Letter to the Editor

Dear Time Magazine Editorial Staff,

I am writing to express my displeasure with Michael Kinsley's essay in the June 9th edition entitled "Stormy Weather. Obama's rivals are wrong to link him with the former radicals he has befriended - even if they are despicable". Online, this article is entitled "Rejecting Obama's Radical Friends".

In the article, Mr. Kinsley's main point is the following:
Senator Obama should excused for associating with "despicable" people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn because many other respectable people in the Chicago area did the same.

Senator Obama is running for President of the United States, a position requiring judgement and wisdom at a level far beyond the average individual.  To say that he should not be held to a higher standard is the presidential equivalent of the teenage argument "well, everyone else is doing it".  Mr. Kinsley is insinuating that Senator Obama's opinions and actions are justified by the number of people who agree with him or act in a similar manner.  Continuing this line of thought, he seems to be proposing that the Obama administration would be run by opinion poll, and he would not be required to exercise any judgement above that of the masses.  In fact, he is arguing that all of Senator Obama's positions are legitimate and valid as long as they have popular support.  This defeats the purpose of an independent executive branch, one specifically endowed with constitutional powers to enable the President to lead with vision and make tough calls in spite of contrary popular opinion.  I think Mr. Kinsley's conclusion sends a horrible message to readers - it doesn't matter if you show poor judgement as long as others show poor judgement too.  By the author's own admission in the title, Senator Obama befriended an unrepentant terrorist responsible for the death of two law enforcement agents.   Why should he not be held accountable for this decision?  And is he any less responsible for his actions just because of the actions of others?  If everyone else jumped off a cliff...

Mr. Kinsley stated "Ayers and Dohrn never posed any real threat to U.S. national security" - even going so far as to say that "their victims were liberals".  This phrase is an insult to the two policemen and the security guard who were killed in the plot involving Ayers and Dohrn.  These three individuals were the true victims of their acts of terrorism.  To try to minimize their actions or cast liberal ideology as the true victim strikes me as sick and truly infuriates me.

Additionally, I find it interesting that you would re-label the article in its online post. I find the new title misleading and, in fact contrary to the original (and, I assume, true) intent of the author.

The fact that Ayers' parents, Northwestern University, the University of Illinois, the Chicago Tribune, and others are willing to overlook the murderous and treasonous acts of these two individuals does not excuse others from making the same mistake.  We are all responsible for our own actions, and "everyone else is doing it" isn't good enough for me, let alone the President of the United States.  Mr. Kinsley's attempt make excuses for Senator Obama reflects poorly on him and equally poorly on Time Magazine for printing the essay.

If I continue to read such insulting and offensive opinions in your pages, I will cancel my subscription. Mr. Kinsley has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to express mine by opposing it with my words and my money.