes a comment that Alex can agree with but if Alex fantasizes hard enough could twist the words to mean something that neither Alex nor in Alex's estimation McCain could credit but can be used to cast innuendo against McCain, that is okay.

You mean when I raised issue with a possible interpretation of a statement, but in the same breath mentioned that I don't think that McCain agrees with that idea?

Now Ayers who used violent means to terrorize people and hurt the US, never served times for the crimes he admitted he did and continues to preach a "revolutionary minded" education program is to be equated a criminal who did his time because, you guessed it, it is Alex's attempt to tar McCain with the same brush.

I said that I don't think that Obama's relationship with Ayers or McCain's relationship with Liddy is relevant, but that if McCain is going to criticize Obama for Ayers, an unrepentent criminal who sought to change the government through illegal means, then McCain should be rightly castigated for his relationship with Liddy, who is ALSO an unreptentent criminal who attempted to change the government through illegal means. That's it. My charge here is hypocrisy, not guilt-by-association.

Comparing the crimes of Ayers and Liddy is irrelevant. Whether one is worse than the other is irrelevant. If McCain thinks that Obama's association with Ayers is bad and should be repudiated, then that very same principle dictates that McCain should repudiate his ties with Liddy. That's it. I'm using McCain's standards, not my own.

Bottom line, principles be damned. If it hurts Obama or helps McCain, Alex is against it. If it helps Obama or hurts McCain, Alex is for it.

To come to this conclusion requires you to completely ignore a substantial portion of the things that I have written, and mischaracterize the rest.

As I have told you before, I believe that Obama is the lesser of three evils, and that Obama's policies are generally superior to the other two candidates. This, however, has not stopped me from criticizing Obama on several fronts, including a post today criticizing Obama's "windfall tax on the oil companies" nonsense, which I know you've read because you've commented on it.

Apparently, yetanotherjohn, the only thing that will satisfy you is to vote for McCain. Well, I'm not going to, because I think that his policies would be pretty horrible. But I don't see you out there castigating McCain, whereas I've felt free to criticize Obama, so who's really the unprincipled one?

It is illogical to associate the Obama campaign with one of its volunteer campaign worker's support for Che (even with the flag displayed in the local OBama HQ.

But you can bash McCain for what his supporters say after one campaign stop.

But when an Obama mentor, campaign advisor, the man Obama described as the one he goes to make sure his head is screwed on straight, who Obama dedicates a book to and Obama has a 20 year relationship, it is only tiresome and we shouldn't make a connection.

When a McCain advisor makes a comment that Alex can agree with but if Alex fantasizes hard enough could twist the words to mean something that neither Alex nor in Alex's estimation McCain could credit but can be used to cast innuendo against McCain, that is okay.

Now Ayers who used violent means to terrorize people and hurt the US, never served times for the crimes he admitted he did and continues to preach a "revolutionary minded" education program is to be equated a criminal who did his time because, you guessed it, it is Alex's attempt to tar McCain with the same brush.

Bottom line, principles be damned. If it hurts Obama or helps McCain, Alex is against it. If it helps Obama or hurts McCain, Alex is for it. My how refreshing this new politics is.

I'm not aware of the East St. Louis issue, so I can't comment, directly, but I do question the relevance.

My point is simply that John McCain can't exactly criticize Obama for Ayers due to his ties to Liddy, even if you suggest that Ayers is a worse person--they're both unrepentant criminals.

My greater point is that I don't care about Obama's association to Ayers and I don't care about McCain's association to Liddy, because the sad fact of politics is that you frequently have to deal with scumbags in order to accomplish anything.

Remember the voter East St. Louis democrats convicted of vote buying? What were they trying to do but subvert the political process. Remember the reichstag fire, which heralded a coup to put the nazis in power? Subverting the vote, conducting a coup, both equally illegal and both for the same intended result - political power. So where is the outrage at the democratic party whose officials are convicted of conducting a coup (or vote buying but they are equal in the eyes of Alex).

There is a theory that serving your prison term absolves the 'public debt' of the crime. So at a minimum, Libby paid his debt to society while Ayers has not. The concept that theft is the same as killing because the motivation is the same has it limits. Speeding and child molestation are both illegal, but I wouldn't equate the two even if both have a motivation of putting your own desires above obeying the law.

Bombings...theft...yeah, those are the same.

It's not just the theft--it was the purpose of the theft. Namely, to sabotage the operations of the opposing political party, just like Ayers' bombs were meant to change the political system. Different methods, but both equally illegal and both for the same intended result. Additionally, Liddy was equally unapologetic as Ayers. And don't forget Liddy's talk show comments about shooting Federal agents...

I'm certainly not condoning what Liddy did, but to compare these two and label it as "howling hypocrisy"? Give me a freaking break.

I agree, look at those people Eva Braun was forced to hang around with.