Thanks, askeptic. I don’t really know who Khalidi is, but I like him already.
As for Ayers, I guess his case would be a little weaker considering some of his later comments. However, I still think without a conviction calling someone a terrorist is pretty wrong. Would it be fair to label someone a drug abuser if they said they didn’t regret smoking dope back in the day? Even if they haven’t smoked dope for some 40 years? Are they not a drug abuser if they do regret it?
It’s too bad everyone doesn’t recognize it for what it truly is…fear-mongering.
These are porr tactics for the reasons Obama ably outlined in the debate: his conneciton with Ayers, say, is tenuous and doesn’t in any way represent an endorsement of the man.
But that’s a far cry from saying that Ayers is defamed. He has admitted, in the book he wrote, to participating the the construction of the bomb which was detonated at the Pentagon.
So, no, Brown Eyed Girl – a conviction isn’t needed if your subject admits the truth of what you’re claiming.
I think that Ayers would have a hard time proving defamation. Khalidi might have more of a case in that he’s been accused by some major news organizations [cough…FoxNews…cough] of having been a spokesperson for the PLO (not true) and being an antisemite (for which no evidence has been shown).
I think he would still have to show damages, though, and probably malice as well. If he were to say, lose his job because Columbia believes the false allegations about him, he might be in the ballpark of a case, but malice is still a bitch to prove.
Incidentally, this is a piece written by Khalidi published by the Nation in May of this year. Anyone who wants to get a clear picture of his rhetoric and style can make their own judgements. My opinion of his writing is that people might find things to disagree with, but I don’t see anything patently offensive or inflammatory. Wright was more shocking.
Come on, people. He’s obviously trying to get you guys to do exactly this: come up with an answer that the campaign doesn’t have to defend because they didn’t say it. Don’t fall for it.
That’s an excellent point. I hadn’t thought about it. I’m pretty sure musical artists have sued to force McCain to stop using their songs for his campaign; why aren’t the people he’s slandering suing to stop the libel?
I’m going to object to that again. (Maybe more patiently this time, sorry askeptic.) We are on a message board having a conversation about some douche on tv playing what is obviously a political smear game. His goal is to get people to think twice about their votes due to some ambiguous fear of Obama’s connections. That would be “falling for it”. Our goal here is to merely discuss his silly ruse. That may include some speculation as to his intended subject, but mentioning names here on the dope (and mostly in the spirit of trash talking this fool) doesn’t equate to “falling for it”.
I’m not so sure. Just having the discussion can lead to some people taking away ideas about Senator Obama which may affect their vote. I’m quite confident that you and I won’t change our vote (not that it would matter in my case since I already sent in my ballot, but you know what I mean). That doesn’t mean that this conversation won’t change someone’s vote.
My default position here would be that he had no one in mind. The interviewer didn’t seem to know who he was talking about. No one has come up with an obvious choice. Until I hear otherwise I’ll conclude he was just blowing smoke.