Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

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.