Joan is very astute in pointing out that Barack's kooky preacher and his kooky statements are VERY SCARY because, well, we're not exactly sure why. Something about his blackness or something - not important. What is important is that Reverend Wright says KOOKY things, and to top it all off, he's BLACK!!!

We do know that a savvy snake-in-the-grass politician would have tossed Wright out the back door and pretended to never know him once it became clear that Wright could be a political liability. So maybe Barack isn't such a savvy snake-in-the-grass politician. Clearly he isn't ready to be president. That post is reserved for the most slithering of snakes-in-the-grass, people who have their political liabilities "taken care of" well before they can cause damage in a race. Either that, or the person running for president has no political liabilities, and has never been connected to anyone who could be deemed "controversial". Certainly Hillary and McCain fall into one of these two categories. Either way, both of them are far more professional at "eliminating" their political liabilities.

Of course the next question is whether Hillary or McCain have any "spiritual" political liabilities, and clearly that answer is "no" given that they do not belong to Black churches, their middle names are not Hussein, and they have never been photographed in traditional muslim garb (or they have had those pictures destroyed).

I get it now. Here are the takeaway points for people who like brevity:

- White church, kooky preacher = OK

- Black church, kooky preacher = Not OK

- Black church, kooky preacher, middle name Hussein - Very Not OK

- Threatening to obliterate a muslim nation and/or stay in Iraq for 100 more year = OK

1) The way Jeremiah Wright is being pilloried, you'd think he raped children or something. Wait, what? All he did was say some kooky stuff? Don't all preachers say kooky stuff? Oh ... I get it now ... he's black. Kooky is ok. Black and kooky ... scary stuff.

2) Hillary Clinton has more shadiness in her past than a 300 year old oak tree. But she's never professed to be an agent of change (other than when she has), so she gets a free pass. Everyone knows she's a lying, manipulative snake. So why do we need to cover the stuff that shows how much of a lying, manipulative snake she is? We know this stuff already!

If Obama really wants to learn about how to distance himself from a past friend who becomes a liability to his campaign, he should look no further than the Clintons' treatment of Peter Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

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.

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

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.

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.