One final point: Some of the dirty tricks in his Mississippi election, with strings pulled from hundreds of miles away, reminds me of what can happen in elections today. It's got to be pretty frustrating to be, say, Barack Obama, and get blamed for the views of a fire-and-brimstone preacher you've listened to over the years.I’ll briefly point out that this is a hypocritical stance for King, who often criticizes teams for taking “bad character” guys on the grounds that they’ll corrupt teammates and spoil locker room chemistry.
Moreover, let’s be realistic here: this isn’t some guy that Obama happened to hear one and off; this is a minister that Obama sought out, joined with, took as counselor, allowed to marry him, and had his children baptized by.
Big difference from somebody that “you’ve listened to over the years.” I look at it like this:
If a song comes on the radio while you’re driving in the car, it means nothing.
If you’re listening to a song on CD in your car, it means you like it.
If the song is in your CD player, and you gave copies of the song to everyone in your family, it means it’s your favorite song.
Which analogy more closely parallels Wright and Obama?
If King doesn’t think Wright’s comments are a big deal, then say so. If King thinks we should vote for Barack regardless of what Wright thinks, then say so. If King doesn’t like Hillary Clinton, then say so.
But the “nothing to see here” defense? It’s lame and pathetic. I would say I expect more of Peter King, but I really don’t.