Excellent, balanced, thoughtful post, Ms. Clark-Florie. Very much appreciated.

Couple of thoughts. One: Several posters predicted a rain of sexist slam-downs which, so far haven't happened. I see that as progress. Not to mention a reflection of the essential accuracy of Ms. Clark-Florie's conclusion.

Two: I'm struck by the almost anguished emotions Ms. Clark-Florie's post seems to have elicited from male respondents, myself included. I read all this and think back over my, what, 25 years of romantic/sexual misadventures, and the numerous times I felt desperate for some sort, any sort, of certainty about what the woman I was with wanted. At this moment, reminiscing about those times, I am surprised to find myself disarmed by my own sense of emotional vulnerability toward these memories.

Apparently like many men, judging from the responses here, I've spent a lot of time miserably befuddled, at once yearning to satisfy my own desires of the heart and body and at the same time feeling utterly desolate at the thought that I might transgress against the wishes of the person I was with, whom without exception I liked, respected, cared for or even loved. And yet, despite that most sincere desire to honor the wishes of my companions, there were times when I clearly (in retrospect) underestimated their passions or intent, as well as times when I clearly overestimated them (those misunderstandings made themselves known with far more alacrity). Feelings were hurt, mine and/or theirs, and sometimes badly. I still feel the pain of those moments, even now, just contemplating them.

The reality (I think and hope) that underlies discussions like this is that most of us heterosexual men and women want to connect, so very badly; we desire nothing more fervently than to elicit a true response, if not the positive one we wish for. We may never understand or communicate with each other perfectly, but we will have taken an enormous step toward that ideal if we can manage to keep that commonality in mind, even as we discuss issues and perspectives that sometimes divide us.

Thanks so much for this.

But the notion that Obama may or should be held responsible for what Wright says is laughable in the extreme. What he should be held responsible for -- and I say this as an Obama supporter -- is how he deals with all of this. I wish he hadn't stayed in that church -- not because I don't care for the tenor of some of Wright's sermons, but because I DON'T hold Obama responsible for them and I think he should have been politically canny enough to know this was all going to happen. Did he think these issues wouldn't come up? Makes me wonder if he's as smart as I've thought he was.

At this point I think the only smart play is to cut the anchor. I wholeheartedly agree that Trinity and Wright have done some marvelous things, and that Trinity will no doubt continue to. But in reading Goodwin's Team of Rivals lately, I'm struck by the clear-eyed awareness of Lincoln, Seward and others in that cohort of the potential harm that being associated with them could at times do another politician, and their regular refusals to allow that to happen. They would decline to appear with someone, or take their name off something, so that whatever temporary public-relations virus they might be carrying would not spread to another.

This, I think, is what Wright and Obama both need to do. Wright needs to recognize that this may be the best chance he'll get in his lifetime to see a black man elected president who is fully conscious of the issues Wright has worked for, and he needs to disappear for the next nine months. Obama needs to recognize that his association with Wright, innocent in intent though it may be (and I believe it is), could doom his candidacy all by itself if it's not amputated and cauterized immediately -- not because the relationship is wrong, but because it will be used as a cudgel by those who want to see Obama fail.

You cannot hand your enemies the weapon with which to smite you. And if you find you have, you must, MUST, disarm them of it. By whatever means necessary.

... I just skimmed a modest proposal by this Irish dude who suggested solving the food riot crisis by eating the children of the polygamy sect. Made sense to me!

Bon appetit and pass the Heinz 57!

"How long does it take a writer to come up with, and type, that kind of line -- a few minutes, maybe?"

Actually, to be fair, it can take weeks to come up with a line like that. Screenwriting is about distilling a lot into a little, and still leaving something for the actor to add. Not easy to do, and that line sounds about perfect (I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm talking blind).

Good on Downey, good on Favs, and good on the writers -- all four of them. (See? Multiple writers isn't ALWAYS bad. Just usually. Especially if we're talking about a Flintstones movie.)

All those in favor?