Courtesy of Politifact from St. Petersburg Times/CQ, so much for the McCain campaigns absurd allegations that "Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together." The conclusion is that the McCain campaign's attack on Obama is "false," "malicious," "Pants on Fire wrong." If I remember 5th grade correctly, you can't be more wrong than "Pants on Fire wrong!" :)
The McCain campaign said the "radical education foundation" to which they were referring is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity endowed by publishing magnate Walter Annenberg that funded public-school programs in Chicago from 1995 to 2001.[...]
... Ayers "was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge," and he "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote," Rolling said.
"He (Ayers) was at board meetings - which, by the way, were open - as a guest," Rolling said. "That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge."
Now, was the foundation radical?
[...]
In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical - nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.
This attack is false, but it's more than that - it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.
Oh, one more point: "[Walter] Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain."
Come to think of it, maybe there IS something worse than "Pants on Fire wrong?"
It's a bit ironic that Dems aren't the ones questioning Obama's links to Annenberg. (Read further, I am not knocking Obama here. I am bulding a case, as you will see.) Today, Leonore Annenberg is a major McCain supporter. In point of fact, not only is Obama NOT a liberal extremist, but this evidence shows himself to be far more moderate than either many Dems or most Republicans happen to get.
The "spin" (which is really the truth) is that we should say that by Obama's connections to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and his association on boards with so many known Republicans proves the exact opposite of what McCain is saying.
We need an ad that says: The truth is Obama's work on Chicago charitable boards actually shows that he learned long ago to work across the aisle with Republicans and his efforts were more than the window dressing of McCain, who ultimately gutted the bills he says he passed with Democrats.
(Note also that the Annenberg Foundation also bankrolls the site many depend on: factcheck.org. I am not saying factcheck.org never gets it right. But they do not always. And they often label gross deceptions by McCain as, not lies, but merely "misleading." They have done bettr than in 2004 establishing some general fairness. But we have to be wary of any outfit funded for the most part by Annenberg. There are a couple of Dem leaning participants. But that does not assure even-handedness or real truth in "factchecking.")
