Stanley Kurtz is doing more great digging. Michelle Malkin is calling out the troops in the form of a phone and email campaign. For a good overview of what’s going on and what’s in the Annenberg Challenge papers, see here, in which we learn more about the connection between Obama and Ayers, about how Ayers applauds the leadership of Hugo Chavez, exclaiming that “La educacion es Revolucion!”, and much more.
Meanwhile, Power Line has further detail and collects a lot more coverage.
Earlier coverage: Just What Is Obama’s Connection to Bill Ayers?
From an article on Obama’s claim that McCain “doesn’t know what he’s up against”:
“He can talk all he wants about Britney (Spears) and Paris (Hilton), but I don’t have time for that mess,” Obama said.
His remarks carried forward a theme of feisty campaigning he debuted earlier in the day.
I’m sorry? When a presidential candidate is making snippy remarks – apparently out of the blue, since there’s no content to the article – on a day when a major poll has him suddenly down 5% to his opponent, I think it’s a little generous to call it “carr[ying] forward a theme of feisty campaigning.” More accurate phrasing: “expressing that his day is really not going well, and he’s not happy about that.”
There’s also this gem:
McCain also has spoken out strongly against Russia’s invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia, using Obama’s absence from the campaign trail during a Hawaiian vacation last week to take a hard line against the Russian government. His tough talk led some of Obama’s foreign policy advisers to suggest McCain may have complicated the conflict.
McCain did not “use Obama’s absence.” He spoke up coherently and intelligently on a topic that he’s entitled to have an opinion on, anyway, and should have an opinion on as a presidential candidate, in contrast to Obama’s confused and halting blather about “encroach[ing] upon Georgia’s sovereignty.” He apparently needs international organizations involved in order to “condemn” or “review” anything that is going on.
Yikes. Tim Challies pulls no punches and dives into one of the hardest questions a parent can face: “Who Do You Love More?” In this case, the question was not which of the kids he loves more, but whether he loves them or their mother more. I am inclined to agree with his answer, in that it is important for parents to love each other first and foremost and not let their affections for their children undermine the marital bond itself. I’m less sure about his approach; I honestly don’t know what the best approach here is. Sometimes, a parent – even a fantastic one – is going to make his or her kids cry by doing what is best for them, I know. I’m curious what other people think on this one; there’s a good debate already going on Tim’s site, so either weigh in there or weigh in below, please.