Wow, long tangent and my letter became so long it had to be splt. Anyway, back to what started this, Hillary scoring points on the Wright controversy. Is this a bad thing for the Hillary camp to be pushing? You say, if she wins nomination and general, it is. I disagree. Put aside the fact that this is very unlikely to help her win, unless by winning you mean help Obama to lose in the general and have a better shot in 2012. The problem I am highlighting is that the Wright story is a play on the oriental/exotic/foreignness of black Americans. This is territory normally reserved for Karl Rove, and understandably so. It alienates blacks to the outer fringes of society and plays on that alienation to scoop up white vote, and that move is very favorable to Republicans, (a.k.a. the party of white folk), in national races, (see for example 'What's wrong with Kansas?'). Speaking of which, I don't think it's a winning strategy for Hillary Clinton no matter how you slice it, given how much she will need black vote in swing states were she by some miracle to get the nomination, but that is very much beside the point. The point is that there should be some things that Democrats realize are so harmful to the party (and the nation), that no amount of personal utility can justify them. Do you not agree that in principle, even if you were able to convince yourself that this bettered her chances, that it is too destructive a tactic to condone? I sincerely hope so.

Joan Walsh disagrees with Fox News fair and balanced coverage of the Obama campaign. Extra, extra, read all about it: Aphorism, 'there's a first time for everything', confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should be pointed out that racial segregation, 'is America' indeed. Do we doubt that? Does anyone reading this who is not black have any black friends, or who is not latino have and latino friends, etc. etc.? Of course, some people can say yes to that. I could for a time until I moved back to this country. And there are some places and institutions where racial diversity exists in this country. But they are exceptionally few.

So I guess Michelle was referring to that, since, well, it's patently obvious that's what she was referring to, and also as its an indisputable observation except by way of anecdotal minutia. Could it be she's not out there raging against whitey with every breath?

Of course she (and he) have been and will be penalized for it. We can't have leaders that do anything but pander to our vanity, can we? We are the greatest nation ever anywhere and throughout all time- we are righteous and humble and strong and great and rich and fair and smart and blah blah blah. No wonder the wheels are coming off. Sincerely. No wonder.

I agree with you this is definitely a part of a pattern, and a feature of the Republican attack machine- attack Democratic nominee spouses, play on the misogyny of the electorate. I completely reject your insinuation about Obama supporters however. They are not a monolith singularly or even largely possessing the views you ascribe to them.

Now, this is not to say Democratic voting Hillary-haters and misogynists don't clamor to the Obama campaign, certainly now that he's the only alternative, just as out and out bigots back Hillary, just that neither is the fault of either candidate. And I do resent the particular tendency of Clinton supporters to level this guilt by association charge, that because some unsavory people that hate Hillary support Barack, and because you can find comments on Daily Kos or here that reflect that, that that is what his campaign is all about. The reasoning is remarkably fallacious, and furthermore, it is pretty clear if you look at voting patterns, particularly amongst the blue collar rust belt and in rural counties throughout the nation as distinct from a very similar demographic in the northern midwest states, that Hillary benefits plenty from bigotry too, even without counting the potential for its influence on white women or latinos. So let's just leave that accusation where it belongs- with the run amok right-wing nut jobs that have been plundering this country for 25 years.

Oh, you were talking about Nim? Sorry, I thought I heard nimaniachal war-mongering imbecilic ignorant douche bag.

Obama ought to fire his advisor on the subject, a Harvard professor whose expertise is of the field of health care, and appoint her.

I like the Edwardses, but 'glib, perfunctory, pat, etc." are all subjective judgments of Obama's character, (unlike, say, a conclusion one might draw from the white on black contrast between Edward's campaign rhetoric and Senate record). Just because Joan Walsh happens to agree with them, doesn't mean Obama supporters are overdue a crisis of conscious, (could she be any more condescending?). In fact, I'm hard pressed to divine what it means at all.

So Joan, can we now expect a column drawing Serious and Relevant information from how Hillary lost the Richardson endorsement? Or does that one come after the airborne pigs? You are no end of fun my dear.