At least he’s honest enough to admit that it’s progressive educators that he’s after–not just ’60s radicals.

But why would he insist that Obama confront a distinguished professor of education in a debate over what that professor should teach in his classroom.

Isn’t this simply part of the campaign to get left-wing and liberal professors out of the university?

Isn’t Stern still playing the old McCarthyist guilt-by-association (Obama with “his Hyde-Park neighbor”) game, just like Diamond.

Whey should a residential candidate even taken a position on his neighbor’s classroom discussions?

What’s McCain’s position on curriculum? Oh yes, he’s for the teaching of creationism. Does Stern want McCain going after ed profs who disagree?

This of course leaves aside the question of whether teaching values of equity and social justice equals “using the classroom for left-wing propaganda” as Stern and friends at the far-right Manhattan Institute claim.

Ayers’ classrooms are models of open inquiry and debate with lots of views presented–even Ayers’. A far cry from propagandizing.

Not so with Stern’s columns or the work of the Institute.

Stern’s crying the blues about Leo treating him unfairly. But he’s playing games. Making himself out to be the victim when he just playing the same smear game Leo caught him at in the first place. Stern isn’t really the honest broker he pretends to be.