I blame myself for this debacle we are in. There are real problems in this country: War, poverty, gas prices, the environment. But all Salon and its staff want to talk about is Bittergate and Reverend Wright. This is not news except to the degree that you make it. You, Joan Walsh, have prioritized this issue above everything else. You have proven to me that you are not a reliable news source and, as such, I will no longer be coming here to find out what's going on in the election or in other matters. I haven't given up on Salon entirely, but I'm deeply disappointed.

But me, I read it and behaved as if my feedback really matters, writing letter after letter to tell you that I thought your opinion was distorted. Well, you are getting the country that you deserve, run by a president (John McCain) so out of touch with reality that he campaigns by telling Americans that Obama is an "elitist."

Just one last thing and then I'm out.

My decision to abandon Salon did not come to me through my own sense of self-importance. It came from watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. His guests were Cornel West, Mark Moulitsos and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They reminded me that we have SO many issues to think about: Food shortages, poverty, lost jobs, gas prices, etcetera. I realized that by reading Salon as my major news source I was denying myself a more full-spectrum understanding of politics. Instead of focusing on this one problem I'm neglecting a lot of other things.

And guess what? Heaping attention on the flaws of the Obama campaign does not mean you are doing your job. And if your audience asks you not to, that doesn't mean we hate free speech. I've read every article and listened to what you had to say. I didn't say shut up. I said I don't agree with you. But now we are on week 4 of this and your agenda has become clear.

Meanwhile you tell us that we are "scary" because disagreeing with you is tantamount to being insane or brainless. Well, think that if you want. I'm starting to understand why it is that conseratives feel a personal, visceral dislike for liberals above and beyond politics. It's because we cannot brook dissent, which makes us hypocrites.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/8083_rev_wright_a_ne.html

That article specifies and details what Wright actually said, instead of creating a stew of drama about a topic that Salon has failed to actually cover. Oh, you covered your opinion, complete with fingerpointing and professional prognostications, which, as I have said in the past is not too helpful considering that even the most professional of pundits is right less than half the time. But Salon's tone has always been that they know what is best for the country and for liberals, and so preaching and judging are priorities above actually reporting the news.

And yet you DID report, in word-by-word detail, Obama's retraction, which will now be taken to mean that he is a phony and not to be trusted.

Good job, Salon! If you had reported what Wright had actually said we could judge for ourselves whether or not we are offended.

And now you got what you wanted, Joan. You got him to retract his friendship to Wright. And, as evidenced by this letters column, he will be seen as a positioning politician who does not stand for anything. African American activists will feel betrayed and white folk will think he is being dishonest about his true feelings.

A retraction is the last thing this campaign needed! If Bush proved anything it is that we prefer politicians who will stand their ground, even when their positions are unpopular. He got away with A LOT just by picking a course and sticking to it, even when it was disastrous for the entire country.

But leave aside the lesson of Bush. We say we want politicians that stand for something and then get all screechy and judgmental when they do something we don't like. This is nothing! A tempest in a teapot! His minister has nonstandard opinions. So what? Who cares? Do you vouch for the opinions of all YOUR associates?

Terry Gross did an excellent interview with Reverend Cone, the originator of Black Liberation Theology, which Wright's church takes some of its pointers from. I heard that interview and felt inspired. And although I am an atheist, I found the attitude inspiring, a tradition to be proud of. Specifically, he stated that the most important belief in christianity was to identify with and help the oppressed and less fortunate. Christianity that does nothing to help others is an incomplete christianity. Why hasn't THAT been reported on other than in small circles? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116)

And if you want to know what Wright said you actually have to elsewhere than Salon. You can get judgment by the pound here, but not a lot of actual reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moyers+wright&search_type=

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/8083_rev_wright_a_ne.html

And of all the things that can be said about Reverend Wright's faith, the press, and especially Joan Walsh, fail to mention the tradition of black liberation theology, which essentially teaches black pride, compassion for the poor and under-privileged, and for social justice. All of that has been neglected in the face of a few comments. I doubt that any of Wright's critics could claim the same legacy, but it is so common that those who criticize judge from a place of inaction. You can judge others when you yourself have done nothing because that leaves you with nothing to criticize about yourself. You are perfect.