CBS's Kroft Pushes Obama to See U.S. in 1930s-Like Depression --11/17/2008

1. CBS's Kroft Pushes Obama to See U.S. in 1930s-Like Depression
60 Minutes viewers got better economic rationality Sunday night from President-elect Barack Obama than from the journalist who interviewed him. CBS's Steve Kroft proposed: "People are comparing this to 1932. Is that a valid comparison, do you think?" Obama didn't accept the comparison: "Well, keep in mind that 1932, 1933 the unemployment rate was 25 percent, inching up to 30 percent. You had a third of the country that was ill housed, ill clothed..." But Kroft wouldn't let go of trying to paint the America of 2008 as dire as 1932. Eight minutes later in the interview, when Obama related how he was reading briefing papers and had read about Abraham Lincoln putting political rivals in his cabinet, Kroft returned to the Depression: "Have you been reading anything about the Depression? Anything about FDR?"

2. Howell: 'Most Washington Post Journalists Voted for Obama. I Did'
A week after Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell agreed with readers who saw "a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama" in the paper's campaign coverage, Howell this Sunday admitted she voted for Obama and "bet" that so did "most" in the Post's newsroom: "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."

3. ABC's Cuomo Has Few Follow-ups for 'Campaign Boogeyman' Ayers
Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo on Friday conducted an interview with former bomber William Ayers that qualified as neither a softball or a grilling of the ex-domestic terrorist. Although he did challenge Ayers, he didn't interrupt when the Chicago professor insisted that America fought a "violent terrorist war" or when the '60s radical characterized the U.S. government as murdering thousands "every month" during Vietnam. Additionally, the online version of the ABC story referred to Ayers as a "campaign boogeyman," while co-host Diane Sawyer in an introduction for the piece defensively explained: "The name of Bill Ayers, William Ayers, was used as kind of a political weapon by the Republicans." During the segment, Cuomo even editorialized that Ayers is now a "respected professor" at the University of Illinois. Respected, perhaps, by leftists and radicals, but many Americans still hold great anger towards Ayers and his terrorist group the Weather Underground.

4. Chris Cuomo Hits Ayers on Bombings; Skips Specific Victims
In part two of Good Morning America's Friday interview with former bomber William Ayers, news anchor Chris Cuomo did challenge the ex-'60s radical on whether or not he was a terrorist. But after Ayers contended "It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people. It doesn't target people to either kill or injure," the journalist failed to offer specifics that would refute that point. Cuomo could have easily cited the example of John Murtagh. He was a child in 1970 when the Weather Underground, founded by Ayers, placed multiple bombs, one underneath the gas tank of the family car, at the home of his New York judge father. However, while not pressing Ayers on specific victims, he did skeptically wonder: "How can a sophisticated academic like yourself believe that the inherent recklessness of exploding bombs that you know too well killed three of your own- you know the potential for deadliness there."

5. CNN's Quest: Europe 'Starving' for Obama, Want Bite of Hillary
During Friday's Situation Room, CNN correspondent Richard Quest predicted that the international community would react favorably if Hillary Clinton would become the next Secretary of State: "Absolutely amazed, outstanding reaction -- I've little doubt. Remember, Hillary Clinton is an international superstar, known around the world. There would be some reservations, bearing in mind everyone saw the bruising Democratic primary....But no question, the gravitas -- the authority that she would bring would be welcomed around the world." He later made a bizarre analogy about European reaction to the election of Barack Obama: "You're talking about people who have been like starving men, who have suddenly been given a food [sic] and a meal and it tastes brilliant to them."

6. So Eager for Obama Neuharth Wants Inauguration Moved to December
"People who elect a new President are eager for the change to take place. The sooner the better," USA Today founder Al Neuharth argued in his Friday column in which he asked, coincidentally just a week-and-a-half after Barack Obama's election: "Why wait until late January to turn the Oval Office over to a new President elected in early November?" He proposed: "We should move the President's inauguration up to the first Tuesday in December, one month after the election." After all, "the time lag" is "too long in these modern times when crises need the earliest possible attention."

CBS's Kroft Pushes Obama to See U.S.
in 1930s-Like Depression

60 Minutes viewers got better economic rationality Sunday night from President-elect Barack Obama than from the journalist who interviewed him. CBS's Steve Kroft proposed: "People are comparing this to 1932. Is that a valid comparison, do you think?" Obama didn't accept the comparison: "Well, keep in mind that 1932, 1933 the unemployment rate was 25 percent, inching up to 30 percent. You had a third of the country that was ill housed, ill clothed..." But Kroft wouldn't let go of trying to paint the America of 2008 as dire as 1932. Eight minutes later in the interview, when Obama related how he was reading briefing papers and had read about Abraham Lincoln putting political rivals in his cabinet, Kroft returned to the Depression: "Have you been reading anything about the Depression? Anything about FDR?"

In between in the generally light and friendly interview centered on getting Obama to outline his plans, Kroft cued up Obama to reiterate his campaign promises, such as: "How high a priority are you placing on re-regulation of the financial markets?" Kroft also pressed Obama to say whether he will "take early action" to issue executive orders "to shutdown Guantanamo Bay" and "change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops?"

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Sunday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Some portions of the interview, taped Friday in Chicago, with Obama (which, along with segments with both Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, consumed the entire November 16 edition of 60 Minutes):

KROFT: People are comparing this to 1932.
OBAMA: Right.
KROFT: Is that a valid comparison, do you think?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that 1932, 1933 the unemployment rate was 25 percent, inching up to 30 percent. You had a third of the country that was ill housed, ill clothed, unemployed. We're not going through something comparable to that. But I would say that this is as bad as we've seen since then. And if we don't take some significant steps then it could get worse.

....

KROFT: How high a priority are you placing on re-regulation of the financial markets?
OBAMA: I think it's a top priority.
....

KROFT: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?
OBAMA: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.
....

KROFT: Have you been reading anything about the Depression? Anything about FDR?
OBAMA: You know, I have actually. There's a new book out about FDR's first hundred days and what you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate, is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again.

CBSNews.com online transcript with video: www.cbsnews.com

Howell: 'Most Washington Post Journalists
Voted for Obama. I Did'

A week after Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell agreed with readers who saw "a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama" in the paper's campaign coverage, Howell this Sunday admitted she voted for Obama and "bet" that so did "most" in the Post's newsroom: "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."

In her November 16 column, "Remedying the Bias Perception," Howell, the Washington Bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News for 15 years before joining the Post as ombudsman in 2005, proposed a solution to the liberal dominance in newsrooms which biases coverage: "Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done."

Howell's November 16 column: www.washingtonpost.com

Bio and archive of Howell columns: www.washingtonpost.com

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Sunday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Back in August, as recounted in the August 18 CyberAlert item, "Washington Post Ombudsman: '3 to 1' Obama Front Page Advantage," Howell had already documented the slant at her newspaper:

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reviewed how many stories the newspaper put on the front page about John McCain and Barcak Obama over the past ten weeks and discovered a wide gap in favor of Obama, a "disparity," she declared, "so wide that it doesn't look good." Howell, the Washington Bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News from 1990 until 2005, outlined in her weekly Sunday column what she determined: "Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good."

More: www.mrc.org

As for Howell's presumption "most Post journalists voted for Obama," that's a safe bet given how 96 percent of the staff at Post-owned Slate reported they planned to back Obama.

The November 3 CyberAlert post, "96% of Slate Staff to Vote for Obama; 55 Obama to One for McCain," related:

A beyond overwhelming 96 percent of the staff of Slate.com, the online news magazine site owned by the Washington Post, plan to vote for Barack Obama. A Tuesday posting, "Slate Votes: Obama wins this magazine in a rout," reported 55 staff members plan to cast their ballot for Obama, a mere one person will vote for John McCain, the same number (one) who support libertarian Bob Barr. Another staffer replied: "Not McCain." It's hard to imagine such left-wing uniformity isn't matched at many other media outlets. In a Wednesday posting, Slate Editor-at-Large Jack Shafer (the Barr backer) quipped: "I doubt that Obama will garner 96 percent even in his home precinct of Hyde Park."

More: www.mrc.org

ABC's Cuomo Has Few Follow-ups for 'Campaign
Boogeyman' Ayers

Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo on Friday conducted an interview with former bomber William Ayers that qualified as neither a softball or a grilling of the ex-domestic terrorist. Although he did challenge Ayers, he didn't interrupt when the Chicago professor insisted that America fought a "violent terrorist war" or when the '60s radical characterized the U.S. government as murdering thousands "every month" during Vietnam.

Additionally, the online version of the ABC story referred to Ayers as a "campaign boogeyman," while co-host Diane Sawyer in an introduction for the piece defensively explained: "The name of Bill Ayers, William Ayers, was used as kind of a political weapon by the Republicans." During the segment, Cuomo even editorialized that Ayers is now a "respected professor" at the University of Illinois. Respected, perhaps, by leftists and radicals, but many Americans still hold great anger towards Ayers and his terrorist group the Weather Underground. Cuomo also failed to delve into the issue of Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a liberal organization that Barack Obama served on the board of and was the brainchild of Ayers. See ABC News for online version of the Cuomo interview: abcnews.go.com

On the other hand, Cuomo did not let Ayers get away with his insinuation that he had no real connection to the now-President-elect. Referring to the often repeated story that Obama began his campaign for the state senate in the living room of Ayers, Cuomo challenged, "You can't say that somebody's a family friend, have them in your house, trying to launch their political career and then say this is nothing." Later, after Ayers tried to minimize the extent of his relationship with the Illinois Democrat, Cuomo retorted: "But, then you have to come clean about saying, 'And I'm one of those people. Barack Obama either sought me out or I sought him out to discuss my ideas, my radical ideas and then he made his own decisions.'" The journalist added, "If that's true, okay. But, it can't be that and, 'We never discussed any of this.'"

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

As noted earlier, Cuomo did not ask Ayers about the extent of his relationship with Obama in regards to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In a September 23, 2008 piece for the Wall Street Journal, writer Stanley Kurtz explained both the radical nature of the CAC and Obama's connection to it:

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

...

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

See Wall Street Journal for full article: online.wsj.com

So, Cuomo should be credited for actually challenging Ayers at times, but it must be said that he failed to object to some of the hateful, outrageous things uttered by the former terrorist during the interview and that the ABC journalist did not fully investigate the connections between Obama and Ayers.

A transcript of part one, which aired at 7:07am, follows:

7am tease

DIANE SAWYER: Bill Ayers breaks his silence. Republicans called him Barack Obama's terrorist pal. This morning, what he says about the President-elect and does he regret his radical past? A life, exclusive interview.

7:01
ROBIN ROBERTS: And we are standing by to talk to the man who became embroiled in the Obama campaign, Bill Ayers. He's here in our studio speaking out for the first time.

7:07am
SAWYER: And now, silence is about to be broken on another event during the campaign, the recent campaign. The name of Bill Ayers, William Ayers, was used as kind of a political weapon by the Republicans. Chris has the interview with him this morning. He is here live with us and also a look back. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO: All right, Diane. Thank you. William Ayers was thrust into the spotlight in this year's presidential race by his association with Barack Obama. The question at hand is just how significant that association was. Now, in a moment, Mr. Ayers will talk to us. But first, let's take a look at how this '60s radical-turned college professor found himself at the center of a media storm. William Ayers' name first came up during Barack Obama's primary race with Senator Clinton.
ABC GRAPHIC: Center of Political Firestorm: William Ayers Sets the Record Straight
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time.
CUOMO: But it was during Obama's battle with John McCain that Ayers would become a regular line of attack.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: His relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question.
SARAH PALIN: Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists.
CUOMO: Ayers would become a target because of his radical past. A son of privilege, he rebelled by joining the Weather Underground, an anti-war group that bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and police headquarters during the 1970s. Three group members, including Ayers then- girlfriend were killed in this townhouse when one of the bombs they were making exploded. Then, after 9/11, Ayers was quoted as saying that he didn't regret any of the bombings and that the group didn't do enough. By then, Ayers had become a respected professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago and had met a politician named Barack Obama.
MCCAIN: But, as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: 40 years ago, when I was eight-years-old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign and he will not advise me in the White House.
CUOMO: So, let's hear from the man himself. William Ayers joins us this morning. He is the author of many books. The one that's been rereleased most recently is right there, "Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist." Now, thank you very much for being here.
WILLIAM AYERS: Nice to see you.
CUOMO: Clearly, the matter at hand is this relationship with Barack Obama. So, let's get right to it. You did have a meaningful relationship with Barack Obama. Didn't you?
AYERS: I knew Barack Obama, absolutely. And I knew him probably as well as thousands of other Chicagoans And like millions and millions of other people worldwide, I wish I knew him better right now.
CUOMO: But thousands of people were not asked to help start his political career in their home, right? That's an intimacy.
AYERS: I was asked by the state senator to have a coffee for Barack Obama when he first ran for office. And we had him in our home and I think he was probably in 20 homes that day, as far as I know. But, that was the first time I really met him.
CUOMO: You used the term "family friend." President-elect uses a phrase more like "Bill from the neighborhood." Those two are not the same thing. Family friend signifies your relationship, doesn't it?
AYERS: I think you're quoting from the afterword of "Fugitive Days," right? I'm talking there about the fact that I became an issue unwittingly and unwillingly in the campaign and I decided that I didn't want to answer any of it at that moment because it was such a profoundly dishonest narrative. But, I'm describing there how the blogosphere characterized the relationship. I would say, really, that we knew each other in a professional way, again, I would say on the same level as thousands of other people. And I am a guy around the neighborhood, incidentally. Absolutely.
CUOMO: But you understand the concern here. It seems that there's an evasiveness here. Yes, you served on boards together. But that relationship, that somebody's in your home. You are introducing them to a political community that you have connections with. You are vouching for somebody. There's an advocacy. There's a relationship. Certainly, you must have spoken with Barack Obama about things. You must have gotten to know him before you did that? Fair enough?
AYERS: No, actually, I didn't get to know him before I did that. But I did know him in a context of being on a board together. And that relationship was public, always in a large, kind of, context. But, you know, I don't really agree with your premise that this is worth, somehow, this is worthy of really exploring. Because, I don't really buy the idea that guilt by association should be any part of our politics. And the interesting thing is, as much as this was created as an issue in the campaign, it appears that for most people, it had no traction. It had no meaning. So, the assumption that if two people share a cup of coffee or take a bus downtown together or have a thousand other types of association. That that somehow means they share politics, outlook, policy or responsibility of one another's actions.
CUOMO: But when you're measuring the content of a man's character who wants to be president of the United States, certainly, information about his friendship/coffee/ association with the man that has the past that you have, creating violence against the United States, you must understand how that would be a concern?
AYERS: No, I don't agree with either part of that. I think the dishonest narrative is, one, to demonize me. Let's remember, that what you call a violent past, that was at a time when thousands of people were being murdered by our government every month and those of us who fought to end that war were actually on the right side. So, if we want to replay that history, I would reject the whole notion that demonizing me or the Weather Underground is relevant. But, secondly-
CUOMO: Different discussion. Violence is either never okay or its sometimes okay. It's a separate philosophical discussion. The relevance here is Barack Obama was campaigning to be president. The analogy is if John McCain had an association, somebody had a coffee for him in his house to launch his political career who was blowing up abortion clinics but never hurt anyone, you don't think that would be relevant?
AYERS: I think the content is relevant, but let's go back. Again, the content of the Vietnam protest is a content where there were despicable acts going on, but the despicable acts being carried out were being carried out by our government. I never hurt or killed anyone. I was involved in the anti-war movement. I was a militant. I was part of the militant faction of opposing the war. And I've been quoted again and again and saying I don't regret it. And frankly- And saying I don't think we did enough. And I don't think we did enough. Just as today, I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars. And I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more.
CUOMO: And we are going to discuss your book more in the upcoming, why you're releasing it now, what you want people to get out of it. But, clearly, you have to understand the sensitivity. You can't say that somebody's a family friend, have them in your house, trying to launch their political career and then say this is nothing. Because you make it sound like it's something by saying it's nothing.
AYERS: No, absolutely not. What I'm saying about the guilt by association, which, as you know, has a long and tragic history in this country. What I'm saying is that everyone of us actually should talk to lots and lots of people and especially our political leaders. Far from being a demerit on his record, the fact that he's willing to talk to a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life, listen to a lot of opinions and still have a mind of his own is something we should honor and admire.
CUOMO: But, then you have to come clean about saying, 'And I'm one of those people. Barack Obama either sought me out or I sought him out to discuss my ideas, my radical ideas and then he made his own decisions. If that's true, okay. But, it can't be that and, 'We never discussed any of this.'
AYERS: It's not at all true that he sought me out to listen to my radical ideas or that I sought him out. The truth is we came together in Chicago in the civic community around issues of school improvement, around issues of fighting for the rights of poor neighborhoods to have jobs and housing and so on. And that's the full extent of our relationship. So, this idea that we need to know more, like there's some dark hidden secret, some secret link is just a myth and it's a myth thrown up by the people who wanted to exploit the politics of fear. And I think it's a great credit to the American people that those politics were rejected. The idea that we should continue to be frightened and worried and, you know, barricaded is falling down and it should.
CUOMO: Let's take a quick break. But we're going to discuss what's in the book, why you want people to read it right now and what it says about the ideas that this society has to confront.

Chris Cuomo Hits Ayers on Bombings; Skips
Specific Victims

In part two of Good Morning America's Friday interview with former bomber William Ayers, news anchor Chris Cuomo did challenge the ex-'60s radical on whether or not he was a terrorist. But after Ayers contended "It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people. It doesn't target people to either kill or injure," the journalist failed to offer specifics that would refute that point. Cuomo could have easily cited the example of John Murtagh. He was a child in 1970 when the Weather Underground, founded by Mr. Ayers, placed multiple bombs, one underneath the gas tank of the family car, at the home of his New York judge father.

In a New York Daily News op-ed on April 30, Murtagh wrote: "I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me." See Daily News for entire op-ed: www.nydailynews.com

However, while not pressing Ayers on specific victims, he did skeptically wonder: "How can a sophisticated academic like yourself believe that the inherent recklessness of exploding bombs that you know too well killed three of your own- you know the potential for deadliness there."

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Although he didn't press the point that the Weather Underground tried to harm specific people, Cuomo should be credited for grilling Ayers over the bomber's insistence that he's not a terrorist. At one point, Cuomo retorted, "How is what you did there, blowing up, detonating a bomb in the Pentagon, the New York Police Department headquarters, trying to target the Capitol. How is that not terrorism?"

Finally, Cuomo actually addressed the fact that the Weather Underground dedicated its 1974 manifesto "The Prairie Fire" to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Cuomo questioned, "I mean, what message does that send? Especially if you don't reject it today and say, 'We praised Sirhan Sirhan. We should not have.'" This prompted Ayers to admit, "I reject that. Absolutely."

A transcript of part two of the interview, which aired at 7:42am on November 14, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Also this morning, we have more of Chris's exclusive interview with Bill Ayers, the '60s radical who Republicans once called Barack Obama's terrorist pal. We will have more of that interview straight ahead.
SAWYER: That's right. He is speaking out this morning. And in this half hour, talking about some of the statements that were attributed to him that created such polarized and angry reactions.

7:42
CHRIS CUOMO: We are joined again now by William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, a group that during the '70s claimed responsibility for at least a dozen bombings, including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. His relationship with President-elect Barack Obama, of course, became an issue during the campaign. He is the author of "Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist" which has just been reissued with a new afterword in paperback. There it is. Mr. Ayers, thanks for joining us again. Why re-release "Fugitive Days" now?
WILLIAM AYERS: You know, that's really a publisher's decision, not my decision. But, I wrote the book eight years ago and I wrote it in part to try to understand what it meant to be a young person set down in that historic period, a person from tremendous privilege and making my way through the world and, kind of, the choices I made.
CUOMO: But the timing becomes relevant. You know, because-
AYERS: I'm sorry?
CUOMO: The timing becomes relevant coming out of the election. You didn't want to come out during the election?
AYERS: Well, no one predicted the attention I would get in the election. I mean, this was not a decision based on that at all.
CUOMO: But you talk about the issues that happen there in the new afterward of the book. Do you regret not coming out during the election and saying, "There's nothing here?"
AYERS: Well, the premise of the whole come-on to this segment, that I've been silent is just not true. I've been teaching. I've been writing. I've been doing all the things I always do. But I did decide not to comment to the media on the presidential campaign, because, again, I felt that I would be feeding a profoundly dishonest narrative and I didn't really want to participate in that. So, I didn't see any way to interrupt it. And since I couldn't interrupt it, I decided to just wait until it passed. And, you know, I think that the dishonesty of it kind of runs to the point of, like, I was somehow in hiding. One of my sons sent me a segment from some 24 hour news outfit and they acted as if they had stalked me down and found me in hiding. Just not true. I was doing the things I always do.
CUOMO: Now, this book, the ideas in it, with perspective on Barack Obama. You ever talk to him about what's in "Fugitive Days."
AYERS: Never.
CUOMO: He ever ask you about it?
AYERS: Never.
CUOMO: Is that unusual for you that being William Ayers and being in the Chicago area that somebody talks to you and doesn't talk to you about your past?
AYERS: I've written seven books. I've edited another 13 and mostly what I talk about is schools and kids and juvenile justice as you know. And those are the things that my work focuses on. And the fact that I have this past is of little interest. And when you say the fact that you're Bill Ayers, that character was created in this election.
CUOMO: Well, he exists because of what happened. I mean, one of the interesting things about this book is that while it provides perspective about that period in history, dismisses the notion that your actions were heroic, expresses your doubts but not an apology or a complete rejection of what happened during those years, the bombings.
AYERS: Well, you know, again, I think you have to read this as a memoir, not as a manifesto, not even as a history. But the reason that I undertook it actually was because- and, remember, I wrote it- it was published in 2001, so I wrote it in the two years leading up to it. But, I had enough distance from it that I felt that I could say something about it. But I wrote it as a memoir, as a way of, kind of, understanding a ten year period in our history. And I thought it was relevant then. I think it's more relevant now and the reason it is, is because we are once again bogged down in two wars. And if you add Israel/Palestine, that's a third major conflict. And, and we don't seem to as a democracy-we don't seem to be able to figure out how to assert the public will and bring these things to an end. I think people want these wars to end. And I think they should.
CUOMO: Isn't that all the more reason for you to take a look back and reject what the Weather Underground is?
AYERS: Well, there's nothing in there that's- there's an attempt to understand the things we did. You know, here we were in a situation where, really, a violent terrorist war was being waged against an entire population. We objected. We tried to end that war. And in trying to end it, we did cross lines of propriety, of legality, maybe even of common sense. But we never committed terror.
CUOMO: Why not? I really- I have a tough time understanding this. How is what you did there, blowing up, detonating a bomb in the Pentagon, the New York Police Department headquarters, trying to target the Capitol. How is that not terrorism?
AYERS: It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people. It doesn't target people to either kill or injure. What it does is- You could call it-
CUOMO: How can a sophisticated academic like yourself believe that the inherent recklessness of exploding bombs that you know too well killed three of your own- you know the potential for deadliness there.
AYERS: Right. It was definitely over lots of lines. Definitely dangerous and had we killed or injured anyone, I'm sure it would have been devastating for everyone. Them and us. But my point is that in a period when 2000 people a week are being murdered, how do you end that? What do you do? And, frankly, in those ten years of that war, I was arrested many times. I took direct, non-violent action again and again. But, the question comes, after 70 percent of America oppose the war, after the war has been virtually lost, how do you end it? What do you do? And there's nothing in the book that says what we did was either brilliant or heroic or wonderful. It tries to understand, as memoirs do, the context in which that actor was acting.
CUOMO: But you would think that looking forward, you would want to set a table for people in addressing the current situations that didn't expose the violence. I mean, even looking back in the 1974 manifesto of "The Prairie Fire," of the Weather Underground, one of the people you dedicate this book to is Sirhan Sirhan. I mean, what message does that send? Especially if you don't reject it today and say, "We praised Sirhan Sirhan. We should not have."
AYERS: I reject that. Absolutely. Absolutely.
CUOMO: "We did these things. We should not have." The 9/11 quote. We should have done more. We should not have. It's wrong. It's bad."
AYERS: No, no. I disagree on the question of we should not have- we should have done more. What I'm saying there and I've said it very clearly is that no one did enough in this country to end the war. We knew it was wrong. We knew it was illegal. We knew it was immoral.
CUOMO: But going that route- but going that route, violence-
AYERS: Again, I don't defend the route we went and I really urge people to participate in resistance, non-violent direct action to these wars. I don't urge violence at all. But, let's admit that we live, often, in a sewer of violence and opposing that violence is key.
CUOMO: Mr. Ayers, thank you very much for taking the opportunity today. The book is "Fugitive Days."

CNN's Quest: Europe 'Starving' for Obama,
Want Bite of Hillary

During Friday's Situation Room, CNN correspondent Richard Quest predicted that the international community would react favorably if Hillary Clinton would become the next Secretary of State: "Absolutely amazed, outstanding reaction -- I've little doubt. Remember, Hillary Clinton is an international superstar, known around the world. There would be some reservations, bearing in mind everyone saw the bruising Democratic primary....But no question, the gravitas -- the authority that she would bring would be welcomed around the world." He later made a bizarre analogy about European reaction to the election of Barack Obama: "You're talking about people who have been like starving men, who have suddenly been given a food [sic] and a meal and it tastes brilliant to them."

[This item, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, was posted Friday evening on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Host Wolf Blitzer first asked the CNN correspondent, "...[L]et's talk about world reaction -- you're based in London -- what would be the reaction to a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?" Quest who was in Washington for the emergency G20 economic summit, then gave his "international superstar" answer about Senator Clinton. Blitzer then followed-up by commenting about how "her husband's [Bill Clinton] still admired around the world." Quest replied, "And she's an internationalist. She would be -- she knows her way around. She knows the people involved."

The CNN host then asked Quest about how the world was reacting to the election of Obama: "...[I]n Europe, how are they reacting? How are they feeling, now that they've had a chance to absorb this historic moment?" The correspondent promptly answered, and included his "starving" analogy: "Giddy -- they're still giddy with excitement about it. I was in London just this weekend. They can't believe their luck, Wolf. You know, you're talking about people who have been like starving men, who have suddenly been given a food [sic] and a meal and it tastes brilliant to them." Blitzer, who seemed surprised by this answer, replied, "That much?" Quest responded by giving his commentary on this apparently "giddy" reaction from Europeans: "Absolutely -- no question. The expectations are unreasonable. They're way out of the ballpark."

Blitzer asked one more follow-up question about this reaction to Obama before moving on to the issue of the upcoming summit: "Well, is it because they really admire and appreciate Barack Obama and what he stands for, or they don't like the incumbent president, George W. Bush?" Quest replied, "A lot of the second and a bit of the first is the best way to put it. They believe he can solve most of the problems, or at least, they have a better chance of getting it from him than anyone else."

So Eager for Obama Neuharth Wants Inauguration
Moved to December

"People who elect a new President are eager for the change to take place. The sooner the better," USA Today founder Al Neuharth argued in his Friday column in which he asked, coincidentally just a week-and-a-half after Barack Obama's election: "Why wait until late January to turn the Oval Office over to a new President elected in early November?" He proposed: "We should move the President's inauguration up to the first Tuesday in December, one month after the election." After all, "the time lag" is "too long in these modern times when crises need the earliest possible attention."

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Saturday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

An excerpt from Neuharth's November 18 column, "Why wait until Jan. for new president?"

President Bush's gracious hosting of President-elect Barack Obama at the White House this week raises this simple but important question: Why wait until late January to turn the Oval Office over to a new president elected in early November?...

No lame-duck president can do anything meaningful after the successor is elected. The time is spent figuring out things like how many presidential pardons to issue, many to convicted political pals....

Most presidents-elect know what they want to do about major issues or whom to appoint to major offices by the time they are elected or soon thereafter.

That's why we should move the president's inauguration up to the first Tuesday in December, one month after the election....

When the Constitution was framed, things moved more slowly. That may explain the March date. The January date was an improvement. But the time lag still is too long in these modern times when crises need the earliest possible attention.

People who elect a new president are eager for the change to take place. The sooner the better.

END of Excerpt

The entire November 14 column: blogs.usatoday.com

-- Brent Baker