Don Surber: "but... but... that's guilt by assocation"

I'm going to borrow almost all of Don Surber's post entitled "Wrong Crowd" because... because... I like it. Fair use! Fair use! (shrill voice) Fair use!

In the 1990s, the liberal mantra was "Sex is private."

In the 21st century, it's a new mantra: "That's guilt by association."

  Thus Obama cannot be faulted for hanging out with slumlord/indicted sleazebag Tony Rezko.

  Thus Obama cannot be faulted for hanging out with the pastor of hate, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

  Thus Obama cannot be faulted for hanging out with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

  Thus Obama cannot be faulted for hanging out with terrorist fund-raiser Dr. Hatem El-Hady...

You know what? I think the North Carolina Republican party is correct to raise questions about who the heck Obama hangs out with....

I liked this part: "The voters of North Carolina should be allowed to ask a legitimate question of candidates in North Carolina. Who do you choose to associate yourself with and how does that reflect on your judgment? It is true that your character is proven by the company you keep."

It is difficult to imagine any other candidate hanging out with such a diverse group of weirdos and still be the front-runner for dogcatcher, let alone president.

Then again, it was difficult to imagine Bill Clinton getting away with perjury.

Or swapping campaign funds for classified missile technology with Red China.

Update: Krauthammer:

...Obama [has] identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January...

Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

How indeed.