This is the guy we're nominating?

Seriously?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina's Republican Party of being "out of touch with reality" over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as "too extreme" because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

To begin with, I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be so wrong bout highlighting some of Wright's most offensive statements and saying that Obama, who calls this man his mentor and set in the pews listening to him for 20 YEARS might be too radical.

The only possible argument I can think of is that it's not fair to judge him for things other people said. In many cases, that's true. But if you've known someone for 20 years and never spoken up (until you decided to run for President) about the bile they're spilling in public on a regular basis you're either hopelessly blind and/or craven or you share their views.

What's so wrong about calling attention to this?

And what is this supposed to mean?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina's Republican Party of being "out of touch with reality" over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as "too extreme" because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable," McCain told NBC's "Today" Show.

There's no real indication here as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess these guys were somehow above using the idea that associates can impugn someone's character. He prefers impugning people for old fashioned reasons, like disagreeing with him.

How did you nominate a guy who's vicious to those on his own side and protects his opponents like they were defenseless babies.