Palin repeatedly defended her connection in recent days of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to former ‘60s radical William Ayers, calling the issue “fair and relevant,” while saying that Obama’s lack of clarity on his relationship with Ayers called into question his “truthfulness” and whether he could be trusted on his policy plans.
“It is pertinent, it's important because when you consider Barack Obama's reaction to and explanation to his association there, and without him being clear at all on what he knew and when he knew it, that I think kinda peaks into his ability to tell us the truth on, not only on association but perhaps other things also,” Palin said.
“I think it just makes us ask the question that, if there's not forthrightness there, with that association and what was known and when it was known, does that lead us to ask, is there forthrightness with the plans Barack Obama has on say tax cuts, or spending increases?” Palin added. “It makes you wonder about the forthrightness, the truthfulness of the plans that he is telling America in regards to the economic recovery because that is first and foremost on American's minds.”
When questioned directly whether she thought Obama was being dishonest, Palin denied the charge, while raising more questions about whether Obama has associated with Ayers recently.
“I’m not saying that he’s dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness…” Palin said. “Is there still -- has there been an association with him since ‘02 and ’05. We've heard a couple of different stories. I think it is relevant.”
She is right.
It is relevant and it is a topic Barack Obama has done his best to avoid, with the help of the media until Sarah Palin and the John McCain campaign forced the media to start talking about it.
Should they have spoken about it this forcefully before now?
There are two ways to look at that question, had they brought it up in the manner they are talking about it now a month ago or two months ago, then by now other issues might have taken the focus off of these important issues about Obama's lack of judgment.
Waiting until the last month before the November 4, 2008 election, while risky to wait that long, guarantees this issue will be in the minds of voters when they go to the voting booths to cast their ballot.
From recent polling, it seems the voters are finally becoming aware of these issues and are starting to wonder why Obama has been less than honest about his questionable associations and his lack of good judgment in who he has chosen to work with, hang out with and associate with in any manner.
Personally I think had the issue come up before the financial crisis, it would have been harder to restart the conversation, so they chose well in waiting until the final month to assure that the public either demand answers or feel they do not know enough about Obama and his stalling tactics as well as his campaign's "excuse" that he just "didn't know" that his associate, William Ayers, was formerly a Domestic terrorist that planted bombs on US soil.
This is information the American people needed to know.