Barack Obama has been criticized by campaign rivals and members of the press for associating with the "wrong" kind of people.  There was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made some unfortunate remarks that, taken out of context, were made to sound much worse than they really were.  Obama denounced the offending remarks of his former pastor, but did not completely disown his association with him.   There was Tony Rezko, a wealthy former contributor who is currently in trouble with the law, but not for anything having to do with Obama.  Most recently, there is Bill Ayers, who set off a few bombs forty years ago, when Barack Obama was a small child, but who is now a professor who has behaved respectably for many years.  In all these cases, there has been no hint of wrongdoing on the part of Senator Obama - only that he has connections that could be used to embarrass him.  In the most recent example, Bill Ayers' wrongful acts occurred decades before he knew Barack Obama.   

I do not believe that any public official or candidate should be branded with any dishonorable label, just because they know somebody who said or did something wrong at some point.  If that is the standard, however, let's apply it to all the candidates. 

Hillary Clinton has recently been endorsed by Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire publisher and owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.   In the 1990's, Mr. Scaife spent many millions of dollars to dig up whatever dirt he could get on both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  If there was truly the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton used to complain about, its biggest bankroller was Richard Mellon Scaife.  So Mr. Scaife has now endorsed Hillary Clinton.  What was Mrs. Clinton's reaction?  She admitted to being surprised, but said that she does "believe in redemption" and she figures that this may be an example of that.  In other words, she believes in redemption for enemies that come around to supporting her (and his motives could very well be based on the belief that she would be the easier candidate for McCain to defeat in November), but apparently not for young 1960's radicals who settle down in middle age to a respectable teaching career. 

Senator McCain has welcomed the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee, a televangelist who preaches what are arguably hate-filled messages.  According to Rev. Hagee, Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment against New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God."  He also has had colorful rants against Catholics and Muslims.  Nobody believes that Senator McCain shares the sentiments of Rev. Hagee, but he is glad to accept the endorsement because he figures it will help turn out the right wing evangelicals who have not entirely warmed up to Senator McCain. 

Again, Senator McCain and Senator Clinton should not be assumed to share the political views of all of their high profile endorsers, but their campaigns - especially that of Senator Clinton - are trying to impugn the patriotism of Senator Obama because he knows some people (who have not necessarily endorsed him) who have said or done some things that don't look good.  It is understandable that we ordinary citizens will skew the picture, perhaps unconsciously, in favor of the candidate we prefer.  For members of the press, such as those two jackals on ABC last week, that is inexcusable.  The same standard, regarding possibly embarrassing associations, should apply to all of the candidates.