we only can agree!

"Have you listened to the speech? Did Obama not answer and refute the issue?"

He repudiated the statements while not really repudiating the man. That'll be enough for some, not for others. The fact is this is still being discussed and pontificated about. Hence, it's not over yet.

Nothing is ever "over". Surely you've learned that by now. Whether Obama's refutation satisfies everyone or not is not at issue. That he took action is.

"We'll see in coming months. And I'm sad to see you think everything is driven by political calculation alone. Makes me wonder what your values are (if you have any)."

Well, you are happy to think of that of Republicans. I just believe it equally of Republicans and Democrats. It's the difference between a realist and a wide-eyed partisan.

Perhaps I'm simply old fashioned enough to believe in things like 'ideals'. Although I'm as cynical as the next on some things.

Like I said, he had 20 years to do this. He's doing it now; go figure. If you can't join the dots on that one, you don't deserve help.

Do you read minds now, or are you just presuming motives? Perhaps its you who needs 'help' if your starting to think you're telepathic.

"Am I? Have I actually said "Rev. Wright is correct"?"

You defended him as a 'decent man'. Is it possible for a decent man to hold indecent views? I suppose so,

Very good. Perhaps you are learning.

but for the purposes of this dicussion his indecent views and the manner in which he propogates them are what matters.

Will you say the same for Hagee and Parsley and McCain? Somehow I doubt it.

The idea that we should engage in a holistic assessment of the person (are they nice to children and animals etc) before condemning them for holding their views is rather strange to hear from a Greenwald acolyte - Greenwald being a man who has scarcely a good word to say about anyone or anything and has made a career out of seething bitchery.

A strange characterization, especially since you presume much of Glenn's character. And for the record, Glenn doesn't dictate what I think or feel on any given subject. Calling me an 'acolyte' presumes much more than is either warranted or deserved.

"No. It really is with those who refuse to actually think and prefer to insist the Earth is flat."

That, my friend, is boilerplate. I'm all for insults, but if you are just going to unhook some lefty cliche off the peg and recycle it as though it were insight, I'm not going to bother talking to you any more.

How is it "boilerplate"? The Flat Earth Society still exists, as does The Rapture Index, the 700 Club, talk radio, and reprints of "The Late Great Planet Earth". Hardly a 'lefty cliche' when you consider these things in total, never mind their continued popularity.

Insist upon your own interpretation of events as you wish. Just be aware you'll be called upon them in due course. Whether you can deal with such critiques is a matter between you and your own soul.

We're all so thankful Glen to having someone like you, who knows the constitution, out there working through this media blitzkrieg.

Look at them. Now they're hot after the Black Democratic Mayor of Detroit. If I didn't know better ...these new media personalities are acting more like the old politicos of the 50's and 60's aren't they -sans white hoods and torches?

Which are now replaced with Orwellean monitors and loudspeakers and microphones in every nook and cranny of society.

All controlled by the likes of Murdoch and GE -profiteers off of any one's blood -anywhere.

To give you an even stranger example Glenn, of the unseemly hatred coming off of the cable and news outlets, I offer this bizarre example from two of the worst perpetrators - Chis Matthews and MSNBC.

Remember the recent endorsement of Barack Obama by Rolling Stone magazine? The magazine has never endorsed a candidate before. So how does Matthews handle it? He found two of most risque and startling covers the magazine ever did - one of a nude John Lennon and the other of Janet Jackson's nude upper torso -with just two hands over the breasts.

Matthews idea of a 'news' story about the endorsement is then portrayed this way:

"The magazine that brought you this and this. [insert two nude photos here], now brings you this [insert Obama photo here]".

He did that deliberately, and with full knowledge and malice of the effects and consequences that portrayal implied to the 'heartland' viewers and to children. His demeaning of the endorsement as something nasty and offensive, and therefore...

..it's a good thing they didn't endorse Hillary?

you are a wonder of patience. Respect!

I am simply going to quote much of this article:

(A&P) and Rooters newsstaff today note a stunning reversal of policy proposals from the Obama spokespeople. "Obama has decided that the calls for action arising from the concern over Rev. Wright's sermons deserve consideration" A. Spokesman said. "Mr Obama will propose regulations concerning both the waist-height and what the English haberdashers cunningly call the "rise", the inside leg measurement, which should unite all communities. In addition, Mr. Obama will regulate the size of wheels and the mechanical aspects of wheel coverings (spinner hubcaps) through the Department of Transportation's Highway Safety Administration. Pants, of course, will be regulated under air pollution standards, as will huffs and puffs."

if the wheels fell off!

I can't believe how many commentors who I have disagreed with (or maybe I was just disagreeable to) on many things seem to like Obama and grasp this situation with Wright very well.

I gotta be more like that Grecian well guy. Or like that guy I worked with at the radio station (KLUB) used to say: "more like the peg-boy; flexible!"

And that I will endeavor to do.

Mooser D!

"Perhaps I'm simply old fashioned enough to believe in things like 'ideals'. Although I'm as cynical as the next on some things."

Well, your ascribing of ideals or cynicism to a given situation seems to split pretty much down party lines. Hence,you are a partisan.

"Do you read minds now, or are you just presuming motives? Perhaps its you who needs 'help' if your starting to think you're telepathic."

This isn't telepathy. It's basic political analysis. A results in B. You'd be well-served if you boned up on it. You don't seem to have the vaguest clue.

"Will you say the same for Hagee and Parsley and McCain? Somehow I doubt it."

If it becomes an issue - eg. if there evidence a substantial enough number of people are bothered by that endorsement/relationiship - then I wouldn't try to offset it by pointing to what a swell guy Hagee is outside of his looney-tune pronouncements.

"A strange characterization, especially since you presume much of Glenn's character."

I'm not presuming anything. I read his joyless, humorless, plodding bitchy diatribes all the time.

"How is it "boilerplate"?"

It's been used a hundred thousand times before (as has the 'people who refuse to think for themselves' meme) and never to less effect.

"Whether you can deal with such critiques is a matter between you and your own soul."

Oh God, he's talking about my soul. Don't worry. I'm sure Barack and Michelle will be ready to mend any deficits my soul might suffer come November.