Greta van Susteren asked Michael Barone whether the topic of William Ayers has any relevance to Barack Obama’s candidacy last night after the debate. He replies that it’s at least as legitimate as Sarah Palin’s per diem, and gives three reasons for why it should get more attention:

Barone’s three reasons:

  • Obama stresses his commonality with the American people.  Do most people feel comfortable working closely with unrepentant domestic terrorists who still want to overthrow the capitalist system in America?
  • Obama presses educational issues as part of his campaign.  He spent years working with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which pushed efforts to create primary educational organizations that would create political activists for the Left – and which largely failed in any of its intended purposes.
  • Obama has lied and obfuscated about his relationship with Ayers.  Clearly, Ayers was not just “some guy in the neighborhood”, but a political adviser at least on educational issues who provided a key launch for Obama’s political career.

I think the latter two are more compelling than the first.  Perhaps a better way of structuring the first point would be to relate it to Obama’s insistence that he has better judgment than John McCain to lead the nation.  Can anyone believe that a man who worked with an unrepentant domestic terrorist for years and considered him “mainstream” has the judgment necessary for the Presidency?

Expect Sarah Palin to continue to lead the charge on this topic.  She has effectively used the media scrutiny surrounding her to get national media coverage on Ayers, with surprising results.  So far, the Obama campaign simply has not effectively rebutted it, and in fact has made the damage worse.