And then they came for us....

It is instructive that the Bauer letter over an ad which can be said only to have overreached, which followed successful intimidation to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns is instantly the precursor to the attempt to silence someone serious.

Stanley Kurtz, who writes for the National Review.

DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

And what do they show as proof that he is a hatchet man.. why he is tied to that other radical bomb thrower..... Bill Kristol !

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama's ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago.

The magazine had been blocked in its initial attempts to obtain records from the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded. Obama critics were quick to suggest that political clout could be involved in seeking to protect Obama from embarrassment. The school later reversed its position and made the records available Tuesday.

On Wednesday evening, Obama's campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to complain. "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the note said.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."

I read that issue of National Review and there was absolutely NOTHING remarkable about the article.

Mr. Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Harvard-educated social anthropologist and frequent contributor to National Review, among other publications. He is widely respected for his meticulous research and measured commentary. For months, he has been doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do: examining the background and public record of Barack Obama, the first-term senator Democrats are about to make their nominee for president despite the shallowness of his experience and achievement.

The Editors of the National Review have responded STRONGLY

The Obama campaign, whose leader has complained that we have done evil in the name of good in the middle east, has, in order to stop what they must consider to be damaging established a solid record of mob intimidation, real smears, and pure attacks on free speech, while demonstrating how unable they are to accept any kind of harsh criticism.

What will happen if these people achieve power?

And they have complained about a Bushitler?

Those senators so concerned about the FISA 'attacks' on the constitution...so loud and vociferous, are they silently warning Mr, Obama right now about what he is doing? About the record he is making? In about an hour, Mr. Obama will be speaking to us about a better America of his making.

How can we accept Mr. Obama's speech as sincere, and look at him as if he really CARES about a better America, when those who question that sincerity and who he is, out of concern for the nation, are subject to such intimidation.