Who is the real Bill Ayers?

Nice piece. The editing is clean and straight forward. The intro with the TV debate looks good. The interlacing of Bill's bites with other information keep the piece moving.

During the 60's and 70's alot people did alot of sick things like blowing up buildings with kids in it. while on tv they would get somebody and blow their brains out.They would ,mutelate people all in the name of a good cause they thought. These people had to kill babies that were in strollers torture no problem if you saw the special on waterboarding on this show well thats nothing...nails being pulled out thats all he could tell me without starting to cry well I still would love this man if he was alive he was a soldier SPECIAL FORCES IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

why isn't this spot on TV yet?

Cutting to Ayers repeatedly is powerful and effective. In some ways, I would like to see Obama's views on Ayers. While Obama may not have been involved directly in the Ayers movement, having his opinion would have perhaps created more potency for Ayers.

i remember mr ayers during the 60 he and the group are no different than the christian terrorist groups that were killing the dr.'s that were doing abortions

I liked what Ayers had to say about War.
We are so distant from the destruction, that we forget the fact that it is being done FOR us.
If every U.S. civilian had to witness, first hand, an active war zone, I am sure that no one would ever want to take credit for the destruction that has been caused in their name.

I dont even know why this has to stand in line. Good job Mulcahey.

Very compelling. Ayers comes off as a very thoughtful and articulate individual, much moreso than one would expect based on the recent mass media soundbyte blitz he has received. I was a little put off by the choice of opening sequence; while the audio works, the moderator's tone matched with the unresponsive deer-in-headlights reaction shots of Obama gave me the initial impression that this would be an anti-Obama smear video. The audio could use some finessing, Ayers' voice peaks a few times, and the hum from the stock footage could be reduced to make the cuts less jarring. But overall, this was a strong piece.

Obama associated with Bill Ayers...so what? McCain is BFF's with George Bush! I'm much more afraid of a man who entices unjust violence than one who entices violence in the name of justice.

Bill Ayers calls a spade, a spade. Why do we remain so blind to our own government's actions? Keep us misinformed and overentertained, right? I want to be a part of the truth. How do I go from passive online commenting to action?

"Who are we kidding....when we pretend we are not a violent nation." No one, and then we are surprised when the violence we export is turned back on us. Golly gee, I guess that sounds unpatriotic, gotta make sure I wear my flag pin today!

Force, no matter what side - does not bring us together, it pushes people further apart. It is not right to bomb anyone, with or without a phone call, what if the message did not get through, what if people remained in the building, what if it unstablized a nearby building, it is a recipe for a horrible and tragic disaster, and it would only make the end result the same as the intended means. You would become exactly what you are crusading against. No matter what political position we have, when we take a stand, we can all take a lesson from Martin Luther King, Jr., we can oppose something or try to change something in a peaceful manner, if it fails, try again.

definitely some interesting info: it's funny how the abbreviated personal description the news channels give can do so much to alter perceptions.

color correction:
crush the blacks, cc out the mixed lighting, slight gamma boost

audio:
cut the pops, fade "room noise" under clips, pot down nats of screaming lady and boost the tank and missile noise, don't change the music at all

transitions:
cuts are good. fade to black without change of subject/location? transition music better and you won't need it. second time, cover with stock footage

title effects:
typewriter effect seems timely to the piece, but i prefer scroll up fades. should disappear before video cut. clean legible font is accentuated by darkened b-roll.

pacing was excellent, subject matter timely and relevant, content editing avoided any redundancies.

My response to the editing of this piece:

The opening was strong:
I was drawn in by currently relevant footage and was made curious about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground because of that relevance. The audio match cut that continues the sentence of the moderator is jarring and dramatically effective.

The type could have been more legible:
I like the choice of a "neutral", legible, sans serif typeface. It works well for this format because of technical reasons (crisper lines) and efficient communication. Perhaps it was made tall in order to fit everything in, but I think that detracts from the legibility here. If this is exclusively distributed via the web, one can feel free to use the full frame for text placement, not limiting the viewer to the "text safe" box. I wouldn't have chosen to have the text moving (centering itself) as it was being revealed. It was distracting. Also, there are a number of techniques for making the text standout, the most common and most elegant is a slight drop shadow. Makes a world of difference.

B-roll is a bad term:
Others who have posted have commented on the use of "b-roll" to cover up mistakes. I don't believe that really good work will ever be done if one considers some content in a piece to be somehow of lesser importance. All elements should be used with a purpose in mind, as a device to further the goal of communicating the story to the audience, not something to cover up mistakes (though we have to work with what we have). I do agree that the transition at 3:22 was not consistent with the pacing of the film and could have used some transitional material.

Music:
The music was very effective in the beginning as a mood setter but I felt it getting in the way a few times during the interview scenes. I would have used another soundscape a little less complicated and busy in order to maintain mood but give center-stage to the interview content.

Production quality:
Mostly audio issues regarding the interview. I was able to hear people talking in the background, a few pops, and general noise that should have been eliminated (preferably during production). Or you could take the opposite approach and add room noise so that we wouldn't hear the fades up and down . I kind of like the dual lighting colors during the interview, but I feel like the colors were a bit dull. Some contrast and color correction might have been in order.

Pacing:
I really liked the organization of this project. It began with an intriguing introduction, then progressed to specific information regarding Bill Ayers' activism, knowledge, and standpoints regarding global warfare, and finally the piece was ended with Ayers talking about conceptual/philosophical information regarding violence, activism, and politics. This is a really good setup that engages and educates the audience while also instigating a dialogue that can be picked up after the final fade to black.

Interesting Content! Ayers is not the demon he has been made into by the Republicans. They call him a terrorist and yet his targets from a military standpoint were all valid as military targets. He wasn't targeting civilian areas and was not trying hurt people hence the phone call warnings. The bombings were statements - extreme statements yes but not terrorism in trying to terrorize or harm civilians.

As for the comments, not sure what is up with all these critiques that have nitpicked this piece seemingly to death needlessly. C'mon! This isn't CNN nor is it you guys' Journalism 101 class at Watsamatta U.

This insight into William Ayers is an amazing reply to the American peoples reaction to the McCain campaign's accusations. This is a must see for anyone wondering about him.

Continued analysis of this interview by Matthew Perdie (perdiefilms@gmail.com)

01:45 - This shot is not long enough for the viewer to read the text on the helmet comfortably. The cut immediately afterwards is also uncomfortable because of the last minute zoom before the cut back to Bill.

01:53 - The fade out on Bill here is agitating because the viewer can still see the movement of Bill talking. A still shot fade-out is recommended here.

02:05 - The cut back to Bill speaking is a little annoying audibly because you can hear Bill saying part of a word, but not knowing exactly what word, instead of cutting to Bill right before the word, "it." Though this may have been the best word to cut on because Bill puts his words so close together in his speech. I would recommended using a L-cut here (having Bill's audio start when the b-roll is still visible, and after the viewer has had enough time to read the text) and extend the b-roll from the previous shot to decrease the jaunting cut here.

02:15 - the cut on "...change society" to the map is strong because of the geographical implications of the words.

02:31 - The cut here is strong again because of the direct relation of the words and the visuals. The fast cutting that begins here creates tension as Bill begins to become more and more convicted about his own words.

02:49 - The cut here on "...we kidding..." is jumpy because of the same issue at 02:05. I would have recommended starting at the word, "who."

03:00 - Another example of speech/visual cutting. A thumbs-down with a impenetrable tank cutting to Bill's words are VERY strong here.

03:22 - I would recommend cutting to b-roll here. Whether there was enough footage or not for this b-roll is something I am not sure about but I am sure we could have found something relative to Bill's words of "...hit em' back." Then I would recommend staying on the b-roll image for a few more seconds before cutting to the rest of Bill's interview to give the audience more time to absorb his words.

03:53 - The cut to these words is strong with the lack of background, but I would have recommended waiting for the fade out on the picture before bringing the new text to the picture. I say this because it helps to separate the ideas of the text and therefore make them stronger. I would also recommend holding the text on longer by about 2 seconds. I do like the abrupt cut instead of fade out here. I believe the abrupt cut to black helps the audience feel the impact of the text.

My name is Matthew Perdie (perdiefilms@gmail.com) and here is my analysis on the editing of this Interview.

00:14 - The cut to Bill's quote at this moment was good, yet abrupt because of the dramatic change in video size.

00:21 - The cut here is powerful. This is because the image serves as b-roll AND a reaction shot simultaneously.

00:29 - The decision to have the text appear from top to bottom as opposed to all at once was a good decision. I support this way of revealing the text because it gives the viewer time to absorb the impact of these words. On the other hand, I don't think the text should have appeared from the center of each sentence in the frame. It makes the text more annoying to read. The more work the viewer's eyes must do, the less inclined they will be to reading the text. I must also throw in the fact that it's good that these images are so dark and grainy, for this helps the text stand our enough to not need any additional separation between the text and the image. (Such as drop shadows, or outlines of the text)

00:41 - The cutting to the bombs dropping is another strong contrast at this point because of the juxtaposition of the previous information and what Bill is saying beforehand. The image of many many bombs dropping after Bill saying "It wasn't enough" slams the viewer with emotion.

00:52 - Some of the shots behind the text are a bit too light, but the words are still visible. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more separation in the images and text here.

01:05 - The cut here is a bit jarring because of the cut from Bill's still shot to this mediocre-fast moving image. There is also a change in letterbox (the borders of the video) shape and size between these cut along with many other b-roll cuts in this video.

01:29 - The cut here is audibly jarring because of the cut at the end of Bill's word "step." Though the visual cut is much better than the one at 01:05 because the movement is reduced greatly and the movement is going from right to left, the same way Bill is facing.

01:41 - The cut here is quite strong because of the key word "fractured," and it's direct relation to the b-roll shot soon after of the young man leaning back in pain. What makes it more powerful is the fact that the b-roll shot is a close up shot.

Nice film overall and very appropriately timed. Great choice of music. Some easily-fixable sound issues are present, but only distract momentarily from the compelling speaker.

Pretty well done, focused, and insightful. Archival footage is nice. This piece is very informative. The subject matter follows a good pattern from current, to past, back to current. Lighting on the interview is a bit harsh and uneven. I would have blocked the ambient light or used a gel, and perhaps used ether a soft fill light or reflective surface as a fill. Would be a good idea to go back and do some color correction on the interview, and maybe adjust the image further in post. The piece would benefit from varying the levels on the music throughout instead of having it fairly flat. Some of the out of place camera moves from the interview (i.e. zoom out) could be cut by extending the b - roll (text wipes back out) and overlapping the beginning of the interview clip's audio. The content chosen from the interview is very engaging. Good pacing for the most part. I would take out the dips to black and either stick with straight cuts or dissolves.

Overall, this video is quite good. With a few changes it could have been better, and several improvements can still be made for another cut.

This is an interesting, and obviously very timely interview. I've been eager to hear, in light of current events, what Ayers had to say for himself these days and it's definitely engaging to see him speaking so forthrightly - parsing no words for the sake of political correctness - about his involvement in the activities of the WU. This isn't to say I agree with his viewpoint, but it certainly makes for a stronger, more compelling piece.
As far as the editing goes, I think his words have been strung together in a pretty natural and cohesive way that's easy to follow, and the pacing is good and upbeat. I think the music is great and really helps make the piece, though there are times, especially towards the end, when I would look at lowering it a bit to compete less with his words. I think the piece starts abruptly and I find the jump to Bill abrupt as well. It'd be nice, I think, to use more recent, "current" footage - from the last debate with McCain if possible - to introduce the subject and its timeliness. The segue to Ayers finishing the sentence from that intro was a clever idea, and should have been left at that. I think it would have worked more smoothly and strongly to have let the intro play out.
The biggest problem I have with the video - and its most distracting element - was the sound trouble. I'd work on fixing those mic bumping sounds and on evening out his levels. Next I would get into color correct and brighten up the i/v footage. He's much too dark. His framing could also be varied more and motion employed to zoom in on him to address those frames with too much head room and to emphasize his strong points. I think you could cut out some of his "uh's" and lose a couple of the gaps in his talk. I like the use of the B Roll overall and I like the fade to black and the break there at 1:55 for a breather and to let his strong last words breathe. I think the text works OK, though I agree that they could maybe be emphasized a bit to stand out more and the typewriter effect gets old fast. Finally, I think the ending could be stronger. There might be a stronger last line that could be used and I might end with him rather than the text, putting that text just before his last statement, and letting that last statement breathe more instead of being cut off so quickly.
Thanks.

The internet gives voice to the voiceless. Certain parts of this movie told a solid story, others were slightly distracting, b-roll audio should be muted. The start is good, then the direction kind of warbles for a little bit. I lose the point of the video, then it wraps nicely. I guess the coolest part about this video that it lets you know about what a 1960's era domestic 'terrorist' is doing today. This was the most relevant part, to me, is that although his past is being used for political gaming, today, he's Chicago's citizen of the year.
I know what the weather underground is, I wish this video had investigated it as a context to Bill's story. As it is, it was only visited briefly, with no explanation, leaving the uninformed viewer with the same impression the mass media leaves, that he is the sole responsible party (although he uses 'we' several times). Full of editing holes and bad lighting, but entertaining and informative regardless.

War is constant but our perception changes. Not only do we not learn from history but we become more ignorant. What a revelatory video. I truly believe our most important right is dissent and that right is the heart of patriotism.

Very good piece. As the adage goes - there are two sides to every story. I don't necessarily agree with his tactics, but everything he said is true.

He is certainly not some raving lunatic, but rather a concise and intelligent man who goes about becoming an epicenter of change in the best way that he can think of.

The sad truth is that people don't respond to reason or logic; they have no choice but to respond to aggression.

The editing of this video is effective because it uses animated text as a narrator, giving the cuts between the interview, text, and historical clips and narrative engine. The simplicity of the cuts is another reason the clip works; the narration gives information, that information is reinforced by Ayers himself, and the images that are presented are the exclamation point. Finally, the music selection keeps a level of suspense and intrigue because of its constant, frantic tempo.

Spectacular video. Ayers is precise and unequivocal in outlining his beliefs. It is easy to sympathize with his position given the images of the Vietnam era serving as a backdrop here. The ethics of activism in America is not a subject reserved expressly for the 1960s. Desperate times have arrived once more.

I don't think that we should give a shit whether or not Obama and Ayers were "pals" but for those who do:

When McCain brought up Obama's connection to Ayers during the debate, I thought that Obama's rebuttal put the issue to rest once for all. Obama succeeded in pointing out that his ties to Ayers were basically impersonal and that many Democrats and Republicans could be seen as having similar links to Ayers. Such is the nature of politics -- everybody's in bed with everybody (you never know when you'll need a political favor from someone you would otherwise detest) and the only time you get called on it is during the late stages of a big election, when things turn personal in an effort to grab the attention of voters who would sooner watch back-to-back episodes of The Girls Nextdoor.

Well done. This piece has considerable potential in its ability to neutralize the recent "otherizing" of Obama without trying to tie him to a false narrative around Bill Ayers. I can think of no more effective way than to make Bill the messenger.

That being said, the impact of the piece becomes limited by its runtime. While part of a larger theoretical question as to the appropriate "media" quantum for internet video digest, you could do well to split the piece into a series of shorter spots, more like an advertising campaign.

Clearly considerable effort has gone into sourcing some excellent broll for the piece. Unfortunately, this piece desperately lacks sound design to realize the emotive potential of this well-sourced creative asset.

Removing stutters and minimizing looks away from the interviewer (are there CIA operatives ready to knock down the door?) would also help achieve a more distilled product with the strongest engagement with the audience. Like the sound quality in Ayer's audio for the first couple of minutes, these looks away detract from the focus on what is being said.

Overall, a great piece that leaves people wanting to know more about Bill Ayers. Such curiosity favors truth, leaving very little opportunity for the lies to become the message.

Keep up the excellent work.

Editing/Color/Sound etc:

The trigger happy Technical Director from the News channel creates a rather distracting intro. At this point in time Hillary is obsolete to this debate so you could edit her out and possibly get away with splicing in other longer Obama reaction shots from throughout that nights debate.

I felt that completing the overused and decontextualized "We should have done more..." sentence by Bill Ayers was powerful though the sound levels are uneven between the debate moderator and Mr Ayers.

Beyond being overexposed, the interview footage has mixed light sources (sunlight and tungsten) that could be merged via secondary color correction and spline based masks in a program such as Apple Color. If that is the raw footage, there is too little detail from overexposure top-screen-right to successfully tone down highlights through primary or secondary color correction. I would suggest reframing the shot by shifting the footage to the right and enlarging the footage to crop out some of the headroom and the distracting over exposure.

Though I like the pacing, the editing seems segmented with very few split edit L and J cuts. The B-roll provides excellent context and is powerful but the Bill Ayers interview audio could be layered over the b-roll footage to congruently smooth the editing and emphasize his points. Additionally the audio could be cleaned up, mic bumps, static noise...

There are a plethora of options to make the text easier to read depending on conceptual intent. In this case, I like the centering of text over the images because it creates a visual tension. If one were to balance the addition of a partially transparent solid matte through only the middle third of the frame, behind the text, and in front of the image while tastefully adding drop shadow and font outline the text would be easier to read while maintaining that same visual tension. I would also vary the orientation and placement of the text to keep the audiences attention a little more.

I think the editing near the ending gets sloppy. It would have more impact if it ended at 3m40s with Ayers speaking the last sentence while putting the footage after 3m40s where the fade to black happens at 3m22s. After all,"The Movement" he mentions is perhaps the link to his current and past actions.

Cool! This piece looks relevant, well written, and like a fun project that I would love to work on.

The editing is fairly typical; A topic is introduced, in this case, using a (historically) recent debate- in a fairly dramatic manner, as the first clip is quite small, and the piece opens up (quite literally) with the image of our Weatherman subject. The rest of the piece follows a sort of 'call-and-response' formula, where information is given, and a divulgence soon follows, either by Bill, or the text.

Throughout the piece, B-Roll is occasionally introduced to accompany the speaker, and likely to hide any unsightly edits made during the interview.

The music changes moods a few times and by doing so, offers emphasis upon what Bill says, similar to the use of B-Roll; The two in fact work together to build the piece more.

In the end, the music melts from compelling and somewhat hostile, to a gentle, playful, and a rather 'matter-of-fact' tune. This change near then end seems to communicate, along with the text and spoken words, the irony of the common perception of this man.

This piece, in whole, seems to take the viewer through a series of transitions and steps, from modern day, to the past, and back into modern day; In effect, reasserting truth via the recollection of history, bringing the viewer back to the present with a more accurate perception than once had.

They put two bombs in a house where a man, wife and two kids lived. They killed a policeman. Dohrn , when she read about Manson's people killing Sharon Tate etc . She said "cool they stabbed a knife in her pregnant belly. Kill all the rich pigs." One of the girls in Ayres group blew herself up building a bomb. I figure why Ayres never went to jail or got blown up is that he sat in his rich Daddy's house away from it all. Whatever way you want to protest a war or anything else, killing innocent people is not the way to do it. These people did if for the thrill of it. You want to protest the war, then go live in the country where the war is. Help those people who live there.Who is he to decide who should be killed.

Re:Editing

The piece has a fantastic subject and is incredibly timely. The fundamentals of the video are sound however, I think some small changes could increase its impact. This is what I would do if I was handed the piece in it's present state.

I would resize the opening clip & text and resize and re-frame Mr. Ayers. The video is not sized well for internet playback. Mr. Ayers has too much headroom. Web delivery gives us some room to fiddle without any quality loss. I would take advantage of this.

I would also brighten up the video as web compression often darkens it. Specifically, Mr. Ayers face and eyes could be brought out.

Take out mic bumps and knock the flute and final soundtrack down where it competes with Mr. Ayers. I would also take out some of his 'uhs' to give his voice more authority.

I would vary the title effect as it becomes repetitive.

These are all technical notes. I think the piece is great overall. Good Work.

Jesse

The piece is very interesting overall providing a more detailed look at William Ayers that goes beyond the quick soundbites presented in the daily media.

Some editing changes would technically strengthen the piece.

To open the piece, there should be some kind of text to explain the context of the piece rather than just jumping into George Stephanopolous. The interview subject should be color corrected as he is in dark shadow and could be corrected to have more even levels. I feel the typewriter effect on the text is a bit distracting and a different method of presenting it would be better. Also, the text should have a drop shadow to make it stand out more.

The audio should be cleaned up to take out the mic bumping, changes in pan and uneven levels. The music is effective, but may have not needed to be under the entire piece. At 1:55, the typewriter movement on the wanted poster is distracting. The pullout on the subject at 2:06 should be covered up with B-Roll as well as the edit made at 3:32. There is a sloppy cut at 3:51 between the image and foreground text that could be cleaned up.

The piece itself is interesting with cuts to vintage Vietnam footage which helps the pacing. it could simply be strengthened with some basic color correction and more attention to consistency in audio and cuts in certain spots.

Now that you can justify MURDER>>> in the name of bill ayer's ... i am going to cling to my guns and bible...how naive... is that.....most people don't know horse crap.. they are like the kid who was put in a roomful of horse crap and said there must be a pony here some where.....OBAMA/NATION IS A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING>>MAKE NO MISTAKE...Eloquence is not common sense....He will get your cents....

Regarding the editing in this piece, I feel that the first and most simple thing that could be done to improve it is to give the audio from the interview more care. There are many moments where the mic is bumped and often that could be taken out or at least minimized. Very simply to do too.

Also on audio, I think there are moments when the music could be mixed lower. Certainly it is a stylistic choice, and in many ways the soundtrack works nicely by adding urgency to his words, but on another level it can be distracting as it is over the entire piece. I would hate someone to dismiss this interview as being given the mtv treatment, or manipulating the viewer because of the music.

The narrative of the interview has been clearly presented and condensed. The opening clip from recent news comes without any context, so as is, the viewer hears Ayers name mentioned on national news to Obama and Clinton. This could be opening could be strengthened. It just doesn't really tell me much. The edit I have the biggest problem with is three and a half minutes in, the cross fade to black during his interview. This edit could easily be hidden with more B-roll. I think the balance between interview and B-roll works pretty well. Vietnam newsreel puts his perspective in context, but can be tricky as it is very powerful. Powerful footage is a great thing, but people are more aware than ever as to when they and their emotions are being manipulated. I think there were some nice choices overall in this footage. Very powerful moments tempered with more mundane footage.

Lastly, as far as visual tweaks that could be done to enhance the overall piece, I think that the levels could be adjusted on his interview footage. The highlights are pretty hot, while most of his face is in shadow. It would be nice to see a little more definition there. The typed font could be a little larger or maybe bold would fix it. May be a little hard to read for some. When it streams the typing can become blurred and as the text serves as context and narrative voice it is certainly important to use for such a short piece.

Technically the segment runs on a roadbed of jump cuts. OK to keep up the energy level in a tight-paced documentary, but some transitions are needed when the pace changes.
The centered titles are a distraction. The Ken Burns effect in the freeze frames is jumpy and many are too short to justify the movement. It has an edgy feel, but the hard edge might prove distracting.

Re: editing

I like the jump from the debate clip to Ayers quoting himself. There is one section of him talking that goes uninterrupted for almost too long, but the subject matter is compelling enough to make up for what it lacks visually.

This is an interesting look at Ayers. Intercutting the interview with stock footage provides context and puts a visual to the issues that helped shape this man and the Weather Underground. The use of powerful imagery and the droning soundtrack give an immediacy to Ayers' words. Our times and our government is not so different as when the Weather Underground operated.

When McCain/Palin started taking talking points from the likes of Sean Hannity I knew the GOP was getting desperate. We need more videos like this to show Americans the importance of doing your own research and deciphering the facts from the spin.

The other commenters scare me about this country. Bill is clearly a radical and clearly wrong about what he has done and what he still has to say today. Didn't any of you guys listen to what he says? If people like Bill Ayers and his minions and those like the other commenters here who love and agree with him so much, dislike the U.S., why don't you move?

I'm not going to say what Ayers thinks is wrong, there may be tons of people who think they want to do the same things but they know its wrong. You have to be reasonable, you have to appear as if you have some scruples to be taken seriously. If you act outrageous, you lose all credibility. Bill Ayers has no credibility. Seriously! He doesn't. You are judged by the actions you take and carry out. Why would bombing police stations help his cause? What is his reasoning? Did police stations fight over in Vietnam? No. They are here at home doing their work. Looks like he doesn't like any authority. Why do so many people respect a man like him? Why do all the Democrats say things like "that was a long time ago", "he's different now", "he didn't mean what he said"? Why justify his actions? If I murdered someone in your family and its been 40 years, would you be my friend? Would it anger you if I became a famous politician, or was teaching students at a university with a high paying job while your family member is no longer able to speak? Why is being a bomber and killer of 7 people any different?

Don't just hop on a bandwagon which you think is full of young people that all think the same popular thing. It's NOT cool to associate yourself with terrorists or bombers. THINK for youselves! THINK things through. THINK about the proper way to carry out your differences. NOT through bombings or hate but through language and other actions. In today's world if you really want to be taken seriously, then get involved in politics or something and try to make a serious difference and change. Don't degrade your own way of thinking and become an extremist.

Great piece.

he's not as bad as the republicans make him out to be (small surprise!) His targets were statements against war not to take lives like a true terrorist would do. This shows in the fact that he phoned in warnings before acting.

You guys really don't want to know the truth. Seriously. I dug it up. Put it online for you guys. Did you listen? Did you even look?

He did what he felt was right and others joined him. Well done Bill.

This guy is really able to articulate his beliefs. Well done!

You see, the McCain camp underestimates us. My guess is that they expected us all to just go along with whatever it was they said about Ayers and Obama. Surely, they never expected anyone to do some research and post the findings for the masses to see. They have us confused with another group. Hats off to the producer of this one.

If Bill Ayers is the terrorist that $ean Hannity and $arah Palin makes him out to be then why is he not sitting in prison? Because we cannot do what South Africa did to Nelson Mandela, and jail without just cause. There was NO just cause to try Bill Ayers who is now a Professor at the University of Illinois and as the video stated as well was Citizen of the Year in 1997.

Just because you label somebody or paint them with your ugly brush doe NOT detract from what they do today!

We should ask John McCain about HIS relationship with G Gordon Liddy who was tried and CONVICTED of acts and his involvement in WATERGATE along with other illegal functions. Yet today he is a hero? Yea, and so is Oliver North, yet another IMPLICATED in chickanery involving Iran-Contra. Heroes? McCain and Hannity have relations with both so calling the kettle black does not work here!

GOOD JOB!

awesome interview. i wish i could find more stories on bernardine dohrn, another member of the weather underground. she actually publicly declared war on the us government on behalf of that group. i think she's a college professor in chicago as well now??? anyway, i really admire alot about her, and although i can't really say that i support some of the actions they took, i defnitely admire their ideals and their intentions...

Thanks for the post. This is great. I am a big fan of the weather underground and I think they have been slandered lately.

"take the war to the war makers."

Hell yes Bill! Speak the truth!!!!

Nice find!!! Thanks!

Bill ayers is the man! No wonder obama is best friends with him!

Bill Ayers is reasoned, concise and sincere. I wonder to how many people (democrat and republican) actually thought Bill Ayers was attempting to murder politicians. Good job, Mulcahey

interesting interview