It's interesting to me that the focus is so much on Wright, whereas little is said about one of the central doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity: the doctrine of hell.

This doctrine is basically that all those who do not believe in Jesus as their lord and savior, plus all the related details and doctrines, will literally be tortured in hell for all eternity. This most likely includes the greater part of humanity now alive or dead. This includes family, friends, coworkers, fellow-citizens, whoever. Ghandi? Einstein? Forget it, they get tortured too. Non-Christian American soldiers dying in Iraq also get tortured in hell. It includes many founders of the country.

The doctrine of hell is surely one of the most immoral religious doctrines ever devised. It makes Osama Bin Laden look friendly by comparison. The doctrine of hell is an official dogma in many churches, often written into a public statement of faith.

Every week millions of Christians, among whom are some well-known politicians, attend churches where this doctrine is taught. But this passes by without comment, indeed, without notice.

Here's the interview question I wanted to hear: "Governor Huckabee, it was reported that Pat Tillman, the U.S. soldier who died from friendly fire in Iraq, was an atheist, or at the very least wasn't a Christian. Would you say that he currently is being tortured in hell, or does that occur at some future time, and if so, when?"

But we never hear anything like that. No, the big issue is a handful of Wright's sermons, snippets of which are repeated endlessly, while the thousands of his non-controversial sermons are never played and almost never mentioned. Go figure.

"I deplore all of those civilian killings as well, but 9/11 was indefensible"

Joan, Joan, Joan: You're saying it's "oops" if the U.S. kills foreign civilians, but "indefensible" if American civilians are killed.

Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way! Guess what, people in other countries feel pain, love, hatred just like Americans do. What on earth do you think 9/11 WAS about? It certainly was the chickens coming home to roost. You can't be the world's bully for years and years and think nothing will ever happen to you.

9/11 was the Columbine of the world. The U.S. bullied and pushed and screwed around and oops, accidentally killed a bunch of civilians. Al Qaeda -- mostly Saudis -- retaliated on 9/11. Was it pleasant? Hell no! Was Columbine pleasant?

I taped the Bill Moyers show and watched it this morning. As a person who hasn't set foot in a church in years, I thought to myself, "This is a pastor I could like."

Rev. Wright is absolutely RIGHT.

The fact that Wright was the subject of a lengthy interview on a major network - a situation patently designed to allow him to answer/expand upon/provide context for the earlier controversy regarding his remarks makes it utterly reasonable that Joan (or anyone) revisit this issue. I don't see any conspiracy.

Also, I think the comparisons with Hagee and McCain are missing a point. For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist already, that relationship reflects very poorly on McCain, partly because of McCain's shameless double standard in what he purports to stand for, but also because most people think Hagee's a venomous nutbag. That the media doesn't deal with it fully or fairly, while true, doesn't really fool anyone with even a grain of skepticism.

But I think it's utterly naive to assail Joan for this column, as if the issues she raises are ridiculous or imaginary, when they instead they point to a very real problem for any politician seeking the broad mandate necessary for high office. No one's going to get elected president trumpeting the views of Rev. Wright. Period.

To which the natural rejoinder is, "Obama isn't trumpeting those views in his candidacy", and no, of course he isn't - but that sort of makes Joan's point, because those views are associated with him, whether any of us like it or not, and the idea that the Republicans are going to leave this alone is crazy. Every sound bite will be chopped to its most corrisive form and blasted into every red and battleground state until our ears bleed. I think Obama's responses so far have been reasonable, but this is hardly going to be the end of it. He's been put in a place where he has to answer for the "extreme" wing of his party - and fairly, really, as this is where he comes from, despite his attempts now to run from the middle. I might actually agree with much of what Wright says (though, a lot of it I also find reactionary and childish) but in terms of election rhetoric, it's an albatross around any candidate's neck.

Clinton and her own awkward associations are beside the point. If Obama gets the nomination, this will be even more of an issue, not less. Democrats need to figure out how to talk about it broadly - which also is to say, about progressive issues in general, not just the Goverment's plan to create AIDS - without being condescending or sullen.

For that matter, I wouldn't care what Hillary's pastor has to say. I only care about what Obama or Hillary have to say. That's who we're voting for, isn't it?

I thought that was a fine interview. It served to humanize Wright, a man who's done great work here in my home town and who's been unfairly maligned for a few, select sermons. No, I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I don't really see why I have to agree or disagree with everything he has to say. He's an American and is entitled to his opinion. Again, it's Barack Obama's opinion that matters to me.

Is that why he' so wrong? Be hit the soft tabooed underbelly of american exceptionalism?

I hardly know where to start rebutting your take on Moyers interview - and frankly, I don't have the time (but do give a damn)