Readerreader: "1. On Wright, you ask, "What's the concern here?" The concern is: (1) does Obama share his flaky views -- anti-semitism, paranoid conspiracy theories; or (2) if he used Wright for political gain, then what are his real views?"

That is easy to answer. Obama does not share Wright's views, as he has said numerous things directly opposed to them.

Readerreader: "You suggest Obama has a mind of his own. I agree, but 20 years, attendance "every Sunday," and a $20,000 donation in 2007 suggests agreement. Or deception. Which do you think it was?"

False dichotomy there. But I'm glad you have conceded that Obama's exposure to a viewpoint does not mean he shares or endorses that viewpoint.

As for the $20,000 donation, was that to pad Rev. Wright's pocketbook, or for the community efforts put forth by the church?

Readerreader: "You ask: what about religious flakes "connected" to Republicans? You gotta do better than that. There's no connection like the Jeremiah connection."

I'll take that as a concession on your part. The religious connections to conservative politicians are myriad and go deep. If you don't know about them, then you're revealing yourself as ignorant.

Readerreader: "You say: the videos show no fainting or dancing. We must have seen different videos. I see emotionalism of the first order."

I saw the full 45-minute video in which Wright addressed 9/11. I specifically refute your claim that people fainted and were dancing in reference to a discussion of 9/11. Now you're downgrading your claim to "emotinalism." What an unrepentant bullshitter you are.

Readerreader: "By the way: as a Christian, I can't rule out that Wright's social gospel might, in some respects, be inspired. I am not God, and don't know."

Readerreader: "I simply want to know: did Obama agree with Wright, in his most histrionic moments, or was his support a sham?"

Since Obama has specifically expressed disagreement with many of Wright's views, the answer is that Obama did not agree with Wright's extreme statements. However, it is possible Obama agreed very much with other elements of the church and even some of Wright's other points. Try to imagine that Obama's personal opinions have some nuance and complexity to them, and there is no real dilemma here, other than the one that you wish to fabricate to suit a political agenda.

Readerreader: "If memory serves, he was with her at the campaign event in South Carolina where she discussed the Second Coming prophecies and proclaimed him "The One." If I were a politician, I would expressly disclaim such praise."

I do not know exactly what event that was or exactly what was said. But if this is the best you've got against Obama, your case is weak. It's possible that Oprah got hyperbolic. It's also possible that Obama didn't want to embarrass her by calling her out.

Readerreader: "Recall, it was the Roman emperor Vespasian who declined the honor of becoming a pagan god. Obama should have done the same."

In that case, maybe Sarah Palin should have come to these message boards to personally tell you to shut up?

Readerreader: "3. You ask about "studies" on entertainment. I don't remember what they were. I do recall reading that in Johnny Carson's era, the jokes in election years ran 1:1, and in recent elections, the ratio was never more than 2:1 in either direction."

I suppose next you'll tell us Obama should personally raise Johnny Carson from the dead so Carson can make jokes about him?

Readerreader: "I don't want to be too critical here, in terms of labeling accusations. Obama clearly netted $75,000 from Rezko, and he admits he knew Tony was under investigation for corrupting public officials at the time."

I'll agree to continue this discussion if you'll agree to harshly criticize every modern right-wing politician who has ever taken a political contribution from a questionable source.

Readerreader: "5. I've typed up Bill A.'s name two ways -- both can be found on google, and I don't know which is right. Sorry to disturb you with the inconsistency."

It's Ayers. Since you're so keen to harp on him at every opportunity, spelling the name right is the least you can do.

Readerreader: "You suggest this sort of thing is mere youthful exuberance. I disagree. I think it's troublesome, in terms of accepting political patronage. Also, the actions ascribed to the W.U. fit the definition of domestic terrorism under the U.S. penal code."

If there were any indication that Ayers were anything like the person he was in 1970, then it might be a problem. Instead it's feeble trivia. The connection between Obama and Ayers has never been proven to be particularly strong anyway.

Readerreader: "As for the school thing, I will say it again. It's creepy, because Obama -- the man who stood on the stage with Oprah when she effectively proclaimed him a god -- now wants to adorn not only the billboards of every urban area (though in fairness, his image is not yet on the Recovery Act signs), but class room television screens as well. It's vanity run amok. We don't need it."

So you're against the addresses that Reagan and Bush made to students, right? Yes or no.

Readerreader: "I also noted that it doesn't bother me, in terms of the "freak out" factor. I don't think it will hurt children. It's just annoying."

I see. So first it's "vanity run amok." Then it's "just annoying." Either way, you're left conceding that there's no real substance to the people opposing Obama here.

Readerreader: "And finally, I think it's fine Republicans do this sort of thing to Obama, in terms of feigning outrage over his "socialist indoctrination.""

I see -- so you think it's okay to lie. You just admitted it, in the same message where you proclaim yourself a Christian.

Nice.