NYT: Talking about a candidates religion is racist but only if that candidate is Obama

Just last week the media and Democratic operatives went crazy at the idea that a GOP Super PAC was going to run ads highlighting President Obama's 20 year association with Rev. Wright.

It would put "race front and center" claimed NBC, the NYT termed it "racial politics, 2012 style." Even Obama's own campaign claimed that to talk about Obama sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years as he said things like "God Damn America" was racist and therefore off limits.
Surely Mitt Romney's religious background should be off limits, right? Wrong.

It goes on for 4 pages and then the "reporter" went on MSNBC to talk about how much of a hypocrite Romney is for engaging in political attacks.

"The way I reported the story is I really talked to members of the LDS church who are close to Romney, who have worshiped with him over the years, who really know him. And they see one conflict in particular, which is between the kind of ideals that Romney professed in church. He put a lot of emphasis on treating other people well, on being sensitive and respectful, on being generous and giving, talked a lot about Jesus' lessons in those manner. And yet these Mormons see the way Romney is carrying out political attacks, some of which are very harsh and they see a conflict between what he taught in church and what he does on the campaign trail," Kantor said.

My question is why exactly is Romney's religious history fair game but Obama's is verboten? Enough with the double standard bull. Either Obama's 20 year friendship and church membership in a church that preached black liberation theology is fair game for political attacks or Romney's Mormon roots are not.