did you point out that his middle name is Hussein? Old dude would have stroked out.

Ah, no...wasn't going there! I played incredulous for a moment then found my way elsewhere.

There are thousands of Baptists who support the KKK. Does that mean the Baptist church supports it? Of course not. If the reverend of a particular church in the South compliments the KKK, does that mean all of those who attend that church agree with him? Of course not.

Also, I mentioned the 2 most common reasons people try to trash Obama. They are not necessarily related.

Obama has no dirt on him, so idiots are trying to make him guilty by association by mentioning some controversial things his minister has said. Talk about a pathetic and desperate move. Anyone who would suggest that any of Obama's political views are influenced by this man is intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, and a piece of shit.

well, at least your mind is made up.

Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson have preached hatred to the Republicans for decades (or did when alive). Does that mean anyone who is a member of their church or political party has a hatred of gays? Muslims? or any of the other groups they preached hate against? No.

People with millions of dollars support their views.

that would explain how they got on the air, not how they maintain their ratings and advertising support.

My mind is made up because this is a non-issue. It's a manufactured bullshit story that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's ability to lead or his personal political views. It's a worthless and pathetic attempt to smear a decent guy. It's a cheap shot by losers like those who keep mentioning his middle-name, showing a photo of him without his hand on his heart while "America the Beautiful" was being sung but claiming it was during the pledge, or showing him in robes when visiting Africa. If his detractors have to resort to this kind of childish, laughably stupid, and weak tactics, they are truly stupid, dishonest, and they are beneath him in every way. Nobody cares about any of these things other than the small-minded idiot dittoheads, freepers, and other morons who don't do any actual thinking and who think dishonesty is ok as long as it's against a "liberal"

No, they preached it to anyone who would listen. and any political leader who pointed to them as a personal friend and mentor for 20 years should be questioned about how they are able to listen to that bilge without condemning it - unless they approve of it.

Every high level member of the Republican party pointed to them as personal friends or mentors and was never questioned about why, nor should they be. Only an idiot would make assumptions about a person based on the sermons they hear in church.

It may be spun wildly, but it is a valid question. The guy wants to be president. He should be questioned about his beliefs if he names someone with this rhetoric as a personal friend and mentor and has been a fixture in his church pew for 20 years. It is valid to investigate how he is able to line his beliefs up with his mentor's.
I absolutely agree that those are all smear and fear attempts and are deplorable. I do, however, believe that questioning someone's personal beliefs is valid.

Yes they should. A person chooses which church, if any, they'll attend. If they regularly attend a church that espouses beliefs that they do not hold then they shouldn't be there. It doesn't make sense.

Religious beliefs aren't necessarily related to political beliefs and the political opinions of the minister are not necessarily shared by those who attend the church. It makes no sense for anyone to try to suggest that because a person attends a church, they must believe in everything said in a sermon. In fact since religion has no place in our government, nothing that happens in a church should ever be questioned regardless of what church it is, or what the minister is preaching.

Disclaimer: I don't think Obama should be tossed out of the presidential race over this issue.

Radar I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Forget about all the blowup dolls that pass as journalists today and they way they are blowing things up and taking them out of context. Now stop and think about this:

The people you surround yourself with and the messages you freely choose to ingest repeatedly over a 20 year period speak to who you are and what you believe.

Whether it is political, religious, or philosophical, you certainly have the right to listen, believe, and speak on any issue from any angle you want, but don't be surprised if someday you are held accountable for the beliefs you surround yourself with.

My understanding is that White is well known for his rhetoric. I'm cool with that, it's his right. Obama has chosen to become and remain engaged with this man. That leaves two options: 1) Obama didn't ever agree with the man but became his mentee because of the political power he held and the influence he wields in Illinois, or 2) Obama did agree with the man but is now trying to distance himself so he can get into a bigger office.

That is the real issue I want to know more about because, for me, it speaks to Obama's honesty vs. political cunning. We've been asked to back him because he is going to make a "clean break with the ways of the past". Awesome, I just want to know if his own past is compatible with his new Hope.

3) White says other stuff, too, and Obama likes him overall, despite his flaws.
4) Obama originally agreed with him, and as he matured he moved away philosophically, but not personally, like one might do with a parent with different politics.