While those white ministers may have made extreme statements and endorse McCain or whoever, here's the difference:

Wright is Obama's spiritual advisor, Obama has attended his church for 20 years, and Wright was a member (until VERY recently) on the African American religious advisory committee for Obama's campaign. THAT'S the difference.

You would think that if this continues much longer some intreped journalists might actually start to get embarassed by the disconnect and perhaps mutter something revealing.

In the meantime Obama, true to his style is going to face the issue squarely:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_will_speak_on_wright_rac.php

Frank Schaeffer's father was a right-wing Christian minister, who invoked fire and brimstone on the U.S.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=print

Robert Pape has conducted research into the causes of suicide terrorism: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/16/91327/0831/128/477856

he has/will have a personal relationship with the first person of color to become a president in America...

2. White candidates do not have to pass racial litmus tests like Obama was held up to for the actions of people like Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan and the like....

"John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans."

Hagee, like many other people, still believe that Hurricane Katrina drowned the residents of New Orleans. That is, quite simply, not the case.

Faulty levee design by the US Army Corps of Engineers drowned the residents of New Orleans. Damage by the actual hurricane, absent the failure of the federal levees, was rather unremarkable. The Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama were devastated by Katrina's winds and surge. New Orleans, on the other hand, suffered rather minor damage from wind and the hurricane itself was not a major "rain event".

Additionally, the funnel effect created by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) canal in St. Bernard Parish, a canal which most people of the area have been pleading to be closed for many, many years, is what caused the flood damage to East New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, and the Lower Ninth Ward by magnifying the extent of high water. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.

We all know about the damage to the Lowa Nint', but few know that, in St. Bernard parish, every housing structure except two (2) were destroyed or severely damaged by the flooding. All but 2.

MRGO, was budgeted annually by the Corps, for about $13 million annually, handled one (1) ship a day. That's $20,000 per ship that taxpayers paid to lessen the cost of shipping goods into and out of the US. It was a $20,000/day shortcut.

The Corps has, since Katrina, announced that it will close the canal.

When I was in Berkeley back in the 70s it was pretty common to see "Jesus Freaks" up and down Telegraph and Sproul plaza. Often they would preach "gospel" that would be familiar to the likes of Hagee and friends. As I recall they were always white.

This sort of reminds me of that. Do those guys still hang out there?

here's the difference:

Wright is Obama's spiritual advisor, Obama has attended his church for 20 years, and Wright was a member (until VERY recently) on the African American religious advisory committee for Obama's campaign. THAT'S the difference.

Seriously, can you read? This is from the first paragraph of the post:

To argue that they're not comparable, Douthat -- like most people commenting on this raging controversy -- conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:

(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,

(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?

Even if the answer to (1) is "yes," that doesn't change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding "no."

I begin the post -- with people like you in mind -- by distinguishing between issues (1) and (2) as clearly as the English language permits, and make as clear as can be that I'm primarily addressing issue (2), not (1).

Yet despite that, you come along and address only issue (1), and then congratulate yourself as though you've refuted a single word that was written.

While eating breakfast at a nameless motel yesterday morning, the TV was spewing Faux News. I was doing my best not to listen, but did hear a "teaser" for their continuing coverage of the Jeremiah Wright outrage. After the break, they were to return with the thoughts of a sage on this issue:

none other than John McCain. After laughing too loudly, I left the room quickly. I'll do a bit of searching and see if anyone has posted of YouTube of what they broadcast. It could be quite relevant to this discussion.

The reason why the War on Iraq will end the day Obama is elected, and I'll wager the troops will be out by Inaugurate Day.

It's like this: As soon as you posit a world in which the United States must be a responsible world actor according to its principles, the entire reason for, and the tactics of the War on Iraq fall to pieces. Once those two things, the war crimes and the economic crimes, are taken out of the war, there is no longer a reason to fight it, and a way to fight it.

Now, would you be happy to do the things American Armed Forces and their contracters are doing if you had to depend on an Obama administration, instead of a Bush neo-con administration, to see there was no accountability for your actions? Hell no, you would stop and get out while the getting's good. And lawyer the hell up.

Shit, Obama won't need to stop the war, I doubt they would stay if he begged them.

Whether Hilary could strike an accomodation I do not know, but I don't think Obama can, for which I am truly thankful.

Before I knew who Obama was or who his spiritual advisor was. Then again, some of my more obnoxious (and more religious) right-wing acquaintences asked me about my religious beliefs, not to long after 9/11 and I told them I was an atheist. They so generously called me a C***, a B**** and a traitor and told me I was going to hell with Osama bin Laden and I must be glad he had attacked the US. Please note I hadn't brought any of this up, they did. Apparently, not believing in God was enough.

So, I just don't really have any patience with either side. Left or right, in this. They can call names all they want. Neither side speaks for me and, quite frankly, I just don't have much time for them.