Well they would have to take away the satire, but all the presidential candidates should be bringing up focus on things that aren't really in the race and pointing people back to policy. Edwards was the last person to consistently do that.

I think if he had been in that ABC debate he might have actually pointed out the absurdity of the questions. What I think is hurting Obama is not just Wright but that his message of change doesn't completely function within a template of power and he hasn't been able to step outside a media boxed in narrative which includes Wright. (And I don't think the Wright story is completely unimportant. I know that church and I told people before Iowa this guy would be a problem some day).

Seven months is giving people an awful lot of credit for attention span. It would have to be Anna Nicole Smith to warrant that kind of coverage. I give it a week longer than the Bosnia sniper fire. Hillary Clinton should be the one to point out that there are policy matters to discuss. I think it would win her points if she was seen as coming to his rescue. Plus they disagree on this gas tax thing! I haven't seen any coverage of why they disagree on it. I'm actually interested.

I think Obama might have the integrity on this one,

That said, I continue to find it disturbing that all too many people in this country have a vision of a terrible, vindictive, petty, barbaric and vengeful god. And that vision is not Wright's. It's Hagee's, Falwell's, Dobson's and their ilk.

Compare and contrast:

Wright believes in a god who actually condemns a nation for slavery, genocide and discrimination. He believes in a god that is outraged by such behavior.

The god of the Right Wing? The god they believe in destroys whole cities because some leaders in that city are thinking about having a gay-pride parade. The god they believe in launches attacks on America because feminists, liberals, gays and lesbians live here. Because we have the ACLU, their god sent planes into the Twin Towers.

Thank you for that comment. It's golden. Further proof that it is not Rev. Wright who is full of hate.

You can also add to that "Wright believes that what goes around comes around, and if you launch aggressive wars against other people, do not be surprised when other people attack you in retaliation. You reap what you sow."

Thank you.

I know that this column was written for her.

Even if you don't.

But well done, regardless. Just wish it didn't need to be written at all.

@ Wednesday, April 30, 2008 08:54 AM

You forgot some things:

Josef Stalin, secularist and atheist: 45 - 50 milion dead.

Mao tse Tung, secularist and athiest: 30 million dead.

Pol Pot, secularist and athiest: 2 million dead.

Christianity and Judaism can look within and judge the acts of the Crusaders, et al., as wrong, even according to their own teachings.

What internal tenet of atheism and secularism can be pointed to to judge the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot wrong?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/betrayal-by-digby-i-have-frankly-been.html

Betrayal

by digby

I have frankly been a little bit confused by the reaction to Reverend Wright's recent comments around the sphere and even here on this blog. I thought most people in the Netroots were big Obama supporters and yet they defend Reverend Wright, which I find rather surprising considering what he did.

[snip]

I watched Obama today and felt very sorry for him on a human level. As Joan Walsh pointed out in a series of sensitive posts on the subject, this is a guy who has written a book about being abandoned by his father and here comes father figure Wright, so self-centered that he apparently couldn't accept that his own star burned less brightly than the younger man who was very possibly on his way to becoming America's first black president. James Carville famously called Bill Richardson "Judas" recently for endorsing Senator Obama over Hillary Clinton. I would say Wright has a much greater claim to the name.

As Wright himself pointed out, he's a pastor. Maybe if we just got the pastors out of our politics we'd all be better off. It's religion whot's got us into this whole "g** d@*" mess! (yes, that was a quote.) What was that about separation of church and state? Oh, I forgot, long since gone.

Great post, Glenn!

Since you just posted, I'll drag out this response from halfway back through the thread.

I tutored at Cook County Jail twice a week for years.

I coach Little League.

Congratulations (honest, no sarcasm). I'm glad to hear that you're giving back to your community. I used to tutor in college, and I also make it a point to spend more money on my friends than myself.

That said, I would still wager that Jeremiah Wright has spent more of his time and effort helping others than you have. I consider it an act of cognitive dissonance for someone who helps others to call another person who gives even more help a hatemonger.

Jeremiah Wright says black people's brains and white people's brains are different. He made fun of the way white people clap and sing. He said we deserved 9/11 -- among other things.

That is a racist hatemonger. Period.

Someone else mentioned this, but I'm going to bet that by "brains" he probably meant culture, though I've no definitive proof. It seems a little convoluted, but the context seems to suggest that cultural traditions are the difference he meant.

Regarding 9/11, if you do some research you can discover why bin Laden says 9/11 happened. I'll give you a hint: US Foreign Policy. How is it racist to consider 9/11 to be blowback? If you piss in someone's wheaties, will you be surprised when they piss in your wheaties in retaliation?

For instance, consider a suicide bomber. Who in their right mind would blow themselves up? The media likes to say those people want their virgins in heaven, but I think the more likely story is that we killed someone's innocent husband/wife/child/sibling by accident, and that person then rationalizes suicide as a way of lashing out at the person who robbed them of their loved one.

What internal tenet of atheism and secularism can be pointed to to judge the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot wrong?

What you demonstrate in response to Cuchulain2007 is a logical fallacy called a straw man. Cuchulain said that Rev. Wright's god is outraged by murder and oppression, and that Hagee/Falwall's god is outraged by gay pride parades and the ACLU, and that this is representative of the type of people who follow these religious leaders.

Your straw man was, then, an attempt to view Cuchulain's argument as "religious people are bad", and proceed to attack this straw man argument with examples of atheists who were responsible for the murder of millions, concluding that at least religion has moral tenets to decry those evils. Do you understand how your characterization of his argument is flawed?