Obama has no chance...and Wright is awful...and Wright should be discredited and he was Obama's pastor...and he won't go away because the media (including Salon) won't let him...so Obama's case is pretty hopeless tied to this awful minister...

...oh and, by the way, just as a final note, to be fair, Obama completely disagrees with his minister on these issues.

Good one, Joan. Almost looks like you want to be fair.

You're falling into exactly the same trap that both Joan and Obama have ascribed to Wright, namely, that America is static.

I don't think America is static, but I do think it hasn't a great record of electing Democrats whose patriotism can be questions. Haven't you considered that we have a president who was probably AWOL from his post in the Texas Air National Guard because John Kerry was able to be tainted with a misrepresentation of exaggeration and derilection of duty that never took place? Even assuming that America has moved a half-a-inch leftward, do you really think most of America is willing to ditch the buzz word of patriotism for the perception that we were somehow justly attacked on 9/11?

You write that, while you're not particularly concerned about the association, others will be: "What people don't seem to understand is that Wright may have a substantial effect upon the General Election."

This story hasn't been written yet, AKA! Why not fight to assure that it will not have such an effect in the general election? Whether it has an effect or not will depend largely upon the conversation we have now, will it not?

Why should I? Have you forgotten that I support Hillary? At this point, Obama's problems are his own. I don't see any Obama supporters working to assure that Hillary has a better chance of winning the General Election. That's just politics.

Is America so static that we can't have an honest conversation about this? Why do not we, as liberals, work to argue that this is a non-issue rather than conceding so much ground?

Obama supporters wanted to have an honest conversation (they said!) about race when the Wright story first broke and Obama gave his speech. Were they being disingenous? My first post was about having such a conversation. Or must all conversations be somehow directed by Obama supporters such as Hutman and burlydee, rather than the freeform creature that true conversations really are?

How does one ever change the status quo if one refuses to stick one's neck out? Why not work on refining our arguments and making them resonant for why this is a non-issue?

The Democrats stuck their neck out a bit in 2004. They lost. Why should the Wright issue be framed as a non-issue. That is the tactic Obama always uses. He used it after his guns and religion comment to do damage control but there is little evidence that it worked? Just because you want to say something is a non-issue does not mean that it is a non-issue to other Americans. Instead, always reframing political problems as a non-issue only insults those people for whom the issue is important. Insulting people will not provide victory.

This is the problem with inordinate focus on "electability." We think more about what other people will say and and up championing their cause not because we believe it ourselves, but because we fear their arguments? Because we presume their minds can never be changed because they are static, so the best we can do is pander to their prejudices and ignorance?

You want to teach a seminar. I want to win. I will ask my question again: Is providing Obama victory in the primary and defeating Clinton in the primary more important to you than winning the General Election?

Is that not a profoundly patronizing position, to treat the electorate like spoiled infants who need to be placated rather than to take a stand on something of import?

Your problem is that you cannot see that the issues of other people on things like guns, religion, abortion, are as important as your issues. Of course other people's issues are important. Refusing to see that is the true patronizing position. Refusing to see that is the partisan position. It is ironic that Obama keeps running to the middle by claiming he can bring people together while his supporters so sneer at ordinary Americans.

If you believe Wright is a problem, fine, make your case.

I have made that case before and everytime I make it, Obama supporters conflate my opinion with those who Wright scares and creeps out. Nothing Wright has said bothers me much. I belong to a liberal church myself. Why should I get called a racist again for making the case that I have made before that the Wright videos will freak out voters Obama needs?

Instead, why don't you make your case for why Wright won't hurt Obama or how Obama can keep him from doing so?

But don't hide behind your general impression of how a certain market demographic thinks and acts.

I am not hiding. I have stated my opinion before. No hiding needed. Don't give me the ideals crap. That's a form of hiding. Tell me how this is going to work in actuality.

Reverend Wright will be forgotten after the Election, perhaps before.

Then all the small minds can relax.

Here's the problem. Salon is a good, often great read. There's really nothing quite like it on the internet (forget Slate). So what's a thinking person to do? Joan Walsh, at least from what I've seen on t.v. seems like a nice enough, reasonable person. But her posts/columns are invariably hideous, ignorant, pious, out-of-touch, patronizing...more becoming of The New Republic perhaps and even then...(The Weekly Standard maybe)?

Yet, like a badly mangled car accident, they're often hard to ignore. Hence the dilemma. I've decided, there's enough good in Salon to rebut Joan's nonsense and just wait/hope for the day when the good power's that be at Salon find it fit (and long overdue) to get a new Editor-in-Chief.

Well, in reading some of the responses here, at least I'm not alone.