Does anyone remember the EJ Dionne article in the Post in 2006 (I think) laying out the path to the presidency for McCain?

The article talked about McCain changing his tune on Iraq in 2005 (the year of the Russert interview Glenn cited) in return for Bush and Rove's support for his 2008 presidential bid. If I remember correctly, the article even suggested potential running mates, including Jeb Bush.

Modern english, that is.

But Hannity and O'Reilly aren't running for president. And besides, the actions of a few does not invalidate all of Roman Catholicism. (And I'm not Catholic, by the way.)

Does that mean all the good Senator Obama and his former church have done over the years is not invalidated by a single line spoken by his former pastor?

Rather invalidates your own point doesn't it?

My point is that Greenwald paints himself as this fearsome pursuer of truth, but there are some truths we'll never see from him. He is, in short, a political hack, no different from Rush, Hannity, et al.

How strange. I thought he just presented himself as a former civil liberties litigator who now writes rather insightful and carefully sourced political commentary on the Internet. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, in contrast?

I leave "Knows (no) Better" to draw his own conclusions. Or wait for it to be dictated to him/her by whoever is "handling" her/him, whichever the case may be.

If I remember correctly, the article even suggested potential running mates, including Jeb Bush.

[laugh] Yeah, that would fit into McCain's idea of "change".

Rumor has it that Jeb hates Dubya's guts for horning in on the presidency and then soiling the family name. Granted, the Bush family name wasn't exactly fresh out of the laundry, but Junior makes Senior look good.

Does that mean all the good Senator Obama and his former church have done over the years is not invalidated by a single line spoken by his former pastor?

No, it wasn't a single line. It was an entire theology built around the racist rantings of James Cone, someone Wright recommended to everyone he could and listed as a source on Trinity Church's web site. (And just by accident, I suppose, when the furor erupted the reference to Cone disappeared from the web site.)

Silly you for buying the usual Leftist cant.

But Hannity and O'Reilly aren't running for president.

This is so right on. At least there's one person in this letters thread who isn't a p.c. stooge to Obama-mania — or should I say Husseinamania?? (I bet most liberals don't already know that that's Obama's middle name — they've all been suckered!)

But yes, to get back to Knows-Nothing Better or whatever the name is, it's totally true that if Hannity or O'Reilly were running for president their membership in the Catholic Church would have, should have, become an issue.

Can anyone here honestly imagine a Catholic president who wasn't at least partially subject to Rome's command?

Now, before you all get excited, I'm not saying that all Catholics are in complete agreement with every little thing that the Pope says. But wouldn't it at least make you question their judgment? Question, maybe, their loyalty and patriotism?

Exactly. And that's why no Catholic would ever become president of the United States. Even liberal Americans would agree that it would be crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

So is it so wrong to point out that Obama is in the same boat? The people from his church probably struck Knows Better as not quite right looking. And why should they? Is Jeremiah Wright really the "face of America," if you get my drift?

I hope that Knows Better keeps posting the same sort of insightful, thoughtful comments here — and that all you wussy liberals give them every ounce of the attention they deserve.

(I bet most liberals don't already know that that's Obama's middle name — they've all been suckered!)

WOW! Really??!? Don't tell me... you're going to surprise us all by noting he's also half-black, aren't you?

That also opposes the Iraq War. That means that McCain and Hannity are both against the Iraq War, right? Since they claim to be Catholics, they have to agree with everything the church says, right? Like when the Pope said that the War is a "Defeat for Humanity", Hannity and Billo must feel the same way. After all, they've been Catholics their entire lives. At least McCain can be a warmonger and not have to worry about the pesky Pope making him look foolish, maybe Hannity and O'Reilly should just join Falwell's Church then they don't have to worry about any annoying cognitive dissonance? But to try and project what "Baptist" John McCain would do as president by using the words of a "highly respected" figure (i.e. Christian Zionist) like Baptist Jerry Falwell would be down "Wright" disrespectful.

Obama is the same as Billo and Hannity in that regard, their Church says one thing but they believe another, but it makes for more compelling propaganda to show Wright saying bigoted things and claiming that Obama believes them then to do something silly like pointing out how the accusers are opposed to the positions of their Church's figurehead when it comes to one of the biggest and most divisive issues in the US, the Iraq War.

Obama's "wacky pastor" appears to oppose the Iraq War, and on top of that Wright doesn't seem to have kind words for our Stalwart Allies, but after 20+ years of listening to it, Obama is doing what needs to be done if he wants to sit on the throne, i.e. cave to the Lobby, instead of promoting views or an agenda in any way similar to the things Wright was "preaching" about. Although it is more convenient and helps propagate the propaganda when one claims that Obama is in line with his Church and uses Wright as a prophetic surrogate of what an Obama presidency would be like, even though Obama has been showing that he is just as tough as the next guy when it comes to fighting wars for Israel. Or will Wright also get a chance to fawn over The Lobby, I mean pledge unfaltering allegiance to another nation, I mean give a speech at AIPAC?