That is NOT the case, at all.
Let's stick with the facts -- first about Ayers. He and his wife, Bernadette Dorhn, certainly were murderious terrorist -- not just outspoken radicals. They made bombs to terrify and kill people, and kill people they did. She went to jail for her crimes, and he was spared due to a legal technicalities that so often benefit the wealthy. (His father was Chairman of Commonwealth Edison). In most other nations, there would have been no compassion or "legal technicalities." They would have been summarily shot for their treasonous crimes.
They are not repentent, rehabilitated or reformed. By their most recent statements, Ayers is a Marxist with an affection of anarchism. He remains hateful of capitalism and the free enterprise system. He belives the United States is a white supremist nation and largely responsible for world violence. He specifically criticizes Christianity and Judism for the problems of the world, without so much a mention of brutal Muslim fundamenalism that is currently terrifying the planet. He believe in unrestricted drug use. His only regret regarding his murderous past is to express sorrow that they did not do more to bring down the U.S. government.
He is not a "school reformer" as the public would think of that appelation. He is not interested in imporving test scores, or assuring quality education to all children. He does not care about a students ability to achieve success in life, or to keep America in the leadership of technological advancement. Ayers' "reform" is to fundamentally change American education from intellectual excellence and vocational ability to an old Soviet Union model of social and political indoctrination. It is his desire to produce a generation of William Ayers and Bernadette Dorhns to further undermine the American culture in favor of a Marxist world order.
These are not the suspicions of critics or the baseless charges of adversaries. These are recent sentiments flowing directly from Ayers' own lips.
Through their work together under the Annenberg Grant, Ayers and Obama both pursued the promotion of educational activism at the primary and secondary levels -- the introduction of propaganda through teacher education and curriculum changes.
The issue is not why Obama might have found commonality in "paling around" with Ayers. The question is, why did Ayers find Obama so attractive a friend, ally and civic partner? What did the strident self-styled anarchist, Marxist communist, violent foe of American capitalism find so appealing in this well-spoken, young and ambitious political activist?
And why did the politicians, such as Mayor Daley, and so many business leaders bestow the mantel of respectibility on a person who hates what they stand for so fervently? And why would the University of Chicago, proud of its devotion to the Milton Friedman school of economics, add Ayers to its powerful professorial line up? And the same question of Northwesten Univeristy for making convicted felon Bernadette Dorhn a professor of law, of all things. These two to not respresent responsible diversity of thought, but unabated radicalism designed to undermine the American culture through subtefuge and violence. Rather than educators, there only role in acedemia should be as bad examples.
Campaign charges and flippant responses aside, there is a legitimate and disturbing unanswered question regarding the importance of the Ayers/Obama link -- more so because it does not appear to be an anomoly. The fact is, Ayers is only one of a series of capitalism hating, America loathing individuals who guided Obama through his formative years. The Obama campaign would have us believe that merely asking these quesitons is racist -- and tantamount to accusing Obama of being unpatriotic. That is not an acceptable answer.