Considering the grief he gave me when I once (tangentially) mentioned that McCain had been shot down while carrying out a bombing mission over Vietnam, I find it curious to note his absence in today's thread. If I remember correctly, LWM contended that he was absolutely sure that McCain was not responsible for any deaths in Vietnam. Where for art thou, LWM? Hath thee no backbone to criticize thine peers on thine favored issue?

-- omooex

He has been here; never leaves. He does switch handles often and sometimes lets lwm cool off.

A sort list of the many handles includes but is not limited to, lwm, Derbig Mooser, KB4hire, q8dhimmi, Lisa Michele, and Settembrin.

I suspect both Proximity Warning and SomeNYGuy but that is still open. William Timberman posted some others a few days back, but I don't remember what his list was.

When this first surfaced, I turned to my husband and said, "Is it because we're Catholic, we can understand Obama attending a church even though he may disagree or be embarrassed by some of the things his pastor says?" (I wasn't event thinking of the Church's racier scandals, but the more day-to-day stuff: like birth control, the role of women in the church, etc)

Charlie Pierce echoed the same sentiments on npr's "Wait, Wait ..." (a comedy show, sure, but ...) this Saturday.

-- Juliebird

It might be a little easier for American Catholics who are often at odds with the official stance of the Church or of a local Bishop. It might be. But I understand Protestants in the pew often disagree with the man in the pulpit themselves.

No one should ask why Obama did not challenge his preacher on every statement; he was there, I hope, to worship the ineffable One.

If, however, he only dissed the good Rev's words AFTER the videos surfaced and gave him some heat, then that would be a political tack and not an ethical one, now wouldn't it?

And, THAT is why I find Obama so odious, so replete with hubris and so lacking in personal conviction: he is, in the final analysis, just another political animal, who preaches one thing and does another.

Better get used to the idea, he will be your next president.

I work with a lot of good Roman Catholics who disagree with this dioceses' Bishop as well as the Pope of the church. I never hear of them making a public display of their differences; in church or out. If asked a direct question, they will say that they disagree with the church on that issue.

I though we determined with Kennedy that the ideas of the church were not the same as the candidate and that the candidate need not agree with the Church on all issues. Did that go by the boards when Obama had the audacity to hope a black man could be president?

I saw this online:

I heard Gingrich this morning saying that Obama was unqualified because he had never confronted his pastor and denounced him. This is neocon baloney, of course, based on the idea that our first duty, in church or out, is to worship the US state. I've heard celebrants endorse the welfare state, Bush's wars, etc. Was I really supposed to straighten them out? Or is it our place in church to worship the Lord, and concentrate on our own faults rather than others'?

Spot on; why is only Obama suppose to interrupt a sermon and take on the preacher?