Whitewash at the Gray Lady

I’m sure Tom Maguire will be all over this NY Times story later, but I’ll take the first crack at it.

Written by Scott Shane, the story purports to examine the connection, if any, between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers. However, Shane never really explains what role Ayers performed for Chicago’s Annenberg Challenge — which Obama chaired and where he blew through $160 million to no noticeable effect.

Let’s also note that the Times is running this story on Low Circulation Saturday*, maybe when they’re hoping no one will notice. Whether that’s because they know the story is crap, or because they don’t want to run anything even remotely worrisome about Obama on a high-readership day, is a question I cannot answer.

So, let’s start with this graf…

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close.

…which is pretty much contradicted by this one, much later in the story:

Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project — Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.

Then there are truly bizarre attempts at whitewashing like this statement from Rabbi AJ Wolf:

“Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”

“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”

And we all know that all college professors are unmitigated models of moderation.

The story itself only quotes one critic of Obama’s relationship with Ayers — whatever that relationship was. But Chicago Tribune columnist Steven Chapman doesn’t really have anything of substance to say, given that there aren’t a whole lot of libertarians in Obama’s circle. Couldn’t Shane have found even one critic with some kind of connection to either Obama or Ayers?

Instead, Shane gathered exculpatory quotes from the likes of Chicago Mayor (and likely future receiver of Obama Administration largess) Richard Daley, and other friendly folks from Obama’s Annenberg days.

The thrust of Shane’s column is debunking notions that Obama is some kind of secret radical, plotting behind the scenes with Ayers to… do whatever it is secret radicals seem to do. And for once, Shane finds a contrarian-style opinion, this time from a McCain supporter:

“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.

The only problem is, I don’t know of anyone with a substantive worry that deep in his heart, Obama wants to blow up the Pentagon or even just stick it to the man, baby. Instead, the worry is that Obama has had some kind of relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, which even Shane must admit Obama has downplayed. And that Obama has promised, and continues to promise, to meet with would-be genocidal killers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “without preconditions.” And that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

In short, we question his values and his honesty and his judgement — especially his judgement.

And pieces like today’s New York Times whitewash do nothing to help put those questions aside.

UPDATE: Maguire beat me to the punch, but just barely!

UPDATE: Fausta has more.

*In all fairness though, I should probably mention that these days, most every day at the NYT is Low Circulation Saturday.