As I say, I'm not defending the Catholic church, I'm defending historical method.

If we, as liberals, say education matters, then it should matter.

Muddled thinking, prejudice, and the like should be checked.

Many of us bemoan the fact that Americans suffer from historical amnesia or worse, have no grasp of history in the first place and that this leads to poor political decisions.

I'm just saying that making facile assertions about the CAtholic church's historical role is an ignorant thing to do. It's grounded in prejudice and a very superficial understanding of history.

Ok, that's enough from me. I don't mean to preach, but honestly, it's hard not to. History should not be peddled as snake oil is my only point.

Thank you, David. I have nothing really to say other than to thank you for paying homage to the complexity of things.

That's all I'm asking for.

I've not reached the end of your essay yet, but I have to ask about this:

And I'm on the left. I know huge chunks of it are true. But Wright casts his critique in such an extreme way that the possibility of redemption, the evidence that America can and has and will change for the better, is never considered. Wright preaches a deadly kind of "blame America" politics that many on the left have tried to move away from since the 70s. And it could be especially deadly for Obama

See, Joan, this is what I mean about your violating the sacred trust of your position.

Why do you not use this opportunity to point out that, in fact, Obama's central critique of Wright's sermon lay in precisely this failure to recognize that America can change?

Obama said the chief error was Wright's implication that America is static.

So when you say, "it could be especially deadly for Obama," one has to wonder why you don't practice journalism here by adding something like, "But it really shouldn't be, because this is precisely the part of Wright's argument that Obama explicitly rejected."

This would be responsible, honest writing.

As it is, you validate this specious argument by failing to point out that you and Obama actually agree here.

It may be true that Wright never considers the possibility that America can change, but Obama has addressed this already! Why, then, do you encourage the misperception that Obama is somehow endorsing this "static view" of America?

Really, why?

Right on, brother!

You have to admit that if Barack does lose we can sadly point to the Wright issue and say things like, "Well, back in the primary we knew that Barack wasn't perfect and we even had examples of his weaknesses right before out eyes. I guess too many people thought that the election was just about getting a great speaker in office and didn't care about the years of experience and vetting that Clinton was offering us."

Sorry, I just have to say you slay me, Carol.

I'm talking deep belly laughs.

Thank you for the correction, Joan. It's much appreciated, sincerely.

Nevertheless, I'll just go on the record as saying that, having finished the essay, I find it exasperating, basically for the various reasons effectively articulated by a bunch (most?) of the other commenters here.

I so appreciate your setting the record straight regarding Obama's critique of Wright's premise. That counts for something.

You're falling into exactly the same trap that both Joan and Obama have ascribed to Wright, namely, that America is static.

You write that, while you're not particularly concerned about the association, others will be: "What people don't seem to understand is that Wright may have a substantial effect upon the General Election."

This story hasn't been written yet, AKA! Why not fight to assure that it will not have such an effect in the general election? Whether it has an effect or not will depend largely upon the conversation we have now, will it not?

Is America so static that we can't have an honest conversation about this? Why do not we, as liberals, work to argue that this is a non-issue rather than conceding so much ground?

How does one ever change the status quo if one refuses to stick one's neck out? Why not work on refining our arguments and making them resonant for why this is a non-issue?

This is the problem with inordinate focus on "electability." We think more about what other people will say and and up championing their cause not because we believe it ourselves, but because we fear their arguments? Because we presume their minds can never be changed because they are static, so the best we can do is pander to their prejudices and ignorance?

Is that not a profoundly patronizing position, to treat the electorate like spoiled infants who need to be placated rather than to take a stand on something of import?

If you believe Wright is a problem, fine, make your case.

But don't hide behind your general impression of how a certain market demographic thinks and acts.