Someone does the hard research to come up with documents concerning Obama’s past, and then reports on that research. He’s a “slimy character assassin,” a “right-wing hatchet man,” and “a smear merchant.” Never mind that the guy is a fellow at the Hoover Institute who has produced legitimate evidence about something that Obama doesn’t much talk about; he opposes Obama, so he must be denounced in significantly stronger terms than Obama used to denounce an unrepentant terrorist.

That last post says that this reply makes legitimate points; I’m not so sure, since it doesn’t explain why Obama’s entire response to Kurtz is to call him names and ignore the evidence that he’s unearthed. Fitting that such a response occurred on the same night that Bill Clinton spoke at the DNC, as this is exactly how the Clintons would have reacted.

I think this gets closer to the actual thoughts of most Democrats today. I mean, what’s a little bomb throwing forty years ago between friends?

Addendum: John Hinderaker has a good point about Obama’s efforts to charge political opponents with criminal offenses. McCain’s no friend of free speech, but Obama (whose party still wants to reinstitute the “fairness doctrine” to shut down Rush & Co.) seems like an out-and-out enemy.

Posted by Apollo in We don't need no stinkin' Constitution, The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past, Audacity of Hype