All religious leaders are crazy to some degree. All of them believe in ridiculous fairy tales to some degree. To elevate the importance or scariness of Obama's former pastor's crazy statements over the crazy statements made by every other politician's pastor/priest/rabbi/reverend, etc., while simultaneously ignoring the good Wright has done, is a glorious example of institutional racism.

Now, you can take the position that you know this, but voters' opinons are shaped by institutional racism, and that's why it's so damaging to Obama every time Wright opens his mouth. But that doesn't seem to be the position you're taking. You seem to be actually agreeing with the masses that for whatever reason (gee, what could it be?), anything Wright says deserves extra special scrutiny, and deserves to be automatically impugned upon Obama.

I mean, how dare Wright come out and try to defend himself against the what could be the most vicious smear campaign ever leveled at an American religious leader. How dare he ask us to think about the atrocities we've sponsored instead of waving the flag and pretending everything's A-OK!

All of us Obamabots who are incapable of accepting any criticism of our messiah are real, and from the sheer volume of letter, are many!

We don't distinguish between valid and invalid criticism. Any criticism of Obama is invalid in our books! We don't look deeper into the issues and actually analyze not only what is going on, but why it's going on. Nope, we just jerk our knees and start aggressive letter-writing campaigns against anyone who criticizes Obama. We're quite organized, as you can see (btw, Carol & brunnhilde, what are you bringing to tonight's potluck?)

Thank goodness for observant people like you to call us out for our blatant messiah-worship.

I admit I'm one of the most awful of awful Obama supporters. I'm extraordinarily elitist, I don't even own a flag pin, and I'm convinced that anyone who even thinks about supporting Hillary is evil incarnate. Although that should have been clear from my letters ... I'm a little embarrassed that you had to ask.

Guilty as charged! You forgot to mention that I'm actually a secret terrorist that is poised to help Obama invoke sharia law when he's elected, that I throw my grandmother under buses when given the chance (literally - I threw her under the 68 Express last week), and that not only does my wife hate America with the white-hot intensity of 1000 suns, she wrote her thesis on the same topic!

I guess I should also admit that for someone who refuses to accept Barack Obama as the one true infallible lord and savior of the American people, and for someone who has this half-cocked idea of only focusing on his weaknesses (as if there were any), you seem pretty likeable as well. Clever, even.

Maybe if you were a little more "balanced" in your weakness/strength comparisons, and I was a little more "balanced" in my unmitigated love for all things Obama (My $1,000,000 bid for his half-eaten waffles on E-Bay was rejected - insufficient funds), maybe we could find some common ground.

You're right, what the hell was I thinking?

I don't want to live in a world where people admit they don't know everything - talk about projecting weakness! And anyone who pretends not to know EXACTLY what will happen in November, well I have a bridge I'd like to buy from you.

Why don't you just go back to Weaknessville - I have better things to do, like go buy another gross of votives to spread about the Obamashrine in my bedroom. I just added a new feature - every time you pull on one of his papier-mache ears, a different platitude comes out of his mouth.

I can only HOPE you will CHANGE and admit that YES WE CAN.

Pronunciation:

äb-ˈse-shən, əb-

Function:

noun

Date:

1680

1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation

Synonyms: fetish, fixation, mania

What are you really trying to accomplish with this latest posting, Joan? I'm serious.

No new information or insight is presented - it instead reads like a giant middle finger extended to the hundreds of letter writers that disagreed with you the first time around. Which would be fine, if you weren't the Editor of such a respected liberal media outlet.

Xrandadu made a brilliant post. It's clear to anyone with eyes and ears that Jeremiah Wright is an important issue in this election. We don't need you to tell us that - we can see that by skimming the dipshits on cable news every night.

We come here for real analysis - the second question Xrandadu posted - SHOULD Jeremiah Wright be an issue? You gloss over this most important part of the controversy like Hillary glossing over the National Intelligence Estimate before voting for war (rim shot!).

Do you really think you know why Obama stayed with the church and did not drop it like a bad habit the moment he recognized it could be a political liability for him? Do you really think the politically expedient thing to do is always synonymous with the right thing to do?

Did your parents never tell you that what's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular?

Because what you seem to be suggesting is that once someone becomes a national political figure, the vapid shallow pretense of national politics demands that one immediately ditch any associates of theirs who could be considered a liability.

It's no wonder we elect leaders with such paper-thin character. Only the most phenomenally skilled bullshitting snake-oil slinger is able to pass our national test - someone who wouldn't think twice about getting rid of a troubled acquaintance, like Vince Foster perhaps.