Is anyone else sickened by the way the media implicitly condone the role racism and ignorance have and will play in this election?

We see countless reports, polls, and commentaries on how Obama will have problems convincing the ignorant to vote for him. We don't see many journalists sticking their necks out and condemning or exposing the ignorance. It's reported as being some unfortunate force Obama just has to deal with.

The press is like an irresponsible parent who tells their kid's 4th grade teacher that he or she just has to deal with the fact that little Johnny likes to take shits on the classroom floor. Our collective ignorance and racism isn't our problem, it's Obama's problem.

If only the Editor of Salon would stick her neck out and write an article about how Obama has lost millions of votes based on lies, mistaken beliefs, and Hillary's opportunistic exploitation of a class of people that doesn't know any better.

A candidate (or Editor) who had any character whatsoever would come to Obama's defense instead of using people's ignorance as a weapon against him.

Your post is a perfect illustration of institutionalized racism.

No, it is not racist to ask questions.

However, it IS racist to base those questions on implicit assumptions that do not apply to whites, such as the assumption that Ayers and Wright are "anti-American" and that Obama "shares these viewpoints" or that Obama's search for his father is somehow suspicious.

Your post displays an inherent mistrust of Obama, as if he is somehow hiding something nefarious that he will unleash on an unsuspecting public once elected. Nobody seems able to define what that nefarious "thing" is, but it's just ... there.

This is absurd. It is also racist. Elevating the importance of his associations far above the importance of Hillary and McCain's associations shows an inherent bias against radical blacks that does not exist against radical whites. People like Jerry Falwwell, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee are celebrated leaders of the white religious community and welcome in political spheres in a way that Jeremiah Wright could only dream of (except when he's being consulted in the wake of Monica Lewinsky by the Clintons).

Now calling someone racist is an ugly charge, and I'm not saying that you're even aware of the racist undertones of your post. I'm just saying it's a far more pervasive problem than most people realize, and one does not have to be a KKK member to be racist or display racist tendencies. We all do it to some degree, because it's been institutionalized.

This question goes out to anyone who thinks Obama's association with Wright is relevant.

First, an assumption: assume that Obama wholeheartedly agrees with everything Jeremiah Wright has ever said.

What exactly do you think the danger to the country is? I hear things like "judgment" or "character" being thrown about, but can anyone put some more flesh on that bone? How will his association with Wright, assuming it's relevant, affect Obama's decision making? What will Obama do that he otherwise would not have done but for Jeremiah Wright?

... 430+ letters in, 98% of which strongly disagree with her editorial (with the 2% support coming from clear GOP trolls like ProudTexasGirl and Cythera and other paranoid posters who can't really put their finger on it, but know something just ain't right about that Wright fella).

Are we all just kool-aid drinking Obamabots with nothing of substance to add? I don't think she can say that having read some of the more thoughtful and insightful posts that actually offer analysis instead of just biased feelings.

I mean, is she just happy to see all the traffic? Or is she really considering what many of these posters have so eloquently said?

It's rather ironic, that as devoid of reasoned analysis as Joan's editorial is, there is an abundance of reasoned analysis in the letters section. Had Joan's obtuse post not been written, none of these letters would exist. For that much, at least, I am thankful.

Students: Children, children,

Future, future.

Milhouse: Are you ready for the...

Students: ...children, whoa whoa whoa!

Lisa: The future is a...

Students: ...coming, hey hey hey!

Children, children,

Future, future

...

Students: Children, children,

Children are the future!

Kids!

I admit I haven't read every single letter, but I've read lots of them, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how exactly Wright's influence on Obama, whatever that is, is relevant.

The closest anyone can come is arguing the GOP will use it as a way to scare ignorant, racist voters in the general (duh), or that it somehow shows a lack of political expediency on Obama's part (which he freely admits), but those are not relevant to Wright's influence on Obama. Rather, those are just the obvious and expected political results of their being associated, and they stem from the type of ignorance and institutionalized racism that other posters have covered more than sufficiently.

I want to know how Wright's influence is relevant. And of course that assumes 1) there is influence; and 2) we have any way of knowing what that influence is. But because so many people seem to be concerned about it (not here, obviously, but in other spheres), I just want to see if someone can explain it.