The Right asserts that Obama is responsible for the words/actions of Wright. That his attendance of that church indicates that Obama fully supports everything that Wright says and does. Should Palin be held to the same standard of judgement regarding the AIP and other "fringe" groups to which she is now being tied? Are these similar circumstances, or are they different? I argue that the circumstances are similar, and both people should be judged by the same rules.

Wright has a history of extreme racial views. That is a fact. He also has a history of great social service. That is a fact, too. One can't take a single fact and make a blanket judgement - you have to consider the whole and do it in context. You have to consider his history, what he went through in life, and use empathy to gain an understanding of the motives behind the extremes. I can see how Wright developed such extreme racial views: he lived through some very bad times for his race. Knowing the source doesn't offer an excuse, though. And I don't offer any excuses for it.

Obama attended Wrights church for a long period of time. That is a fact. However, in everything that Obama has done, written, and said you will find no indication of the extreme racial views of Wright. From what I have seen, Obama has taken the extreme racial views offered by Wright, along with the great social services and messages, and integrated them into a far more complex, empathetic understanding of race in our culture (I believe that most Obama supporters view it this way). This is evident in everything he has said. If there is some evidence that contradicts this, other than "Obama attended Wrights church", then I would like to see it.

Using unabashed cynicism you can suspect that a person silently belongs to an offensive organization, believing and supporting the agenda of that organization privately, while publicly offering a different face. We have all been giving plenty of reason to sink to such levels of cynicism. Personally, I don't believe this about Obama. His words and actions eroded my initial doubts about him and so far he hasn't really done anything to severely damage it. I might be wrong, though.

The same rules of forming an opinion based on facts, history, circumstance, empathy, and personal actions/words must also be applied to Palin. Time may prove these things wrong, but the facts look to be that she attended/supported AIP and other "fringe" organizations in some form. However, that is not enough to condemn her to holding the same views. She could have been using the experiences to further her world view, to balance it, empathize, to attempt to understand and put in a broader context things she experienced. We know some of the facts but what about the rest of it?

I now hear The Right making the same arguments in defense of Palin/AIP that were made in defense of Obama/Wright. And I see The Left pouncing on this just like the The Right did.  I'm just concerned that The Left won't play fair like they demanded of The Right.