Do all candidates neglect to probe their campaign advisors' views before bringing them on board?

Of course, I don't believe Obama for a hot minute -- of course he knew Wright's views before bringing him on board as a campaign advisor.





But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it means that he makes reckless decisions without researching them first -- which makes him unfit to be President.





.Do all candidates neglect to probe their campaign advisors' views before bringing them on board?
They know, they just don't think they will get caught. Dhimmicrats still think they are protected by the leftist monopoly on the media, but they are slowly learning it no longer exists.





Thank you God for the Internet. We know Algore claimed it, but we know better.Do all candidates neglect to probe their campaign advisors' views before bringing them on board?
Another Clinton supporter I assume..... Has Clinton not probed her advisors before bringing them on.





She's had one advisor state.. Obama is only winning because he's black';





Another stated '; Hispanics won't vote for blacks';





Another stated: ';Obama won't win the south because many whites aren't ready for a black president';
Oh hey you can't say that.....you must be racist.
How is it possible that going to his church for 20 yrs he never knew?


He never heard from the other parishioners about it?


He never saw the videos or cassette tapes of it for sale in the lobby?


He never read the Church papers about the church he was attending?


In all the mentoring he received from Wright he never heard this?


He hasn`t heard on the news for the last year that his church had a problem?


Give me a break, please.





Either an Oscar winning Lier or to stupid to be President.
Yes...they tend to have a good understanding. The problem with both Dem campaigns right now is they've not been strict enough enforcing the rules about what messages are pushed and how they're pushed.





If you look at the UK election in 1997 and the 2007 election in Australia, you'll find the winning campaigns (neither of whom were incumbent governments) had very few occasions arise where anyone authorised to speak spoke 'off message' and anyone not authorised to speak spoke at all. Both campaigns were a model of consistency of approach.





You can't do anything about those outside a campaign. They say what they say, and you just hope it's not too damaging. Even if it is potentially damaging, the key is to stay on message.





The harder issue is dealing with the errant comments of those entrusted with managing information. If they can't be held in check...you're screwed.
How much did Clinton pay you? You could never see the truth even if it hits you smack in the face..you would still be doodling in doodoo. Do you know what a dodo bird is? I advise you to go find out first. Some folks might be wasting thier time answering your questions.