I'll grant you that it's certainly poor judgment, particularly if my hypothetical musing were true. This would mean that Obama hitched his wagon to someone without vetting him as a source that would hold up to scrutiny.

Still, I would consider this a political mistake, rather than one that would bear any real relevance to his capabilities as a leader/elected official. In my mind, unfortunately, the political game is almost completely divorced from actually running the country. That is, candidates are forced to do a dance to get into office that is only passingly relevant to being in office.

Something tells me that Obama (or anyone) would be a lot more careful about appointing people for this very reason. His inclusion of this man was an appeal to religious voters more than any endorsement of him for a real position. All politicians do this - McCain recently accepted an endorsement from some right wing idiot who called the Catholic Church "satan" and compared it to Hitler and the Nazis. A bone-headed political move in an attempt to pander, but ultimately irrelevant to his capacity to serve.

Vetting people as appointees is a different game than pandering to easily manipulated swaths of the voting public.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson