Campaigning in his church, citing him as an influential African-American supporter, using him in television spots, having him on the exploratory committee.

And it was Salem's choir that performed at the rally where Obama announced his candidacy.

Yep, no history of working together there at all.

No, what it implies is that Obama went to Meeks for spiritual counsel. If you consider that inaccurate, take it up with Obama. He's the one who gave it to the Sun-Times.

Alas, it is only your own credibility that suffers.

Ahh I see. And your reasons why there is not one single black GOP congressman is what? Coincidence?

Thats exactly what I said. No doubt the two were political allies, frequently working together as prominent politicians from the Southside od Chicago. Praying with politician who happens to be a preacher is roughly equivalent to drinking with the rest of them, or either getting hoagies or going to strip joint with Rendell, I guess. If you mean that they pray together makes Meeks a "spiritual advisor" than the term really doesn't mean all that much. I would assert its a term purely designed to convey some sort of "obedience" that isn't there for cheap political gain.

I am sure Obma and Meeks are friends and have been frequent poltical allies. I have no doubt Obama has been pleased to have Meeks political support for President. The "in Chicago we don't have mayors we have slaveowners" comment strikes me as some particularly vicious bad blood between Meeks and Daly, but its bad blood that does not seem to stop Daly from also enthusisatically endorsing Obama for Pres. Meeks' church is not particularly friendly to gays but the church Obama actually goes to most definitely is.

I'd be willing to bet a cool $100 dollars that when Meeks decided support Obama for President he never quizzed Obama about how willing he would be to launch a preemptive strike at any foreign nations. In other words Meek's comments are of absolutely no significance to the policies Obama would pursue as President.

There is no doubt that Hagee's endorsement of McCain hinged on questions exactly like that, however. It has eveything to do with the foreign policy Hagee will expect McCain to uphold.

Again Hagee's endorsement matters to McCain as President quite a bit, Meeks for all intents and purposes matters to Obama's performance as President not one wit.

__________________
The Obama speech everyone is talking about. Watch it and decide for yourself.

Okay, okay. I get it. McCain accepts an endorsement, and it's the defining moment of his entire adult life.

Obama invites Meeks to be in commercials for his state Senate run and to be on his exploratory committee, speaks repeatedly at Meeks' church, picks the choir from Meeks' church to sing at his presidential announcement and tells a Sun-Times reporter he seeks spiritual counsel from Meeks. Clearly Obama barely knows Meeks at all.

Sean, you've convinced me. Anyone who suggests any kind of relationship between Meeks and Obama is a liar. Even if it's Obama who suggests it.

Now, about Obama and Emil Jones... oh, never mind.

You are good at feigning condescencion as a way to try and slip words into my mouth but you have 3 times failed to explain why Meeks support of Obama is a bad thing or anything other than a routine thing to be expected as two prominent Southside black politicians. Who cares about Meeks? Meeks did hinge his endorsement on a promise to support an agenda to start WWIII. Hagee did.

Here's again is a video from Hagee's CUFI conference made 6 months after McCain made a pitch for and recieved support from Hagee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

__________________
The Obama speech everyone is talking about. Watch it and decide for yourself.

I don't think I ever said Obama's relationship with Meeks was a bad thing. When did it become my responsibility to explain such a thing? I simply pointed out the relationship's long duration and Obama's habit of having Meeks around at key moments in his political career.

You said I was inaccurate to say Meeks was some kind of spiritual advisor to Obama because it suggested Obama was a follower of Meeks. When I provided a link to a Sun-Times story where the reporter said Obama called Meeks a spiritual counselor, you said that was inaccurate. You're saying the Sun-Times' religion writer, Meeks and Obama all have it wrong. In the face of that, what am I to do? Produce the reporter's notebook?

What do you want me to say about this Hagee character? I promise I'll never vote for him.

How about a politician who is "honored" to have Hagee's support because of their substantial agreement on Israel, including presumably a two-state solution on the Palestinian question or rather that such a solution should never come to pass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

__________________
The Obama speech everyone is talking about. Watch it and decide for yourself.

Sean, respond to this first, and then I'll say Hagee's a putz.

"Spiritual advisor" if it means Meeks is a political ally who is also a preacher and with whom Obama has been known to bow his head in prayer with as a form of non-denominational fellowship. Sure. Thats exactly what the article says. But "spiritual advisor" if it implies some sense of obedience to Meeks's church's teachings, nope, it ain't there, and thats why i take beef with the choice of words.

Again, I also don't think that McCain believes any of the hateful "religious" things Hagee spews like Katrina was God's wrath at New Orleans for allowing a "gay pride parade". I am deeply concerned however that McCain repeatedly gets confused about telling the Shiia from Sunni but has deliberately courted the support of a preacher who has called in no uncertain terms for a preemptive strike at Iran in order to urge on the Apocalypse. Hagee believes that McCain and he are in agreement on Middle East policy and he's come to that conclusion from meeting with McCain in person and interviewing on the subject.

So on the one hand we get McCain going out of his way to make promises to a guy who explicitly views Middle East politics in terms of the Book of Revelations and on the other hand we have McCain running specifically on his foreign policy "experience" who repeatedly mixes up the religious conflict underpinning the simmering civil war in Iraq.

In case any readers at home are confused like McCain, Iran is a Shiia religious state and is funneling aide to several Shiia factions - both those associated with anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr and those associated with Iranian inspired Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, part of Prime Minister Mailiki's ruling Shiite political bloc. Al Queda on the other hand are Sunni extremists and view Shiias as defilers of the true Muslim faith. The chief stumbling block to a stable government in Iraq is lack of political reconciliation between Sunni and Shiia factions, though more recently fighting between Shiia factions have come to the fore as well. If you need to understand one thing about the violence in Iraq, the Sunni-Shiia conflict should be it.

Nontheless McCain repeatedly mixes up Al Queda (Sunnis) with Iran (Shiias) - not just when Lieberman bails him out here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EetobKXQsr8

But then flubs it again when questioning Petraeus in the Senate here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdNKQ...eature=related

And then repeats the same mix-up again in a radio interview here.
And while we are talking about McCain and why he doesn't seem have half the foreign policy "expertise" he claims to, lets listen again to some of McCain's musical stylings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Yep, thats the guy I trust to be sane and level headed as the leader of the Free World.

__________________
The Obama speech everyone is talking about. Watch it and decide for yourself.

As long as we understand the choice of words wasn't mine; it was Obama's.

I've actually posted about this problem before. Congressional Quarterly did a story about Sylvestre Reyes, the Democrat who took over the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee when the Democrats won the majority. He didn't know the difference. It's not as if the situation was better when the GOP was in charge; his Republican predecessor didn't know the difference.

FBI counterterrorism officials didn't know the difference. (I once heard Susan Rice, a Middle East expert who advised Kerry and -- I think -- Obama, get Syria's alignment wrong.)

I've never heard any of the three presidential candidates say anything that suggested they understood how the Sunni-Shi'ite fault line affects events in the region; nor have I heard much in the way of understanding for the Turkish-Arabic-Persian division of the Islamic world in the Middle East.

(It's frustrating to imagine that the government could become far more competent in its dealings with that part of the world if people in charge of intelligence, members of Congress, Cabinet department leaders and candidates for president took just one weekend to read a book or two by Bernard Lewis.)

A pox on all their houses (except Lieberman's, I guess) until learn the basic facts we pay them so much to know.

At a time when it's most necessary, geography just isn't a strong suit among politicians. Obama thinks Kentucky is closer to Arkansas than it is to Illinois. If Obama, probably the most book-smart of the remaining major candidates, can't grasp his own state's placement in the map of the U.S., understanding the players in the Middle East will be a problem for years to come.

Oh, and as promised, Hagee's a putz.