Do Obama's past associates make a difference?

Yes, they do make a difference. They should

My little brother killed a girl in a car accident. Does that make me a bad person because I know him?

Btw, I had a top secret clearance in the Navy, so they didn't mind.

Further, have you ever asosciated with anyone who was not a nice person? I'm pretty sure its impossible not too at some point in life.

If we judged people on their associations then we couldn't elect Jesus Christ to be president, cause he had associated at different times with the devil.

Oh, and you don't know what the heck your talking about, but that's obvious right? Ayres was never convicted of being a terrorist. The DA messed up the case and he didn't get convicted. I'm not saying he didn't do bad things, he did. But he was never convicted of wrong doing so Obama would pass a background test with flying colors.

Is it really so hard to have even a shred of awareness about something you open your ignorant mouth about? I guess for you, it is.

EDIT- Well, how about the part where Bill Ayers was never convicted of a crime? And I'm pretty sure that makes him 'innocent' until proven guilty. Which means that President Obama had an association with an innocent man. Which means he would pass a background test. (how far do I have to go with this, are you starting to understand or no?)

But you didn't know that he wasn't convicted of anything because you don't know what the heck your talking about because you've been only getting half the story from people like Hannity and Beck.

Uh oh.....who's being brainwashed?

Another EDIT- My little brother knowingly drank and got behind the wheel of a car and killed a girl. After that happened, I still asociate with my brother. He did bad things in his past but I don't think that's a reflection on me.

Bill Ayres knowingly set off bombs when Obama was 8 years old. Obama asociated with him decades after that. Ayres did bad things in the past but I don't think that's a reflection on Obama.

I don't see how the 2 are so different.

Excuse me while I laugh....years ago when I was making application for the Foreign Service one of my fellow applicants was worried because he'd been a member of a group that had blown up the ROTC building at the University of Wisconsin. (In 1969 and 1970, during the war, blowing up college ROTC buildings was a common thing.) He had no problem getting into the FS and made a career in the State Department. (I dropped out when I found out that I'd have to follow and apply all directives of the US government without question. I've never done anything in my life without questioning everything about it:-)

William Ayers, like a lot of people at the time, did some stupid things. He's currently a full professor not a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing maniac,,,,so what's the problem? Obama attended one meeting where Ayers was also in attendance and, considering that when you do certain kinds of work, you're going to have to work with certain kinds of people. They weren't best friends and even if they were.....

(PS- "known terrorist" is a talking point not a description of reality.)

You do know that it would also disqualify John McCain, who funded various projects William Ayers was doing while a member of the Anenburg Foundation, right?

Yeah, that foundation that Republicans attack Obama for serving on at the same time Ayers did...McCain was funding Ayers, and ONLY Ayers, while he was there.

That same rule would also disqualify George W. Bush, who made quite a bit of money in various oil deals with both the bin Laden family and Osama bin Laden in particular. So much so that it has been said that it was Bush's money that funded 9/11.

Good god, this question is so over done. Obama, like every other official, has already passed a security clearance, dear. Do you honestly believe that the President doesn't have to do so? He has visited our troops in the green zone on multiple occasions. He passed just fine, Chicken Little.

He didn't even pass his own Cabinet screening test. That's a shame. People should really judge people by their character first, then their politics.

No, they wouldn't disqualify him. Particularly as they were associations not associates. There is a linguistic difference.

old point...a good one...but apparently it didn't matter

No, not at all.