Guilt by association vs. Judging Ability

While I agree much of the criticism against Senator Obama remains based in the fallacy of 'guilt by association,' I also do not think that defense alone wholly precludes the legitimacy criticism of his association with Pastor Wright: not because it would be appropriate to assume Obama believes as Wright does with his controversial statements, it would not, but because there does appear to be unresolved, or unresolvable, questions about Obama's judgement. Perhaps the strongest question from this: If confronted with something unequivocably offensive, would Obama be quick and forceful in his condemnation, even against wise or foolish council.

But, on the matter of judgement, it is Senator McCain whom disturbs me most.

People shall debate how over zealous and vitriolic the statements are of the religious persons who are in some ways affiliated with the McCain and Obama campaigns, but to have heard that McCain's argument against a comparison of his situation with Parsley to that of Obama's with Wright, is based in large part on McCain admitting virtually full ignorance of Parsley's preachings, sermons, what have you, and having met him only a few times, whereas Obama at least knew Wright well (knowing, though, that complete understanding of others is difficult to impossible), is a worse case of judgement than the supposed blindness or denial that Obama could be accused of. At least Obama's apparent mistake is analogous to hiring a relative you knew well but over estimated. McCain's error seems like one of a panderer who did not know well his partner, and who acted with political expedience.