You end with a great question. I can't answer it, really. But even though you are 100% correct that occasionally we even see kooky white preachers taken to task for nutty claims, I can't think of a time that the media than did a close examination of all the people in power who still were associating with those preachers. If it had been an election at the time Robertson said his comments, could we have expected the media to not only examine the nutty nature of his comments but to seriously begin questioning the viability of all the politicians who have praised him? I doubt it. But that doesn't matter to me.

To me the issue of why certain items are "sticking" and certain are not is secondary. I'm interested in where they are sticking and in what I can learn either about the stick or about other issues. Personally, I don't need to know more about Rev. Wright. It doesn't help me understand Barack as a president. Same with Hillary. I don't need a psychological analysis of the man she married. No matter how nutty Bill Clinton gets in this election and no matter how strongly I disagreed with some of his personal and political choices, it doesn't help me at all in knowing more about what affect Hillary might have on the country.

That is why I can get a bit frustrated. It is not that Joan doesn't say true things about Wright. She could very well be correct in her psychological assessment. With Joan my issue is that I disagree with fundamental assumptions about a journalists role in this primary. But I like her lots and will stick with her unless she makes fun of my nose, legs or intelligence.

And I really do get your point about the other issue; it is one thing for people to be upset and leave Salon over Joan. It is another thing if they actually expect Joan to write things that they agree with and justify their anger on that delusional basis. You make that point well.

Before we give Obama too much credit, let's at least spend a decent amount of time pointing out that there are still many serious questions in regards to Wright that should worry us about Obama. Obama is not Hillary. Hillary did not spend 20 years praising Wright. And notice this: Hillary has not done one thing that concerns us quite as much as Obama.

Not to mention Obama has never lived in the White House AND he can be perceived as elitist. If you take all that along with the fact that Obama has other weaknesses, I think it is our duty to make sure we don't just start talking about something other than Wright. Even people in the Obama trance must admit that we have a long way to go with this issue, as long as people keep talking about in on the news and blogging about it on the internet. We do have a responsibility to find out exactly what it means about Barack.

I'm trapped in my defense mechanism! I agree with you 100% about Obama's statement. You say to me:

"Carol, you're better than that. Give it a rest, and think about what he said."

Let me have one more defensive moment by pointing out that I've been saying those same words to you. I've been frustrated at what appears like a fixation on anything but what he says on so many subject. And then when you do focus on what he says you select careful parts that concern you or that seem a bit too smug or "talented" or....

I apologise for going too far in my sarcasm because it does go to far. But in the context of your blogs, I have this sense of being trapped inside your frame of reference in which I will always only be exposed to carefully selected worries about Barack. It is just a matter of degree. I think I've made it clear that I see Barack as a normal person with normal flaws. I know we can ampliphy his flaws, just as we can McCain or Hillary. But all that sort of focus is a problem to me and it points to a major problem within journalism. I am a Greenwaldian to the extent that I agree there is an important function of political journalism that can be easily justified away with concern and focus on "what practically matters."

Boy, that was more than one defensive statement on my part. I'm going to take some deep breaths and just watch the conversation, hoping that this heavy framing of the issues by shift...

Maybe you are right: perhaps this issue will finally shatter the narrative that Barack is a media superstar who has never been challenged. I thought that was proven false long ago, but this could be the end of that.

My bitter post was simply coming from my defeated hunch that as much as Republians might admire how Barack is now strongly denouncing Rev. Wright, they really are simply enjoying watching somebody on the ground. I have no doubt that Ms. Walsh really does feel sad about this issue. And I guess I just wish she hadn't cared so much about it in the first place, but hey, it is a big deal in the media and Joan has certain percieved responsibilities.