Conservatives have their own 'associations' and then some, as we saw even in the case of John McCain, who is perhaps the least radical of their leadership.

What I find curious is that the media never stops to ask itself why we spent so much time talking about Bill Ayers who at least never killed anyone, and no time talking about Gordon Liddy, who plotted to murder a journalist and instructed listeners to his radio program how to murder federal agents. I mean, we sit here and evaluate whether or not the media coverage was biased based on the extent to which they covered Bill Ayers, or whether they did or didn't testify to the extent to which that association shows Obama to harbor anti-American views, but were it not for David Letterman (#^$!) McCain would've never been asked a question about G Gordon Liddy. The mind boggles.

In any case, Ayers and Farrakhan have nothing to do with Obama. He's not friendly with either, nor has anything he's ever done or stood for indicated sympathy with their causes and world view. Wright on the other hand was a legitimate association to question Obama about, albeit with zero implications for what kind of President he will be in my view. Point being, when we dignify conservative memes by defending 'Obama's associations with Farrakhan', that's neither correct nor a good move.

Farrakhan's the prophet

that I think you oughtta listen to...

Funny. My right wing friends used to listen to PE with me. Now they probably shun Chuck D. Too bad. I know they knew all the lyrics. Perhaps they just weren't understanding them...

In Tapper's report, they are just defending themselves. There is nothing in this report to associate them with Obama. Any connection between these comments and the President Elect is just fear-mongering and race-baiting anyway.

if the MSM wants to cover them. As Glenn Greenwald has amply documented, the MSM "makes" the news as much as they report it. Personally, I don't find any of these three gentlemen to be news.

that imbalanced sense of "associations". It only works on one lever. Bumped into someone inappropriate twenty years ago in a crowd ....bad Democrat, stuck with the stench of guilt by association.

In bed with a thieving policy-purchasing lobbies...poor Republican, wrong place wrong time...and really, didn't sleep with him anyway. It was a holographic liberal media, left-wing setup.

I flipped on CNN several times yesterday and all I came away with was a vague sense that Obama's cabinet and inner circle will be 99% black, urban and from Chicago. Which is good for them but awfully parochial for the rest of us.

The only person he's named so far for any position is from Chicago (which renders him urban), but Rahm Emanuel certainly isn't Black.

What lists are you seeing? The ones I've seen mention people like Kerry and H. Clinton and Buffet.

Farrakhan sounded more reasonable than I've ever heard him talking to his congregation about doing right by the new President and doing their part.

Ayers just said, for the first time, what he perceived his relationship to be, which any sane human being, despite the extraordinary press interest in this "association," could see all along from the facts.

Wright is defending his 41-year ministry and not trying to tell Obama what to do.

These people have a right to privacy. They have no influence in the administration, clearly. Can we just drop it and leave them alone?

Conclusive proof that Obama associates with "terrorists" arrives in the form of Rahm Emanuel as his predictable pick for Chief-of-Staff.

One might realistically conclude that the real winner, last Tuesday was the "War-Party".

It's beyond absurd that these three men (Ayers, Wright and Farrakhan) are still being seriously discussed as a liability to Obama's credibility.

By the way, how does an American with a dual-citizenship recite the "pledge Of Allegiance"?

Let's ask Rahm.

We can thank the right liars for promoting these guys in the public arena. Much wingerdom-ado about nothing has made them into someones who can seek a spotlight.

Oh, you are just the cutest little most parochial thing I've seen all week!

In answer, probably like the vast majority of people from school children to sports fans "without much thought at all."

Then again, what with having chosen to be a dual citizen, quite possibly with more consideration than most.

As long as we're asking the question though, I'd love to know the Palins' thoughts that whole "indivisible" thing.

Mr Schaller gets "frustrated when conservatives use the "question of judgment" rationale to equate a long standing friendship, that has no bearing on policy or governing...." So, you would have us believe that a 20 year stint in a church that espouses a racist theology will have no effect on the policies and judgment of Barack Obama at all? That he just sat there week after week, in a vacuum, unaffected or moved by what he was hearing? That he somehow rose above it all, saw the light, and had a "come to Jesus" moment? Based on what; a successful campaign and a few 'lets all feel good' speeches? Or perhaps you would have us believe that churches play no role in forming our core beliefs and morals at all, and he was just passing the time..

I doubt he ever had a casual relationship with anyone in DC. He was known as not just a lobbyist but a super lobbyist! He was moving money all over town- as much of it into his hands and his cohorts like Norquist as possible. He was peddling influence and actively changing policy to suit his clients. Kind of the exact opposite of the sort of casual - not relevant to policy working relationships that you might have with a fellow board member or even your own pastor. His flagrant buying of influence is why he is sitting in jail today.

I've re-read that paragraph three times now to see if I was misunderstanding but if that is supposed to be sarcastic it is not coming across.