I thought the photo was a bad idea - it's like someone said upthread - it's one thing to meet a guy, it's another to be afflilated with him personally for 20+ years.

Having said that, I still don't see how the preacher is any more toxic than any of the other preachers out there. 

PS - well,Thom, that's as close as I've come to saying something bad about Obama - close enough for you?

I thought the photo was a bad idea - it's like someone said upthread - it's one thing to meet a guy, it's another to be afflilated with him personally for 20+ years.

***

The point isn't that President Clinton met Reverend Wright.  The point is that President Clinton recognized that Reverend Wright was a respected and mainstream religious leader such that it made sense to bring Reverend Wright to the White House as part of the prayer breakfast.  If Reverend Wright were the hate-filled preacher that some have portrayed him as, it wouldn't be acceptable for him to be at that prayer breakfast.

More generally, I don't understand the viewpoint that says it's OK to get in bed with certain people for political expediency, but not for long-term personal reasons.  We hear this a lot with respect to the religious leaders that Senator McCain is breaking bread with -- Reverend Hagee, Reverend Parsley, Reverend Falwell, Reverend Robertson.  "Sure," the argument goes, "these guys say hateful things about homosexuals, liberals, pro-choice people, and so on.  But it's OK for Senator McCain to court their support even though it wouldn't be OK for him to forge a long-term relationship with them."  That distinction is never explained, though.

Michael Roberts wrote: The photo seems to be more about the defense of Wright rather than an attack on the Clintons.

Not the way it was presented this morning on TODAY by a political reporter actually on Obama's side for the most part.

Again - in MY world, we'd be debating why you have to profess your faith to be a leader...

There's also some photos out there of the Clintons with Tony Rezko. Someone at another board tried to throw one in my face (figuratively, of course) when I brought up the fact that I think Obama's dealings with Rezko are fishy.

The pictures of the Clintons with Rezko were taken when Bill Clinton was still in office, and at the time Rezko was a Democratic fundraiser and wasn't in any legal trouble. Obama's real estate deal was done while Rezko was already under federal investigation.

And Wright was just one of about a hundred evangelists at that event the picture of Bill Clinton and Wright was taken taken at; its not like it was a private meeting or anything.

Obama's real estate deal was done while Rezko was already under federal investigation.

**************************

And it was completely and totally legal on Obama's side of things.  (The fed investigates it.)  How Rezko got the money for things and paid for it was not Obama's concern or problem.

The girl in Hillary's "3am ad" denounces the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w

Oh, Snap!

This is why you always hire actors directly and make them sign waivers. If they weren't so cheap that they went for stock footage, this wouldn't be an issue.

(And I think the young actress is perfectly within her rights to denounce that ad, as she didn't specifically sign up for appearing in it and it is used in opposition to her own political choices. I can only imagine how embarrasing it might be to work for the Obama campaign and have someone discover you appeared in an attack ad against him. However unintentionally. )