OK, Buckwheat, it goes like this:
The supposed "relationships" between Obama and the list of people you cite are trivial and based on living in Chicago, working for the betterment of poor people who the system only begrudgingly provides services to - like education of their children and employing their youth. Obama has made it clear none of them play any role in his campaign and none will play a role in his administration. You seem offended because he didn't shit on them while he was working with them.
Please note that Obama, unlike you "simple people wallowing in your own misery" caused by the realization that the President of the United States is going to be a high yaller, feels no compunction to run around calling people names or offending them or writing them off as humans (or shitting on them) because he has a different opinion than they do even if the subject is serious, and especially if they are effective at performing a task that has a positive effect on society (you know, improving the general welfare of the nation). And, this is especially true of leaders of groups of such people, considering the world is made up of people Obama (and any politician really) knows likely don't agree with him on many subjects. All because, when you need to get a consensus to unite people to get a job done it is more effective to have such leaders lead their groups instead of having to address each and every faction's individual constituents, and convince them to follow you and abandon their leader of some time. There just isn't enough time to run that path, so to be effective you have to recognize what a relationship based on decency with the leaders you need on your side can get you. Hold that thought - decency - not calling the leader of what is likely the majority of Americans shortly a "socialist" or "anarchist" or "pal of the terrorists" in a campaign that, if you should succeed in winning , you will have a major portion of the population ideologically opposed to you for your lack of decency when the chips were down.
But, hey, you have your gun and hell, if someone stands in your way you fix that by just threatening them, or figuring they were not god fearin' true Americans and shooting them, right? Problem solved, right?
One point, two facets: I disagree that consensus building should be the primary trait we seek in our leaders. In fact, what Obama exudes as the ability to lead, has its roots in the ability to hear people and make informed, defensible decisions. One builds consensus by implicitly recusing themselves from having an opinion. A leader persuades and inspires others to their vision.
You have struck a nerve here. This ends up highlighting exactly why the McCain campaign has been run the way it is, or at least the mentality behind it.
Obama, like most of the great leaders of our time, has the ability to listen to other's opinions and input without succumbing to them. In other words, he's no mental midget. Unlike the neo-nazi right wingers (as even the staunchest and wealthiest of Republicans I talk to anymore refer to them), he can hear an idea, evaluate it for what it is, and decide to agree or disagree with it depending on how it matches up with HIS values.
I can't help but think the more intelligent you are, the harder it is for others to manipulate your thoughts. And perhaps that's a sword that can be used against me. The more intelligent you are, the easier it is for one to analyze and evaluate the opinions of others. The dumber you are, the harder it is, and the person who is self-conscious about their intellect will almost always defer to the smartest people around them.
Look at McCain (Phil Gramm?) and Obama (Wright, Ayers) through that lens and see what you come up with. One abdicates all thought on that which he doesn't understand, which isn't much, to someone else; the other understands broadly and deeply, and respectfully
The McCain campaign has been built almost entirely on tearing down Obama by way of his relationships, because in his world of dunderheads, you are strongly influenced by the people around you - especially those who are smarter.
This may in fact explain quite a bit of what's been going on in America as it pertains to the election. If those among us who are actually intelligent ever needed a better reason to focus on the importance of public education, I can't imagine it not being the analysis of this election.