"In my opinion, Jeremiah Wright is no Martin Luther King Jr., and I'm just not going to play along with that. Wright is a provocateur and a sabateur(sic) of race relations, in my opinion, and you can disagree with me, but don't call me stupid about it. I'm sorry you're disappointed in my "limited intellectual scope," but your post really makes me worry about yours."

Are you really worried about his intellectual scope, or are you taking a cheap shot at him? I suspect the latter. One might take your original complaint about Obama supporters and turn it around against Hillary supporters such as yourself.

But then one would be termed an insult troll and dismissed. Must mind one's table manners around here, I guess.

As far as terming Jeremiah Wright as "no Martin Luther King Jr", may I be permitted a small "duh"? I don't believe anyone has credibly tried to equate King and Wright. All that was pointed out is that Wright's sporadic expressions of anger and outrage at race relations in America have an echo in similar expressions of anger from Dr. King.

That Wright does not possess the ability of Dr. King to rise above and transcend that anger doesn't make him a monster. It simply makes him human. Barack Obama said as much in his original speech on race in Philadelphia.

That Jeremiah Wright couldn't resist the temptation to take a turn on the grandstand at the National Press Club (encouraged by a prominent Clinton supporter) makes him a little sad at this point in his life. The spotlight has attracted Rev. Wright like a moth, and Barack has had to create greater separation.

Wright is also a man who rose far above his original station, who tended medically to one President (Johnson) and was seen fit to pray intimately with another (Bill Clinton). His church has powerful programs to lift and enable his congregation, and Wright's ideas, while sometimes controversial and provocative, are also powerful and honest. I don't have any trouble forgiving some missteps over three decades of passionate sermons. This man is far more than 'a provocateur and a saboteur of race relations'. To categorize him as such is either disingenuous rhetoric, or, pardon my saying so, indicative of simplistic and shallow reasoning.

I might not want Jeremiah Wright as my main mentor and chief of staff, but it doesn't hurt to have him shaking folks out of their comfortable pretensions every Sunday. A little fire and brimstone can be wonderfully cleansing to an elitist palate. Barack Obama has said again and again that he wants to hear from everyone, not just the people he agrees with.

I think Obama has always valued Rev. Wright as the occasional dope-slap that keep him from forgetting where and who he came from. It is perhaps less appropriate for a presidential candidate to accept such dope-slaps, and it is probably best that they have ended. But that Barack had the authenticity and honesty to keep putting himself in front of that firehose of unfiltered emotion and attitude inspires me to nothing but respect.

To see an editor clinging to a former counselor's isolated sound-bytes and a less than politic public appearance in order to denigrate the character of a complex and nuanced politician like Obama inspires me to an entirely different emotion.

No kidding. As a parent of a 9 year-old who is about to turn 10, I am shocked and amazed at the horrible crap my peers allow their similarly aged children to be exposed to.

On the freakin' Disney channel!

Little girls dressed up like tarts, in outfits designed to arouse sexual desire in grown men. What is possibly right about that?

I never let my kids watch TV alone, we always talk about what commercials are trying to do (shorthand; "Commercials are designed to make you buy things you don't need").

And we stay away from the current mass marketing media. It is unbelievable and disturbing and distorting. And most of the worst stuff is aimed at little girls and their self image (boys are apparently just supposed to blow stuff up or ram cars into it).

We're in a sick culture. Thanks to Gigi Durham, Katharine Mieszkowski and Salon for shedding a little light into the roachpit.

What a hack.

Clinton triangulated back toward Reagan/Bush and lost Congress for the Democrats. He failed on Health Care, and gave away a lot on trade policy, welfare, regulating financial institutions, and media consolidation.

His 'success' had a lot to do with following a pair of malicious clowns into office. Basic competence went a long way after Ronnie Raygun and George Bush Sr.

Clinton did use Congress to right our fiscal policies with a tax hike, and avoided stupid foreign adventurism. But both of those advances, along with basic good government, are core Democratic principles.

I'll take Obama any day, thank you very much, Mr Juvenile.

"Any Obama OR Clinton supporters who stay out of the Fall elections out of a "Joe Lieberman" style bitterness will get the kind of presidency (Bush III) they may deserve, but the rest of America does not."

Very nicely put. Couldn't agree more, except that I prefer Obama.

Looking forward to being on the same team with you in just a little while.