Based on this what other conclusion can you draw? He must have been happy with the doctrine and minister of his church for 20 years or he would have fired them right? I guess neither made him uncomfortable. At least until he began drawing criticism over them.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-i-would-have-fired-mark-penn-too/
" I think it was surprising to me that a high-ranking, if not the highest-ranking, member of Senator Clinton’s team would be engaged in business activities and lobbying that was directly contrary to the position Senator Clinton had taken,” Obama said Friday.
“Let me put it this way: I’m not surprised that Senator Clinton found herself in an uncomfortable position as a consequence. And I know that if staff of mine were putting me in that kind of position, I would get rid of them.”
As usual you can't seperate your pre-conceived notion from the facts.
Disagreement with a pastor or priest is not the same as your campaign director taking 300,000 $ from Colombia, and lobbying for free trade with that nation, while you, Sen. Clinton, espouse a policy of negotiating no new free trade positions. It's called "conflict of interest".
Obama's Reverand is not his campaign manager. He had no position in Obama's staff. He was simply an "advisor". Meaning, you can take his advice or leave his advice. In the notion of race, Obama left his advice there. As well, someone with a white grandmother (Obama), I would think, would have serious issues with the race question you bring up. For Obama to be racist would mean he would have to turn his back on his family.
Penn, was paid to manage Clinton's campaign. And paid to Lobby for free trade with Colombia. Seems pretty distinct to me. We obviously don't have to agree with everyone around us... family, friends, pastors. But I think we should agree with the person who manages our livelihood... As did Mr. Penn with Sen. Clinton.
Your attempt to obfuscate the issue is noted.
