MSNBC’s Chuck Todd doesn’t want Romney on McCain ticket?

After the roll out of Joe Biden, there’s been a chorus of “I can’t believe Obama didn’t pick Hillary!”  Yet, pundits had been pooh-poohing the “Dream” ticket for weeks prior to the selection, saying Hillary wouldn’t be sufficiently compatible with Barack Obama.  Obama was probably relieved to hear the pooh-poohing, as it allowed him to plausibly choose someone else.

Will we hear “I can’t believe McCain didn’t pick Romney” if John McCain picks someone other than the former Massachusetts governor to be his VP?  If McCain wants to hear some pooh-poohing to relieve him from the pressure to choose Romney, it’s certainly out there.  But, just as the “Dream” ticket would have been the biggest juggernaut Obama could have assembled, McCain-Romney may be the biggest juggernaut McCain could assemble.  So, bypassing Romney could be a boo-boo.

The networks like to engage in Veepstakes speculation several times a day.  MSNBC‘s Chuck Todd, during his Veepstakes segment this early afternoon, asked two guests to predict McCain’s VP.  Their prediction?  Both predicted Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, as the “safe,” “do-no-harm” pick.  Chuck Todd wanted more discussion, so he asked who else might be out there?  Both guests agreed that if partisanship were no obstacle, John McCain really, really, really would like to pick Joe Lieberman.

Chuck Todd was not getting the opening he was hoping for.  He had to create his own opening.  So Chuck Todd noted aloud that neither of the guests had rated Romney among the most likely, and then read a Mitt Romney quote from primary season in New Hampshire that predicted Barack Obama would be a formidable opponent for John McCain despite McCain’s resume.  Chuck Todd concluded that Romney would have too much explaining to do if he were McCain’s pick as there’s a lot of video footage from the primaries showing Romney and McCain expressing differing views.

Chuck Todd had to manufacture an excuse to make use of the cherry-picked Romney quote.

Naturally, with this week’s Hillary drama, I thought of how this might be a manipulation by the pundits:  thumbs down on a Romney pick in a hope that McCain will follow suit, then “Gotcha!” if and when McCain picks someone else.

I think Chuck Todd really knows that Romney would be a formidable VP pick that would easily neutralize Biden in a VP debate.

DNC 1st night

I just thought I’d offer a few observations of the Democrat National Convention rather than ramble at length like I usually do throughout my blog.

  • A night of the “warm fuzzies” with Sen. Claire McCaskill’s kids, Craig Robinson, Malia Obama, Sasha Obama, Michelle Obama, and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
  • When the convention is in session, the best network to tune in to is C-Span. Commentators and pundits eat up all the time between the major speeches, so the only way to hear the “minor” speakers is to watch it on C-Span. I was amazed that even PBS and C-Span 2 were overflowing with commentators that drowned out the “minor” speakers. So I intend to continue to watch C-Span when the convention is in session, then flip through the other networks for analysis before and after.
  • As for analysis after the first night, MSNBC was the standard-bearer for group-think. The lone analyst of the Republican persuasion, Pat Buchanan, was hardly tolerated. Rachel Maddow, who gets her own prime-time show in the time slot after Keith Olbermann once these conventions are over, vented her contempt for Pat Buchanan, and Chris Matthews chimed in with his own denunciation of Pat Buchanan. I think nothing would satisfy Rachel more than to see Pat fired from the NBC family. The post-Tim Russert NBC family is straining to remain cohesive across the political spectrum of its regular contributors.
  • For analysis BEFORE the first night, again, I have to wonder about group-think at MSNBC, as Joe Scarborough is morphing into a Scranton Democrat just like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Is he being himself? Or does he feel the necessity of conforming a bit more keenly than Pat Buchanan does?
  • I had to laugh when Caroline Kennedy told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that she would NOT walk him through the VP vetting process, and then laugh again when she lauded CNN for being the best news channel to the delight of all the assembled reporters.
  • Carl Cameron appears to be delighted to be in Denver, for a change of pace, instead of shadowing John McCain, which is his customary Fox News beat. It seems upside-down to see him in a Democrat venue. Meanwhile, it was odd to see Major Garrett away from the convention because his customary Fox News beat is Barack Obama, and Barack was in Davenport, Iowa, and Kansas City, Missouri, today instead of in Denver. It’s too easy to envision Major Garrett at the convention, but that’s not the case, yet.

Politicians too savvy in pushing MSM’s buttons?

Bill Clinton was once a darling of the mainstream media. He enjoyed enormous popularity in his heyday. As Hillary Clinton took her seat in the United States Senate to represent the state of New York, her star was rising, too. MSM types were forecasting that she would be the person to beat in the 2008 Presidential race.

On the GOP side, John McCain was a darling of the MSM when he ran for President in 2000. Journalists enjoyed the all-access backstage pass afforded them on McCain tour buses. Political pundits may have said McCain’s campaign was down for the count in fall of 2007, but the media still liked him, and editorial endorsements coupled with ample on-screen time may have helped McCain to win the nomination in spite of organizational deficiencies. McCain scored decisive victories in MSM capitals like California and New York, two states that were among those that did not award proportional shares of delegates.

And then there’s Barack Obama. He knew he was going up against the vaunted Clintons. His organization probably sensed that the Clintons felt the MSM would help them score knockout punches early on. Clinton overconfidence could lead them to be sloppy in caucus contests, and could lead the Clintons to not feel the need to organize their campaign in states that had contests late in the election calendar. Smart. Obama’s organization did outhustle the Clintons in the caucus states and Obama did do well in most of the contests that followed on the heels of Super Tuesday. Bill Clinton saw Hillary’s hopes for the nomination souring, and Bill Clinton wasn’t happy about it. He started to turn against the media, putting some blame on them for favoring Obama. In the early going, it probably wasn’t the media’s fault that Hillary was slipping, for her organization hadn’t prepared carefully. But once Bill Clinton turned against the media, the media turned against Bill Clinton.

The MSM found the remainder of the race for the Democrat nomination mesmerizing. John McCain, who had clinched the GOP nomination following Super Tuesday, received little publicity as the Democrats sucked up all the oxygen in the room.

Barack Obama came into his own as the new media darling. The MSM fawned all over him. Reporters begged to interview him (Fox News Channel talk show hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity probably beg the most). The cameras loved capturing him. Those speeches. Those enthralling speeches. Obama packed large venues because of those speeches. Supporters sought his autograph as Obama skyrocketed to celebrity status.

He’s been masterful at culling the media’s support, superseding McCain’s and Clinton’s prior achievements at culling media support. Obama, who’d taken his road tour to nearly every state in the USA, now packed his bags for a world tour. The USA was too confining for his newfound popularity. Zeal for Obama was overflowing the cup, bursting the seams. Europe cried out for Obama, and Obama graciously obliged. The evening news anchors of NBC, ABC, and CBS packed their bags to go with Obama on this storybook tour.

Obama took Europe by storm. All media reports were glowing. Obama’s organization knew its candidate had hit a home run. Though the organization had acknowledged risks at the outset, in the end, the European tour exceeded all expectations.

Attention turned to organizing the convention. The announcement was made that Obama would deliver his acceptance speech in a venue that would seat 75,000 adoring fans. Donors to the Obama campaign could win the chance to meet Barack Obama, superstar, backstage. Did you want to be the first to know who Barack’s VP would be? Sign up to get your text message with the breaking VP news.

Poll margins started to narrow, but Obama hadn’t been stumping in the USA, plus Obama took a much-needed family vacation in Hawaii. Once Obama was back to full-time campaigning, he’d enjoy a bounce in the polls.

Evangelicals had given Bush the margin of victory in 2000 and 2004. McCain was known to have problems shoring up his base, especially among evangelicals. Obama seized upon an opportunity to make inroads with the evangelical base. In his first day back on the campaign trail after the Hawaii vacation, he appeared at Saddleback Church and was very warmly greeted. Unfortunately, McCain would also be appearing at Saddleback Church and would also get air time. That, perhaps, was a big mistake. Perhaps Obama should only have accepted the opportunity to speak at Saddleback if the event was to be an Obama-only event, with no McCain. Returning to the campaign trail full-time did not deliver the expected bounce in the polls.

Tongues kept wagging about McCain’s performance at Saddleback. It seems McCain’s performance eclipsed Obama’s. Time to push media buttons. Drag out the wait for the VP announcement, but mention frequently that the announcement could come at any time. Distract. Distract. Ooh! How many houses do the McCains have? Distract. Distract.

And now the Democrat National Convention. Big smiles as the Obama organization warmly greets the MSM for a weeklong lovefest. “Welcome to my parlor,” said the spider to the fly.

On the eve of the DNC, the polls are tied. Can the MSM hypnotize the public into Obama euphoria? Or will it be too hard for Americans to erase from their memories the brief glimpse of brilliance they saw from McCain at Saddleback Church no matter what the MSM does?

Will the Obama strategy, going forward, involve monopolizing the media?  Keeping the cameras on Obama as much as possible, and not allowing McCain to have more air time than a few sound bites?

And the bigger question: Is the public best served by politicians who know best how to orchestrate the chorus of the MSM? Are we getting the best politicians foisted upon us by the MSM? The politicians featured in the media: Are they really the cream of the crop? Or could substandard politicians gain media prominence via expertise in handling the media?

Is the media laying down on the job? Or are they doing their job? Are they telling us the whole story? Or are they telling us only what they think we want to hear? Or do they want to be the power-brokers that decide what we get the opportunity to know and what we don’t get the opportunity to know?

Our Constitution, in its Bill of Rights, granted freedom of the press. Is our press free? Or is it purchased? Or is it restrained in some respects, manipulated in others?

Do Americans see this Presidential election contest through the lens of the media? Or through their own inner compass?

What do you think?

Lorain newspaper: Dann can no longer be AG

The Morning Journal published an editorial stepping up their demand that Dann resign or be impeached. I really liked this passage the most:

“Ohioans cannot allow the politicians in Columbus to go weak-kneed now and let him off the hook with legalistic mumblings and excuse-making.”

It’s nice to know that the newspaper in Lorain has an opposite view on impeachment than Lorain’s state rep, Joe Koziura does. By the way, voters of the 56th District have a choice in November. They can vote for Stipe.

CNN election night missing a familiar face

Amy Holmes.  I guess you could say I’m a big fan.  I really enjoy seeing her on CNN.  She is always glowing, always pleasant, always brightening the room, even when she is disagreeing with another CNN contributor.

In looking for her on the web this morning, since she was absent last night, I was struck by how similar her advice to Obama was similar to my own.  Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina last night seemed to be along that vein, as it was a clear contrast to a Rev. Wright narrative about America, as Obama shared some talking points about his love for America.

And as for last night’s results, I’d already declared that Obama had turned the page.

I assume she’ll make more appearances on CNN, as she just posted another blog entry on their site just two days ago.

Hold your horses!

PETA must hate people like me.  I’m not a vegetarian, let alone a veggan.  I have leather shoes, a leather softball glove, and a sheepskin leather jacket.  I’m sure the sheep and cows didn’t die of old age when their hides were tanned to be crafted into the accessories I have now.  I think I’ve mocked animals too, with my bad impersonations and bad imitations of animal noises.  I’m sure any animal watching me would be offended by my behavior (especially when I do the chicken dance).

But when PETA calls attention to the cruelties in today’s horse racing industry, I agree.  To tell you the truth, I’m appalled by horse racing.  I do think it is cruel to animals.  It might not be as cruel as cock fighting or bear baiting or bull fighting or whatever it was that Michael Vick was having those dogs do when he got in trouble and couldn’t play football anymore.  Still, I think it’s cruel.

It wouldn’t bother me one bit if horse racing were outlawed (dare I set foot in the state of Kentucky ever again?) for an additional reason.  I strongly disapprove of gambling.  If horse racing is a sport, and the horses are athletes, why don’t the horses have locker rooms with shower stalls and flush toilets?  Why don’t sports reporters ever interview the horses?  Don’t tell me that horses don’t talk, because I remember Mr. Ed reruns on TV.  So it’s not really a sport after all.  It’s just a gambling venue.  Hey, if you want to lose money, you don’t have to bet it on horses.  You can just give it to me.

Fox News: equal opportunity annoyer

Not to be outdone by the Obama interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Hillary Clinton sat down with Bill O’Reilly for an interview that’s being aired on prime time.  Liberal pundits have to be furious that the two remaining Democrat candidates are appearing on Fox News despite the pundits’ cries that doing so would legitimize Fox News.

I guess Fox News is legit.  Sorry about your luck, MoveOn.

Guess who else is fuming about Hillary appearing on O’Reilly?  Dennis Miller.  Dick Morris.  Essentially, there are some Republican-leaning pundits who are upset that Hillary Clinton is helping her nomination chances by appearing on Fox News.

Maybe Fox News is fair and balanced after all, because liberals aren’t the only ones who are displeased.

Teens need protection from adults

The adult world is engaged in an all-out assault on teens. Are we doing enough to protect our youth?

Think about the following:

Malevolent gangs, like the Crips and Bloods, recruit juveniles. I want Code Pink to protest the Crips and the Bloods in Berkeley, if they find the Marines to be so offensive to their sensibilities. Perhaps Code Pink doesn’t realize that they are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Teen fashion is revealing more of the body. Is Iran on to something when they ban Barbie because of Barbie apparel? Iran went on to say that Barbie, if permitted on an ongoing basis, could subvert the entire culture of Iran. Perhaps it’s already subverted ours.

Teenage consumption of alcohol is usually aided and abetted by adults who provide the fake ID’s or who procure the alcohol directly. Alcohol is, overwhelmingly, the number one date rape drug.

It wasn’t so long ago that the PG-13 movie rating didn’t exist, and some movies that receive that rating today would have been rated R many years ago. Movie studios now are making strategic edits in R films to get a PG-13 rating, while pushing PG movies to take on a harder edge to bump them up to PG-13, as movies with this rating seem to have a bigger box office. It’s all about manipulation, whether in the creative process of making the film, or in the marketing process of selling the film, or in the audience reaction process of screening the film. Of course, the P stands for Parental and the G stands for Guidance and the 13 suggests that teens are old enough not to require Parental Guidance . . . hmmm . . . are we sure about that last part?

Adolescents are gaining more weight because of sedentary lifestyles. If the adults are home, they may be filling their time with pursuits that they enjoy rather than engaging with the children in healthy, active pursuits. Often the adults are working away from the home. Mom and Dad are relieved, though, if the kids are quietly occupied in playing a video game, instant messaging friends on the internet, or watching TV (and helping themselves to snacks from the fridge) to pass the time instead of being a thug or a crime target out on the streets while unattended. Hmmm . . . maybe there are more downsides to those sedentary activities than just gaining weight.

Pulp magazines, probably more often read by teen females than males, often have cover stories about navigating one’s way through the twists and turns of adult romantic relationships, and teen girls are magnetically drawn to the content of those articles. Boys may be more interested in sports magazines, but if they are interested in cars or motorcycles, a magazine like Easy Rider may very well have a scantily clad centerfold model posing on a Harley Davidson, whetting the teen’s appetite for raunchier fare.

Juvenile fiction, especially marketed toward females, often has some snippets of disturbingly adult occurrences. Back in 2005, I was teaching English in South Korea. A mother enrolled her two teen girls at our school that were more advanced English students. The mother asked if I would practice conversation with them that would also test their reading comprehension. She brought two English-language teen novels to the school. I read them. The students were to read them. We were to discuss the books. Before the students were to read them, I told the mother that one of the books, though marketed toward teens, did not seem age appropriate because of a sexual incident that occurred at the climax of the story line. It made me blush to read the book. I could discuss the book with an adult, but I would not discuss the book with a teen. I thought the mom would understand. She withdrew her teen girls from our school, and enrolled them in another that was an hour-and-a-half away so that they could have advanced study from teachers that weren’t as prudish as I was.

While I’m mentioning Korea, I might as well say that teens there are even less protected from adults than American teens are. The Koreans are deservedly outraged when one of their teens has been sexually assaulted by someone in the American military, and if you were to watch the news, you’d have the sense that the only offenses ever committed against Korean teens are perpetrated by the American military, except for the occasional Canadian ESL teacher that beds a Korean student (which doesn’t result in nearly as much indignation as what’s been aimed at the American military). I suppose that explains why there are some Koreans that loathe Americans, and some that distrust all Westerners. I’ll just say that the news is selectively silent about much more widespread offenses that Korean adults commit against Korean juveniles, including male juveniles. One of the big news stories out of America at the time I was in Korea was the trial of Michael Jackson concerning accusations Jackson masturbated in front of a boy and perhaps encouraged the boy to do the same, perhaps even to the point of touching the boy, while in a bedroom at the Neverland ranch. A male college student told me, after he comprehended what the fuss was all about, that in Korea, even if all the allegations were true, the Michael Jackson thing would be no big deal. Gulp!!!!

There are teachers, male and female, straight and gay, that have sexual encounters with students, male and female. Some priests have been accused of child molestation. Let’s not forget the Warren Jeffs FLDS cult, with the dominant males deflowering teen girls when they reach adolescence, and turning teen boys, potential rivals for female affection, out to pasture, ill-prepared to adjust to the rest of society.

Several years ago I had a girlfriend, who was nearly 30 at the time, who suffered from bulimia. I discovered, through conversing with her, that nearly all eating disorders are rooted in an emotionally traumatic occurrence at a very young age, often quite a few years earlier than the onset of the eating disorder. Frequently those emotional traumas were from a child starkly exposed to an adult situation, precipitated by an adult, such as something violent or something sexual, or something along those lines.

Over time, I’ve discovered that many of the most promiscuous adults I’ve ever met, men and women, straight and gay, had been molested as children. It’s estimated that a little over 40% of all rape victims are minors.

20 years ago, when I was living in Fremont, Nebraska, I met a woman and her husband who, in addition to their four kids, had just taken 5 of her sister’s kids into her home. It seemed like such a lovely family. They all looked so beautiful. Her own daughter, aged 13, was the oldest of the bunch. The second-oldest child was her sister’s 9-year-old girl. The youngest was an infant of her sister’s, less than a year old. The 13-year-old daughter, though, always had a facial expression that showed she was constantly stressed out. I found out later that the woman and her husband were also stressed out, but that they were better able to put on a brave face than the 13-year-old. Where was the woman’s sister and brother-in-law that they weren’t taking care of their own children? In jail. The story of what had happened to these beautiful children was horrifying. Those jailed parents (monsters!) had been having sex with their own children. Group sex. Group incest. Cavorting all day around the house in their birthday suits and engaging in sexual activity. The medical examiners showed that even the 5-year-old girl had been penetrated. The woman and her husband were hoping that their custody of the sister’s children would be very temporary. They wanted the children placed into other foster homes pronto, except for the infant, who hadn’t been abused, and who was a perfectly normal infant. They said that while there is usually a desire to keep siblings together, these siblings would need to be split up and each placed into a home where there weren’t other children to corrupt. They talked about how these siblings, if permitted to cavort together, would revert to engaging in sexual behavior. The nine-year-old was in the worst condition, because she had been abused for a far longer time than the others, by virtue of being the oldest of the sister’s children. They couldn’t all sleep in bedrooms at night. Instead, the children had to be separated into different rooms of the house, with the woman, the husband, and the 13-year-old sleeping in strategic locations where they could intercept the young children if they attempted to congregate. Even in sleep, the woman, the husband, and the 13-year-old had to wake frequently to maintain their vigil. The 13-year-old had been a model student in school, but this extraordinarily heavy responsibility was taking a toll on her. The woman and husband were very worried about the strain on the 13-year-old, but her help was necessary, and they were incessantly lobbying the state agency to place the sister’s children lickety-split. The woman had a 16-month old daughter of her own. One night, during these sleep-deprived vigils, they found the sister’s 2-year-old boy just as he attempted to mount the woman’s 16-month-old. Doesn’t that make you cry? If not, then you are more stoic than I am.

I’ve been alarmed, when roaming Yahoo! 360 from my personal blog, DJWPP, that there are a number of webpages where lesbian women are trolling for girls. Why is a Louisiana school teacher (NSFW), who is a big fan of cheerleaders, posting flirts to a high school senior? Why is a 34-yr-old Floridian flirting with a 13-yr-old? And another woman, with a masters degree, flirting with the same 13-yr-old? Then there’s a Bowling Green grad flirting with the very same 13-yr-old!

Let’s face it, there are many, many adults who are aroused by youth, and I’m not just talking about the teacher that beds a student, I’m not just talking about the priest who molests a child, I’m not just talking about the dominant males in the Warren Jeffs FLDS cult, I’m talking about something more pervasive than that. I’m talking about Annie Leibovitz photographing 15-year-old Miley Cyrus in a way designed to be alluring to adults to sell a Vanity Fair magazine that is sold to an adult demographic. The photographer talked Cyrus into it after her father had left the shoot. At such an impressionable age, when she looked at the photo, she didn’t think things all the way through until later, when other voices entered her thoughts, and she ended up feeling embarrassed. The photographer, on the other hand, thought things all the way through. Leibovitz pushed all the right buttons. She knew exactly what she was doing, and had calculated it out all in advance. And, apparently, Vanity Fair is all too certain that a child photographed in this way will cause their magazine to fly off the sales racks and into the shopping carts of adults.

The pliability of a teen’s will is what makes them so vulnerable. There are adults who recruit teens to go on crime sprees with them because they know how to bend the will of the teens. It’s the same reason why we set an age below which rape is statutory, because though it may seem the teen is willing, the teen is probably being played.

Unfortunately I feel that the adults who try to protect teens aren’t succeeding very well in preventing teens from being exploited by less-well-intentioned adults.

I hate to sound alarmist, but let’s step up our efforts a bit.

DJW: I’m not That Other (Paper) Dan Williamson

There is an alternative weekly paper in Columbus, called The Other Paper, who has a managing editor named Dan Williamson. He sometimes writes articles that include political figures and political issues.

I’m also known as Dan Williamson. My first media exposure in a political vein occurred when I was a Republican candidate running for state representative against incumbent Democrat Joe Koziura, of Lorain, in Ohio’s 56th House District in 2002. I listed my name on the ballot as Daniel Jack Williamson for two reasons, one reason being that my dad, Jack Williamson of rural Bellevue in Seneca County, was a candidate in the Republican primary for an open seat in the 58th House District, which neighbors the 56th, and I thought where media coverage about those two state rep races overlaps, my middle name on the ballot might somehow improve his name recognition. I wrote letters to the editors of newspapers, and I posted comments at an online community forum at LorainCounty.com, but that was just about the greatest extent of my writing contributions to the media at that time. I ran again for state rep in 2004 (an image of my 2004 campaign literature here–you’ll have to scroll to see the whole image). My political writing had not expanded beyond what it had been during the 2002 campaign.

In early 2005, not long after losing (again) the election in November 2004, I went to South Korea to teach English for a year (image), so I wasn’t even posting online comments at Lorain County.com during that time. In early 2006, I was back to posting online, but my comments, critical of Sherrod Brown before Paul Hackett withdrew from the Democrat primary for the U.S. Senate seat, kept getting deleted by the website, and after that, my comments went to moderation, and it would be about 24 hours before my comment would actually appear. By then, the conversation thread had lengthened quite a bit, so my comments weren’t likely to be read when they did appear. That’s when I started looking to other blogs to comment. In 2007, I began contributing entries to blogs.

In the early 1990’s, I was living in Columbus. The Other Paper had emerged on the Columbus print media scene. Dan Williamson became a known byline. Most of my friends and co-workers called me Dan. I didn’t realize that some of them were confusing me with the journalist until the secretary of my boss at National City Bank (where I worked from September 1993 through May 1995 as a teller) gave me a compliment about my writing. LOL! I quickly corrected her and said that it wasn’t me. Until I moved out of Columbus at the very start of January 2000, I’d had a number of people approaching me similarly, and these were people who knew me quite well, some of whom I saw nearly every day!

So, the second reason I chose to include my middle name on the ballot? Because I already knew that people had been confusing me with the journalist for years, and that if I received media coverage as a candidate, I hoped that including my middle name would spare media observers the confusion. I continued using that middle name when I made my first foray into blogging for much the same reason.

But I suppose that once I start generating political commentary, and, in a sense, entering the arena that the journalist was already in, I suppose it was inevitable that the confusion would arise anyway. And so I guess writing this blog entry to set the record straight was inevitable.

Why use Wright to judge Obama?

I have a bone to pick with the mainstream media as well as many voices in the blogosphere.

I think there’s too much noise about Rev. Jeremiah Wright casting a shadow on Barack Obama.

Make no mistake, barring the entry of a compelling minor party candidate, I’ll be voting for John McCain in November, but I still think it’s not right to fault Obama because of Wright.

I certainly think sermons can be newsworthy.  I don’t fault the media for reporting what preachers may say.

But media pundits and bloggers alike are blaming Obama for being preached to by Wright.

Would I have continued to attend a church where Wright was preaching?  That’s for me to decide.

And that’s the whole point.

We have freedom of religion.  No one can tell me where I ought to go to church and where I ought not go.  I don’t have to attend a church that’s politically correct.  Wright does not lead a cult that brainwashes people in order to treat them in an inhumane way for his own benefit, as Warren Jeffs has done with his FLDS cult.  So then, why are we second-guessing Barack Obama?

Even if he sat in those pews every Sunday for the past 20 years, and heard every single word spoken by Wright, it’s not for anyone else to say that Obama’s attendance there shows lack of judgment.  Obama has every right to be there, and shouldn’t have to have his judgment called into question for being there.

I don’t agree with much of Wright’s assessment of America, but so what?  I can think of Old Testament prophets that railed against the Kindom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel.  It certainly wasn’t politically correct for those prophets to find fault with their own governments, but they felt that they were being true to God’s word.  And who am I to judge whether Wright feels he’s being true to God’s word or not?  Wright has freedom of religion, and when he addresses a congregation that has the freedom to peaceably assemble, Wright has freedom of speech.  Isn’t the Constitution a wonderful thing?

Whatever Wright may have said, Obama chooses his own thoughts, his own words, and his own actions.  In Obama’s own words, he disavowed the utterings of Wright that have been shown on that endless loop.

There’s been a flap over some things Obama said in San Francisco.  I think we can all form our own valid opinions on what those words reveal about Obama’s candidacy.  Wright’s words don’t reveal anything about Obama’s candidacy.  Obama’s words about Wright’s words reveal something.  They reveal that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright, yet many are still making judgments about Obama based on the words of Wright.

I hope this distraction goes away soon, so we can move on from petty disagreements in order to engage in substantive analysis.