There are two fallacies there that add up to a cheap shot.
"Change" isn't necessarily "fundamental change," and saying you want changes in something doesn't mean that it disgusts you.
But if Obama had been close to Ayers at Columbia wouldn't more people have remembered him as "that radical guy"?
Someone who went to Columbia in the 1930s might have been recruited by the Communist Party or the Soviet Union and kept his convictions hidden, but it's quite a stretch to argue that Obama became Ayers's "mole" in the 1980s.
Where have I heard that before?
It's marxist boilerplate.
None of you can deny that Obama started his political career at a small c communist's house with a history of terrorism.
Ayers is proud of that.
Ayers and Dohrn are typical trust fund radicals who never had to pay a price.
Let's review Obama's own words about that time, from Dreams from My Father:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.So where are the fallacies again?