Over at the Musings & Migraines blog, Maria Warren has offered up an explanation for sending evidence of an Obama-Ayers tie down the memory hole:
Jeez! The howls of indignation. Grow up, people. Yes, it’s gone; that oh-so-exciting post that people can’t seem to get enough of. We know deleting doesn’t erase it from memory. Like so much urine in a swimming pool, trace elements will remain.
It’s an odd analogy for one’s own writing, but never mind that. I guess my question is: if you knew that deleting the post wouldn’t erase it from the Internet, then why did you do it? No convincing answer is forthcoming:
For those of you trolling this site for dirt on Obama and Ayers, please look elsewhere. Red Rabbit and the rest of us have said our piece which doesn’t amount to much beyond that yes there was an event which we attended and which has been part of public record for years. If you want to have a serious debate on how progressive Obama truly is then we can talk. But judging from the traffic stats and the comments I doubt that’s what you’re looking for.
This site has been pretty hard on Obama but has always criticized him from a progressive standpoint. Quite frankly the accusation that Obama would have a terrorist agenda is laughable considering what a cautious politician he is. Nor should Ayers be tried anew for his weather underground activities. His radical bonafides are so outdated, calling him a terrorist is giving him way too much credit.
No reasonable person argues that Obama has a “terrorist agenda,” so that’s a strawman as far as rational argument goes. The question is whether the Ayers relationship illustrates Obama’s poor judgment, and/or a tendency to pander to the fringe left when it suits his current purpose.
Whether it’s fair to call Bill Ayers a terrorist, however, is hardly open to question. He has been one — and since he’s utterly unrepentant, the label has not worn off.
So go to the Boston Globe, or Politico.com or wherever else we’ve been quoted. As for us, this blog is independently run, and reserves the right to pull material, specifically if that material hurts the blog at large. Moreover the post in question was up LONG before this election and in the last several months has been woefully distorted to slander a private citizen.
You know, if someone distorted a blog post of mine, I wouldn’t sweep the blog post under the rug. I would link to it and argue that it had been distorted, based upon the text.
The logical inference is that Ms. Warren deleted the post because she thought it would hurt her candidate.
Of course you have the right to delete your post, Ms. Warren. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
And we have the right to draw reasonable inferences based upon your actions.
UPDATE: The L.A. Times will not be correcting its error. Details in this post.