Double Standard?

I'm really getting upset over all the uproar and outrage over Barack Obama's relationship with his pastor.

First of all, as Washington Post editorial board member Colby King eloquently points out, you don't get to choose the cantor when you join a place of worship -- you only get to chose the place of worship itself.  [Normally the first reason for joining a particular place of worship are the actually beliefs of the place of worship, then the place's proximity to where you live, then your friends at the place of worship, and finally the cantor.]  As a reform Jew, I choose to join and go to reform Jewish services; the rabbi is secondary to me.  My mother, who practiced orthodox Judaism, and my father, who practices reform Judaism, choose to join a conservative synagogue; the rabbi is secondary to them.

Which gets me to my point.  If the press is going to criticize Barack Obama for belonging to the church he did for 20 years, how come the press never said anything about a candidate (yeah, I'm talking about you, Joe Lieberman) who has belonged for over 20 years to a synagogue where not only are men segegreated from women, but women are forced to sit in the back to the point where they cannot see the rabbi?  Does the press not see a problem with that?  In other words, if the public believes that where Barack Obama goes to church disqualifies him from being President, how the heck can Joe Lieberman or any other candidate belonging to a place of worship with such barbaric views be qualified to be President?

Double standard?  Will someone please explain to me why this isn't a double standard?