In the real world–not the campaign world, where intentionally misleading responses are tolerated [i.e. Obama’s age at the time of the Ayers bombings is given, when the question of why he would associate with an unrepentant terrorist clearly has nothing to do with the actual bombings themselves]–In the real world, US Congressman Jerrold Nadler struggles to give a believable answer to a constituent.

So why would Obama tolerate a Rev Wright for 20 years? He lacked ‘political courage, guesses Nadler. His constituent then puts it more accurately, ‘he lacked the balls.’ When your best case scenario is that your likely next president lacks ‘political courage’ [refusal to release college records, Ayers, Rev Wright, Acorn, etc], then citizens who don’t drink the Kool-Aid have someone they do not trust in the White House.

When you add insult [giving his age at time of bombings] to injury [lack of trust], you have new president with an extremely motivated opposition. In practical terms, it means that Obama’s political calculation factored in the potential damage which could result from his lying, and decided that they paled in comparison to getting elected–a rational calculation if the media is in your pocket.

The challenge for the rest of us is to make the lies so damaging, in terms of an unforgiving political opposition, that the 2012 candidates factor in the ramifications of such an intense opposition into their, ‘lie or don’t lie political calculus.’ Again, in practical terms, our political duty is to echo the words of Michael Buffer….

Video link to US Rep Jerrold Nadler responding to constituent.