I ask the same to those who think it is so clear that Obama is the better candidate: are you shocked that so many thoughtful and experienced people (who appreciate Hillary) are pulling for Obama? Or do you simply see their support for Barack as a lapse in their thoughtfulness?

Mostly it seems people are just going on types of feelings when they talk about these things that seem so "clear" and "obvious". This question is pointing back to your recent comment to Joan in which you are surprised Joan takes issue with Wright. In that comment you mentioned your support for Hillary and it sounded like, to you, it really is simply a question of applying thought/observation to each of the candidates. That's why I'd find it interesting to know what you think about thoughtful folks who go for Obama.

I answered your post on p. 24. I just forgot to put your name in the subject line.

If we follow Joan Walsh's logic, JFK should have denounced Catholicism and then dropped out of the race.

Every religion or social movement has it's bad aspects. We won't get anywhere by blacklisting the best and the brightest.

and I agree with many of your points here. But I have listened to Cecil Williams preach black liberation theology for decades now, and I still would like to see a responsible journalist travel to Chicago and really talk to some of TUCC's congregation. As I'm sure you know, many are white. If Rev. Wright indeed is as you have characterized him, why do they continue to attend? Wouldn't that be an interesting area of inquiry?

I continue to be completely baffled at the missing support of the black clergy for Rev. Wright. Especially someone like Cecil, with his reputation and his penchant for talking, should have been all over television and talk shows explaining the theology and helping people (I guess I should say white people) understand what is going on here. The only person I've seen who has Rev. Wright's back is the president of the national UCC denomination, who I assume knew what was going on at TUCC and approved.

I cannot imagine that Rev. Wright did not ask Barack how he felt about the Moyers invitation before he accepted. Perhaps, unbeknownst to you and me, Barack would like to get this all hashed out now, long before November.

I, too, have despaired about this election. But I still believe, after a lifetime of sitting in black churches, that the black church constitutes a subculture in America that few white people understand the depth or meaning of and that bears looking into and understanding. Just because white America just found out about this subculture does not mean it wasn't there all along, performing a vital service to its community, and does not mean that it is dangerous or to be feared.

I beg you to seek further.

Do you not trust her to speak for herself?

Moreowver it seems to me that you are the one trying to control the conversation. I am merely trying to get some questions from my first post answered because I am genuinely curious. Is something wrong with that? Why do people not want to address the questions that I asked? Is there some particular reason why they want to avoid answering?

You have failed miserably to understand the Wright phenomenon. It is this: despite the efforts of many good people, the plight of blacks in this country - particularly in the cities - has substantially worsened. Just the numbers of black in jails has skyrocketed. High School grad rates plummeted. New Orleans black culture, gutted by Katrina, is left to rot in a way that no white culture would have been forgotten. Unemployment amongst blacks is as bad as it has ever been. The point then, in this abject state of the black culture, is not so much the truth of the averments made by Rev. Wright: it is the callous disregard, by a white-dominated society, of the plight of the blacks which empowers and gives voice to a "screamer" and exaggerator like Rev. Wright. The uneducated underclass which is the urban black is all too ready, based upon day to day experience, to believe outlandish Rev Wright assertions about AIDs being a government plot. The point is not the truth of what he asserts; the point is that the day to day aliention of the urban black is rightfully absorbed and then remedied by a conscientious and well-educated black like Obama who has, by joining that congregation upon arriving in Chicago, absorbed and understood the plight of the urban black.

I could not disagree with Joan MORE on this piece if my life depended on it. Talk about selective hearing. It is proof positive that you only hear what you want to hear and block the rest. I thought the interview was interesting and offered a tremendous insight to the man.

It was very clear to me BEFORE the interview that the sermons were open to interpretation and that some of the parts were not Wrights words..he was repeating the words of others in a dramatic fashion. He said so plain and clear in the sermon, but it was conveniently left out of the soundbites. He, like many others who are afforded the rights to free speech, can repeat what he wants and voice his pleasures and displeasures with our government. Wright is not running for office.

We have never elected or not elected any leaders based on something their pastor said or the views of their churches. I didn't feel sorry for the man at all and I don't think he was looking for sympathy.

I'm sure Obama would rather not have to deal with this again, but so be it. I don't think SERIOUS people that look at the condition of our country right now are going to base their votes solely on this. If they do, they were never open to vote for the man anyway and now they have an excuse to base it on.

In the same week that Hagee said AGAIN that the horrors of Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing for homosexual activity in New Orleans..which to me, is the STUPIDEST thing a supposed man of the church could say, do we see some long write up about it in Salon anywhere? Of course not.