Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

Well Karma is a funny thing isn't it? Weeks after Clinton "went there" by claiming that Jeremiah Wright "wouldnt be her pastor." She is forced to kick Mark Penn, one of the most powerful strategists in the Clinton campaign out of her inner circle.

Why?

Because recently held talks with the Colombian government as CEO of a lobbying firm paid 300,000 by the Colombian government to assist the passage of a "free trade" deal with the U.S. Federal government. The problem? Clinton is on record opposing the deal. Whether she actually thinks the deal is a bad idea in this election she has been forced to take this position in her attempt to appeal to working class voters in rust belt states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Now over the last month there has been a debate on this board about the role of Rev. Wright and "guilt by association." But what do you think voters in states directly effected by these kinds of trade deals should consider more. The offensive words of Barack Obama's former spiritual advisor? Or the long standing paid relationship between Mark Penn and Clinton?

Clearly people know what I think, but I'm curious as to the strongest anti-Wright folks which they think is worse. And how would you make a decision if these were the only two criteria you'd use.

Usual disclaimers about staying on topic and not being jerks