Dear Mr. Hamilton:

I write to you in response to a report in Salon by Glenn Greenwald concerning the Attorney General's recent claim about the events of 9/11. I share Mr. Greenwald's opinion that, having accepted the responsibility of leading the 9/11 Commission, you have a continuing obligation to respond to reports that are at such glaring variance with the published report. The ongoing mendacity of the Bush Administration is undermining the Constitutional foundations of our country, and it is extremely disappointing to me, both as a citizen and a professor of politics, to witness the failure of our better leaders to respond vigorously to what are either ongoing falsehoods concerning 9/11, and/or reports of failure of security that are blamed on the FISA provisions designed to protect our rights to privacy. I ask you to reconsider your position, examine the Attorney General's statement, and either explain to the American public why this was not reported to us by the 9/11 Commission, or (as I suspect) condemn it for the lie that it is.

Sincerely,

I just watched it the whole way through, 16:38.

I didn't think Rose was very adversarial -- maybe for him, he was. But compared to what goes on on CNN, MSNBC, (no need to mention Fox), he was civil in allowing the guests for the most part to complete their points.

What a tragedy.

On a related note, Duke U Press has just published a new book by the political theorist William E. Connolly entitled Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. He writes at leangth and in detail about what Glenn calls the right-wing noise machine, but what he calls the capitalist-Christian resonance machine, and sees it at work in more than just the MSM, but becoming institutiionalized in all sorts of our institutions.

At risk of offending Joan Walsh, I have to point out that she contradicts herself -- she says, move on, to Obama, yet harps on what isn't even a gaff. All of us are typical in one sense or another, despite our specificity and uniqueness. To discuss the broader issue you must generalize. There was nothing in Obama's generalization that was offensive or mistaken.

I think it is time for us white folk, especially those of us like Joan who claim to have spent her life trying to close the racial divide, to stop demanding more of Obama, and start demanding more of ourselves. We could begin by asking ourselves the key question that so many of us try to evade, pretending that we somehow are objective in these matters. That question is this:

If, somehow, you could at birth chose which race you would be born into, knowing all you know about our contemporary society, would you choose to born black or white?

Answering that question clarifies our white folk's understanding of the real racial advantage we enjoy in American society. So before addressing whatever speck you see in Obama's eye, take the board out of your own first. Maybe you won't be so blind in the future.

I posted yesterday, critical of Joan Walsh for what I considered her imbalanced assessment of Rev. Wright, and in general her tone of incredulity regarding Obama's speech. My main point in my post was that Obama was making a great effort to show the commonalities between the just resentments of both black and white Americans, and his point was that we could continue the blame game, the demonizing, and have more of the same for the next four years, or could take a chance on something different. I suggested it was time for John Edwards to endorse him as the best vehicle for realizing Edwards' agenda.

The devolution of commentary on this subject to name calling ought to give all of you who have been employing invective -- accusations of stupidity, venality, suggesting "ass-wiping," -- at least a pause. The tone of discourse is a real disappointment to me. I expect better from Salon readers. I occasionally write in on subjects, and can be polemical, but I try not to call people names! Tthe crude insulting going on in this thread is really juvenile at best, and in keeping with the least common denominator sort of rhetoric employed by folks like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Please try to think a little before you post

I think Joan Walsh lacks credibility on this -- to reduce Pastor Wright's life and vocation to being the moral equivalent of Farrakan, which is what she is suggesting, is to write in bad faith. She knows, or ought to know, better. The reduction of a person's life to FOX soundbites is bad enough. To have the same crap spewed on us in her column is worse, since we are supposed to be in a better forum. Before Editor Walsh tells us what she is "buying" or "not buying" perhaps she should look more deeply into the life of the man she condemns as a simple hatemonger. I think she has abandoned her responsibility as a journalist and join the ranks of the Washington pudocracy that Salon is usually much better than. I'm disgusted.

Obama's speech did what it had to do -- speak the truth, but speak in such a way so that all of could recognize it as true. Whether he gets the Democratic nomination for the Presidency this time or no -- and he certainly should -- he has given us a teaching moment.

I supported John Edwards until he dropped out of the race, and came within a hair of voting for Clinton in the Massachusetts primary (in the end, it was less Obama, and more fear of Clintonism that kept me from voting for her). It is time, now, for John Edwards to get off the fence, endorse Obama, and instruct his 26 delegates that he wants them to cast their convention vote for Obama. In this speech, Obama reached out to exactly the Edwards core. What are you waiting for, John?