Only the most depraved Clinton supporters are relishing this 'scandal'- after all, Hillary needs a justification for arguing that the superdelegates should override the electorate. Joan can be firmly placed in that camp. The stinging criticism, after some ridiculously insincere and perfunctory praise for the speech, that Obama's linkage of his white grandmother's comments- 'occasionally racially insensitive'- to Wrights was 'tin eared' was easily the most tin eared comment I've ever heard Joan make, and that is a legendary statement.

The fact of the matter is that Wright's comments- caustic, angry, counterproductive and fatuous though they are- are not totally out of the mainstream for black America, and even less so for billions of others on this planet. You can hear such criticism or 'bigotry'- if that is how we are supposed to refer to social criticism stemming from race- from the entirety of the European/Anglo left, and majorities in Latin America and the Muslim world. Neither would it be hard to find in Africa or Asia.

In those groups, which represent only cool billions on six continents, this kind of strident, harshly critical and, frankly, false and mean, criticisms are ubiquitous. But Joan would have you believe that prejudicial and racial comments 'in passing' are incomparable, because we can empathize with grandma (presumably Obama can too, which of course is why it came up in the speech). Never mind the circumstances under which Wright's formative years were spent. My God, has this woman not even read Malcolm X's biography? The violence that has been done to the black community has warped many- should it surprise us to see the damage manifest not even one generation on??? This is not to mention the fact that Wright is a renowned figure in the black community.

In this instance, Joan Walsh's opportunism, callousness and sheer cynicism is staggering. On par with what I have come to expect from the likes of Fox news. Congratulations Joan on sinking to a new low.

...or at least Joan Walsh.

Has anyone else noticed how it is generally those with the most dubious racial leanings that are the most taken by offense by the "typical white person" remark? Sean Hannity, who has said and countenanced very racially charged language on his show, not to mention praised and associated with out and out bigots of the most deplorable strain, is with the rest of his fascist cronies in high dudgeon over this. The sanctimony on cable news is flying fast like so much fecal matter in the fan.

Enter Joan Walsh. Joan continues to echo Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and, it would appear, is just now wondering why. What is it that I have in common with these amoral right wing nut jobs? Well Joan, I can help you with that. The commonality is quite simple: you are both looking to interpret Obama's words uncharitably, (a.k.a. not adjusting for degrees of freedom in estimation of your sample variance, i.e. systematic bias). And you have been given a remarkable opportunity to wrongly interpret in an uncharitable way by a speech that is more sophisticated than those typically made by political candidates of the modern era, certainly to include Obama's rivals, (e.g. bad guys- bad, good guys, good, or evil doers bad, american people good, etc.).

For anyone actually interested in the correct interpretation, the point of Obama's speech was not to denigrate his beloved grandmother, but to allow us to recognize the universality of the prejudice that lives in us. That lives in the black community. That exists differently depending on one's experience of color or gender or generation but that exists all the same. Because to recognize its universality is to recognize and simultaneously forgive its existence within our own selves. That the only way 'racism' can ever be addressed more than by spectacle or punchline.

And so I ask you Joan Walsh, or any other sympathizing with that point of view, if your view of racism is Obama's view- how could his citation of his grandmother derogatory? How would that be possible?

The answer of course is, it isn't. But that doesn't mean that trite politically motivated hit jobs that serve narrow interests will not continue to flow like so much black goo out of a busted sewer main. Speaking of which, keep up the good work here Joan.

Xrandadu, I don't think that's really the point. The point is that she has commissioned and written numerous hit jobs on Obama- articles that do little more than diminish his legitimacy as a Presidential Candidate- which makes the effort seem much less like expression than propaganda. I mean, this guy Ted McClelland is just downright offensive and how many shrill anti-Obama hit jobs has he been given space for? For all the 'well-established media bias against Hillary', I've yet to read any screed so wantonly out of proportion as those against Obama here (not that all coverage is unfavorable on Salon, but that doesn't make for absolution- misrepresentation cannot be addressed by 'equal and opposite' misrepresentation).

So the fact that Joan Walsh hasn't come out of the Hillary supporting closet is the least of my concerns. My concern is how well she parrots right wing talking points on this issue, and more generally appears to be willing to peddle any line with no standards as to merit.