Just give it a day or two. Pretty soon there will be some middle class white woman gone missing under mysterious circumstances where sex might have been involved ... or maybe something involving polygamy, old men and underaged daughters, possibly locked in basements ... and then we can get back to what's really important.

Here's the thing about the latest Wright business. It *is*, in fact, a story. Obama's former pastor makes some wild claims (whether they are in context of a lot of other stuff that wrings true), comes out swinging, and does so in a way that seems intentionally designed to damage his former protege's campaign for President. The content of what Wright said belongs in the story because it answers the 'why' question about the controversy. Goes to relevance. And the interest comes from, inter alia, why Wright would do this just now.

Of course it's a story. Of course people are going to talk about it, have opinions, think about what it means to their opinion of Obama; they might (hopefully) decide in the end that it doesn't mean very much. If the outlets didn't report on it, if they decided that it was beneath them or that we didn't need to know or it wasn't important, that would most certainly be bias.

So it's a story. What it isn't, really, is an *issue*. That is, it's not something that requires sustained coverage and endless discussion to unpack what is going on there. It isn't an enterprise piece. It's a wire story, a few column inches in major dailies for a day (what is Wright doing? why?), possibly a feature (who is Wright? where do his beliefs come from? who listens to him, follows him, believes him?). Then, we're done. Put that info out there, get it reported so that voter's can make their mind up about it later, then move on to something that has, you know, a little greater priority, deserves more reporter's time and expense reports, etc.

We all know the major news outlets will overshoot this, to put it mildly. That's what's funny about Glenn's post, especially the closer about how we'll still be talking about this for the next seven months.

But for all the caterwauling about Salon's alleged biases, I don't think they have overshot it at all (yet) and don't see any reason to believe they will. And if you think Joan Walsh was out of line to call Wright a narcissist, if you think that's evidence of pro-Clinton bias, then maybe you haven't read Bob Herbert's NYT column today (at sig). You know, Herbert, whose every op-ed on Obama or Clinton has a perfect record of pro-Obama and anti-Clinton (as he himself states).

Again, with the NASCAR

WT: I was only kidding. I wasn't offended.

Gerry from T-town: You have a point about the gap between 'folks' and what Walter Shapiro pointed out, using words I had been groping for, the Cool Kids Club. I don't know that it relates to Obama so much as the circus around him, which also has to do with the good Rev. Guess we'll see.

After Clinton's alleged race baiting (I remain unconvinced) in S Carolina, there were a fair number of interviews with African Americans who said they weren't offended, and that they were still going to vote for Hillary (or Obama) regardless. Ditto with the piece (I think Mike Madden?) did in PA after Obama's 'bitter' remark, which was supposed to be so offensive to them: their response, hell yeah we're bitter, what's the problem with Obama paraphrasing (I simplify, but it's a good story).

So I'm not sur ehow offended people will be in the end. As for me: Somewher eback during the Pleistocene, I saw Jimmie "Dynomite" Walker do stand-up at a comedy club. One of his great bits was the difference between white people and black people making complaints at the phone company:

White person (JJ imitating, in squeaky voice): Er, ehem ... um ... excuse me ... but, ah ... there seems to be some ... minor, surely unintentional ... ah, discrepency on my ... ah ..

Black person: I DIDN'T MAKE NO GODDAMN CALL TO AFRICA!

See, me and a bunch of other peckerwoods paid good money to be made fun of that way.

when they don't want to deliberate or engage someone with whom they disagree. They psychoanalyze her

Like, say, diagnosing them as 'racist'.

See link at my sign for another racist's identical response to Wright's media tour.

What you're seeing is the beginning of a snark bubble. Instead of asset price hyperinflation it's just ass ... but then, you knew that was coming ... :>

Oh, here we go with the Stars and Bars now.

GWB's cracker apotheosis either

Apotheosis. Good Faulkner word. See, your lips say ambivalence, your words say ... :>

No, I'm with you. It's funny though, how much more effective the GWB style schlock has been than anything the Dems have tried. That I was having serious arguments with people in 2000 about W's alleged superior authenticity v. Gore is telling.

My theory: somebody like W actually *wants* to be that person. Howard Dean (to take only the 2004 edition) wants that person's vote, but does not know how to talk to that person without condescending or perceiving that person as a victim (one of the few categories allowable). Same with veterans.

It's a problem for our party, and not just 'cuz it's been under my skin the last couple days.

Pedinska and I think there should be cabbage. And potatoes.

Can someone please tell me what a 'concern troll' is?

Thanks for that ... and, ah, for not saying GO LOOK IT UP IN WIKIPEDIA FOR YOURSELF MORON, which I should have. ulp.

I definitely see why the term has popped up here, with all the imagined variations thereof.