And as a one time Catholic, I can appreciate that those biases can sometimes be deeply entrenched.

Do you know what is perhaps the only thing that keeps me coming back to Salon.com at this point? The letters section. Salon still seems to attract some of the best letter-writers around, although I can't imagine that some of the more intelligent posters won't eventually start seeking greener pastures.

I was similarly offended by the eHarmony ad this morning, especially after Salon.com had run an article on precisely this topic.

Joan, I can't tell you if "Verdict with Dan Abrams" or your column is worse.

Abrams was shameless after playing bits of the interview and misquoting Wright, saying he said "Obama is just a politician..." Never happened.

You, on the other hand, were apparently watching something else (or you haven't viewed the whole Wright sermon).

I once saw one of my big dogs pick up an adult Robin in the yard and bring it back to the porch to "play." In an effort to impart my wisdom on the pup, I ran into the house to get a cookie, thinking I could bait him away from the poor bird and avoid a trip to vet to dislodge a bird from his throat. Oh, boy. Pippy saw the cookie and gobbled up that bird as fast as he could, just so he could have another treat!

Joan, you've eaten a Robin. Please stop this.

By writing this screed of hers against some of Rev. Wright's words concerning America's evils when she did, right after the Sean Bell verdict in NYC, shows how woefully ignorant and clueless she is. She really should be fired. Another grievous injustice against a minority, by the state, and all Walsh can do is complain about Wright's not spouting the amber-waves-of-grain crap regarding her precious America.

This campaing discussion ahs fallen into the toliet with the help of the media and the Clinton campaign. Obama was wining on the real issues, but that does not bode well for conservatives because they want to run against Hillary. So they ug up some divisive issues that had nothing to so with real issues, policies, or leadership.

The Clinton campaingn has certainly played a big part in this.

If not helping to dig up the informaton ( which I think they are perfectly capable of) they played it up to try to make Obama look less electable. Obam has stayed cool and steady, but that really iritable Hillary and her suragotes even more, because they like to FIGHT!!!!!

Yes I am sure some republicans, and the media as their will bring all this up in the general. However I have confidence that McCain like Obama will run a decent, non divisive campaign. Oh how refreshing that would be.

You must remember the most divisive era in politics begin with the Clintons vs Rove era.

Joan, I wish you were right about vitriolic anti-American leftism, as exemplified by Rev. Wright, being somehow linked to the 60's generation. Alas, right after 9/11, the young, trendy San Francisco neighborhood I live in was awash with people burning with rage, not at Al Queda, nor religious fanaticism, nor even the American government, but America itself. I heard nothing for the next several years but that the attacks on the WTC were either justified or as-nothing compared to America's transgressions. Anyone (like me) who felt a limited military response (as well as non-military response) was prudent got called ignorant, racist, warmongering, fascist, stupid, and/or brainwashed. People would speak slowly as if talking to a mentally deficient child, "Maybe you should try turning off Fox news and reading some Noam Chomsky." When I protested that I was a socialist who regularly perused The Nation, Mother Jones, and had read Mr. Chomsky, but happened to disagree with a small portion of his philosophy, they just piled on more condescending disdain. Twenty somethings started walking around with books and DVDs about the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers. By 2002 I'd lost a few friends and stopped calling myself a leftist. The left was reducing the world to the same simplistic good guys vs. bad guys dynamic as the Jihadis with the black and white hats reversed. Things calmed down enough by 2004 that most leftists held their noses and voted for Kerry. By 2006, they were slightly pleased by the Democrats recapturing congress. But not until Obama came on the scene did the armchair revolutionaries really put their radical chic fantasies behind them. His charisma completely eclipsed the narcissistic allure of America hating (an stance that makes the hater think he or she looks objective, moralistic, and brave). Reverend Wright and his ilk ARE a problem, Obama is the answer.

Joan, I do not blame you for being depressed.W hat is even more disturbing to me is that since 911 and the Bush years, Americans are looking to a leader that will make us proud, in the real sense, of our country. This is the major reason, the Democrats will loose Penn. and Ohio.. and the election with Obama as the nominee. Now, that is something ro be depressed about.

And I'm waiting for this digusting racist scumbag of an Editor-In Chief to explain why she feels the need to out-Limbaugh Limbaugh on the Rev. Wright issue.

Really, Rev. Wright is more important than "obliterate Iran?" You hide behind concern troll supposed "journalist objectivity," yet continue to feed into the most pernicious right wing talking points.

You are a disgrace to your own professed standards. You should be fired from Salon immediately.

I am asking the posters here to cancel or not review their membership to this rage. For the last couple of years, it has simply been a portal to the blogs I do read anyway.

And you better watch yourself if you ever appear in public in Chicago, Joan. There's a pie waiting here with your name on it.

Cut to Stephen Colbert playing a clip of Rev. Wright saying "God damn America" for the umpteenth time, and then asking, "Why won't that story die?"

Joan, if you really want to come across as fair and unbiased in this primary, you should pay more attention to which topics you cover in your editorials, the depth in which you cover these topics, and the timeliness of your coverage. It seems to me that, more often than not, you choose to cover topics that are pro-Hillary/anti-Obama in great detail within a very short timeframe. But when Hillary stumbles or Obama scores a few points, you mention it only in passing (if at all), and it usually takes you a while to get around to it. I'm just saying is all.

Also, could you please explain to us all why you think that it's more worthwhile to devote an entire column to discussing a former pastor of one of the candidates, rather than the words or actions of the candidates themselves? I'm still waiting for your response to Hillary's promise to completely obliterate Iran if they were to attack Israel, which seems to be a bit more relevant to the campaign than what her former pastor's view on Iran might be. My guess is that we'll probably have to sit through a hit piece on eight-year old Obama's radical ties before we get that.