Andy, I basically agree with the substance of your argument about Hillary. And I don’t think anyone will accuse me of being overly sympathetic to Hillary. But I think the main reason she had so much trouble going after Obama on his radical ties isn’t primarily that she’s too much of a radical (currently or former) but that attacking Barack Obama from the right that way wouldn’t work in a Democratic primary. I agree that associating with Ayers (and Dohrn!) and all the rest should be, if not disqualifying, than very close.* But that is simply not the case among the leftwing base of the Democratic Party that controls the primaries. That’s why Hillary fumbled condemning Obama and instead tried to argue that Obama’s problems and faults would be problems in the general election and that she would be a more competitive candidate against the Republicans. That didn’t work.

It’s a sad commentary on the American liberal establishment that so few liberals really care about Ayers. Obama’s defenders are right when they say Ayers was a person of good standing in Chicago and among the education establishment. The guy was Chicago citizen of the year! Where Obama’s defenders are wrong is when they say that proves there’s nothing wrong with palling around with Ayers. No, it just proves the problem is so much larger than just Barack Obama.

*Lest readers think I’m too soft on Ayers, my point is simply that I do believe in redemption. If Obama had a good explanation for his ties to Ayers and had offered a convincing — non politically convenient — condemnation of the man, I could forgive him having a past relationship with the guy. But Obama hasn’t offered any such explanation or denunciation in my book.