Well, the cartoon not inherently controversial to my mind. It comments on America's flaky, salad-bar approach to religion. It comments on the impulse-driven, man-boy approach that many Americans have to life in general. It comments on America's juvenile understanding of the rest of the world. And, perhaps ironically, it comments on the superficial notion that one's clothing determines one's spiritual worth. That's a lot to wrap up in one cartoon.

On the last point the silliness of using clothing to determine godliness, Breathed chose Islam. But he might as well have chosen any number of religions: Mormonism, Hassidic Judaism, even Catholicism. His approach is fairly gentle, so I don't see anything to be offended about, unless one is looking for offense. And I would say the same if he chose one of those other religions.

As far as the cartoon goes, Breathed is no Walt Kelly. So it's mildy amusing, but not particularly deep or uncomfortably satiric, which raising the question: Why the controversy?

The controversy is not the cartoon. It is the gutless, softheadedness of the publishers. And I suspect that their concern is less about offending Muslims, and more about offending those who buy into the American approach to a world it doesn't understand: "You love that I'm so darn smart about what's best for you."

Finally: Courage? No, I don't think so. Salon jumped at the chance to highlight the strip, as well it should. But that's the opposite of courage. What's the repercussion? Nothing.

Hillary Clinton is essentially running as a conservative and a war-on-terror president. With a different name and a Republican party membership, she'd be the front runner in the Republican primary. Perhaps Republicans are just envious that the Democrats are running their best candidate.

Hoo boy, what an election.

Clinton supporters who defend her against the counter-charge of plagiarism seem to be missing the point.

No one really cares that Clinton borrowed, paraphrased, or plagiarized from her husband, from John Edwards or whatever other source she uses. This is what people do. This is what politicians do. And if the words or ideas are good representations of the candidate's views, they are honest expressions.

It's not as if Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) are turning in the manuscript for Ulysses with James Joyce's name crossed out and hers written in.

Hillary Clinton borrows ideas all the time and uses them in her speeches. Nothing wrong with that.

But to accuse her opponent of doing what she herself does (perhaps to a greater extent) is careless and dishonest.

THAT is why Obama supporters jumped on her last lines last night. It's the hypocrisy.

And the very Xerox line that she used to mock Obama. Did she come up with that? Or was it someone on her staff?

I know a few people who write speeches for politicians, so I am under no illusions about where their words come from. I thought that it was common knowledge. It seems that Clinton banked on people being under the false impression that she writes her own speeches.

The fact that "It Takes a Village" was ghostwritten makes the hypocrisy all the worse. Obama has actually written books.

It's not a cardinal sin to hire a ghostwriter (Kennedy did). But if you do, you ought to have the good sense and graciousness to not accuse your opponent of plagiarism.

I could care less about Obama's so-called plagiarized speech, because the sentiment he expresses in it comes across as sincere and is not undermined at all by the source--just like the speeches of civil rights leaders were not diminished by multiple sources.

On the other hand, Clinton comes across as petty and lacking in values for her attack. It does take a village (to raise a child or to raise a candidate). She ought to re-read the book that she didn't really write.

Throughout this whole campaign, I have been surprised that Obama has not hit Clinton harder on her varying hypocrisies. Last night, I kept wanting him to point out the absurdities of her points (15 years foreign policy experience!!!!???). He has been quite restrained. In the end, the country is probably better off for it. But the Clinton camp ought to realize how lucky they are that he doesn't bother to challenge her ridiculous claims.

You write: "Supporters reflect who they support. Why then would someone choose to allign themselves with someone who inspires such hatefulness."

Irony much?

Which is not to say that Obama supporters are choirboys and girls. But let's not kid ourselves about the wellspring of vitriol in this Democratic primary.

I think that it is just fine to take a look at Hillary Clinton and make the calculation that she is the best candidate for a variety of reasons. But please don't live in a fairy land in which she has been the gracious candidate and Obama has been the churl.

I agree with you, Joan. What a surprise for me. Especially the part about Obama doing what most people do in church: network and sit through the sermon, only half paying attention.

All of the fuss is unfair. It is not at all equitable to the lies and manipulation of Hillary Clinton. It's almost like a Greek tragedy, except the reverend is the one filled with hubris, not the candidate. Unfortunately the candidate pays. And I suppose that he should have been canny enough to know that this was going to bite him in the ass. But I understand the family/community thing.

From the first time this surfaced, I never felt that Obama was responsible for what his preacher said. C'mon. It's just church.

On the other hand, I pegged Wright as a jerk from day one. The context made sense to some extent. But the mocking of JFK's speech made me see red.