If you look at the action as posted on Obama’s website, he does not ask people to close down the radio station or disrupt the program. Rather, as is to be expected for a call-in radio show, he asks his supporters to call in to rebut the view that there is something wrong with Obama because of his association with Bill Ayers; which is the guilt by association tactic that the right has been pushing on this issue. Here is a link to an article from the Chicago Tribune that gives an objective account of the action:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story

Two more quick points:

1. As Stanley Kurtz is associated with the National Review, it’s not surprising that the Review’s account would cast Obama in a negative light.

2. The people who agreed with the perspective presented on the radio show were as free to call in and send emails to the station as Obama’s supporters were. Obama cannot be faulted for encouraging his supporters to exercise their First Amendment rights by calling in and emailing to a call-in radio show with which they disagree.

americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obamas_dogs_of_war.html

I would think you and Christine might care about a man’s character and judgment. It’s an important indication about the kind of decisions he would make. And those decisions would affect you and me.

Early on, I found the manner in which Obama won his earlier political contests troublesome. Supporters of his have, from the beginning, resorted to tactics that have had little regard for his opponent or their families. These tactics have been cruel to their children in particular.(I’m thinking now of opening – against the wishes of both parents – sealed divorce records in order to eliminate an opponent from competition.)

Whether or not you’re Christians, I would think you would agree that the teachings of TUCC were harmful to those who listened – hardly encouraging understanding or forgiveness between men. Obama exercised the poorest judgment by putting his two young children in the pews of that church.

Taking so little care with the welfare of his own daughters, it’s no surprise he would do the same with others.

The projects – and people – he’s associated himself with – whether at the state or federal level – have benefited no one but himself and his friends who are usually either radicals or crooks. In fact, they’ve been abject failures. Those who’ve been hurt the most are the very people he assures us he wants to help: the poorest among us.

On threads here at PJM, we read of Chicagoans like “Ruby” who tell us Obama has only taken and not given at all to their community. Would you want the awful schools, lousy public housing, gun violence and political corruption of that city replicated around the country?

But Obama would have us believe he cares about those in need. I wonder even now if he continues to ignore his own brother living in poverty ($12/day) in Africa. There is a school he promised to help in Africa — they gave it his name. He hasn’t followed through as of a few months ago, so I believe a Christian organization has taken up offerings to help them instead. His tax records show no charitable giving except a small amount in the last year or two. Did he make $4million last yr — and one might think he only gave knowing his records would be public.

Character matters. Judgment matters. Having neither leads to doing what he hasn’t denied doing on his overseas visit to Iraq. You can read about it here at PJM.

If true, that action would betray those who trusted he wanted our troops out as soon as possible. Instead, he showed he was – once again – only interested in himself and his political ambitions. And not above breaking the law to achieve his goals.

The American public should consider this on November 4, even if it matters little to you.

Marion stated what she values. Free speech. I took her at her word.

The link I posted gives us yet another example of the Democrat candidate for President of the United States allowing his supporters to thwart one man’s freedom to speak. The Democrat candidate has every reason to hide who he is – and has been – from the broader public. He knows that if the truth were know, he could never be elected.

Journalists have a right to speak. The American public has a right to be informed. And they have every right to weigh this journalist’s research along with that of the army of 30 the Obama campaign sent to Alaska. (I might now ask — was not enough discovered in Alaska — that a Democrat supporter resorted – in desperation – to violating the privacy of the opponent? I’m referring to an email account.)

Did I understand you that an “educated decision” is important? Perhaps – in some cases – you disagree?

Thank you for your kind words and insightful comments about the upcoming election.

Dear Believer:

Thank you for calling the National Review article to my attention. I will have more to say about it in a subsequent comment, as it appears that there are other possible accounts of how the Obama campaign responded to the Stanley Kurtz radio interview.

I noticed above you posted a comment about the blessing we have as Americans to our rights to Freedom of Speech.

You are an Obama supporter, I assume. This article might interest you:

hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/obamas-character-assassins-target-another-national-review-journalist/

Many of us find this troubling. It runs counter to what you value, don’t you think?

I agree – very well said!