There was this article in The Washington Times. It relays Obama’s association with Raila Odinga of Kenya.
Mr. Odinga is not your average Ivory Tower Marxist. The group he lead was responsible for some horrific violence. And he made some troubling promises when in his position of power:
So, does this new (to me, at least) association matter. I guess first one needs to decide whether they they Mr. Odinga is an odious person or not. If he is, does this association, as chronicled in the article raise a legitimate question about Obama’s judgement. If it does register as “concerning”, does it make his associations with others on the radical left more legitimate an issue.
For those who may think this matters little, why not. Naturally, for the purposes of this discussion we assume the article to be an accurate summation of the facts. They should stand until new information is brought to light. If you have it, great. If not, let’s assume the article to be factual.
Even assuming Obama intended to endorse this man, wouldn’t the relevant question be whether Odinga (and his supporters) were better than the alternative? My (limited) understanding of Kenyan politics is that Kibaki was much worse than Odinga.
Following the reality based definition, No, there is not an association. And the Media matters cite has cites also: PolitiFact.com is the Saint Petersburg Times check finder, nice try on your part indeed.
No there isn’t. All all. Not even casual. Having once been in the same building with somebody does not constitute an “association.” This garbage is really beneath even bothering to slap down. You guys get more desperate every day.
The question that comes to my mind is what the threshold of significance for an association? The candidate met the questionable? The candidate spent a few days in conference/debate with the questionable? The candidate has worked closely with people who worked closely with the questionable?
Did you have a standard in mind? What to you would qualify as a trivial Obama association (or a McCain one, for that matter) that would be too meaningless to mention?
Wow, someone who can actually read for comprehension and contribute to the OP. Thank you. And you raise a good point. If that is his defense then his association might very well be justified. heavens knows it wouldn’t be the first time someone was supported for being the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, even assuming you’re right, there was the option (further assuming one to be marginally better than the other) of not supporting either candidate. But, as I said, you raise a good and legitimate point.