Again, why do the words of someone who is not Obama matter more than the words of your own preferred candidate? Because you are working as a partisan within the primary, of course.

Your write:

Wright could probably have gotten away with "God damn Bush" for the bloody Iraq war if he wanted to, or "God damn Truman" for bombing the Japanese at the end of World War II, or even "God damn the American government!" for its many mistakes. But "God damn America" - that's sweeping.

So what is your feeling about Clinton saying she would obliterate Iran? That would go beyond its leaders, of course, and unlike Wright, she's talking about us killing people rather God judging them (and again, she's the candidate and Wright isn't).

How about the Boston Globe's editorial:

A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/?p1=email_to_a_friend

Declare your bias. You cannot maintain independence with a shred of credibility. When Obama is in trouble because someone he's associated with damns America for undeniable sins (a nation that votes for its leaders), yet Clinton is not in trouble for threatening to "obliterate" people who don't vote for their decision makers, that suggests a broken moral compass.

if it were not so sad.

koolaid drinking Ms Walsh claims to be a leftist. that is so rich. I suppose it is all relative after all and she probably is slightly to the left of Genghis Khan.

rather than providing any analysis of the direction she and others in the media seem to want to lead us, she happily or as she claims sadly chirps all the rightwing talking points. strange she didn't mention that Hamas wants Obama for president as McCain did.

good grief woman! granted no one wants to hear that their baby is ugly but sometimes you just gotta face the facts.

to make sure that undecided readers think Wright = Obama come election day.

What a lot of obtuse, patronizing crap you have just spewed in this entry. You are racist in that precious white liberal sort of way that tolerated Jim Crow and lynchings and the KKK for such a long, long time, because you are truly unable to wear another person's skin for even a second, especially if that skin isn't as lily white as yours. You should just straight out come out for Billary, since you are a true Clintonista at heart. Then you should just move right on over to Fox news where you belong -- At least there you could be totally open in your attempts (In league with the Clintons, Rush Limbaugh, et al) to destroy Obama's chances to win in November. This election is about whether to choose a brighter future for America or to cling to a past full of violent, vile and sordid memories and broken promises. As a 70 year old white man who grew up in Ohio I know all about the prejudice, subtle and overt, of white America - for over half a century I have argued with uncounted numbers of ignorant whites on racial matters - I have totally lost patience with you honkies at this point and want nothing more to do with any of you, especially all you old fools. I side with the young people, the Millennials, who see the promise Obama represents as we move into the 21st century. You superannuated rednecks can take your bowling balls and flag pins and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Maybe Joan could start one and commensurate with those who agree with her assessment of the Reverend Wright. Maybe Fox News could use another phony "Liberal" on the Sunday Morning War Propaganda programs - the demographic of White Women afraid of Black Men has been too long overlooked and neglected.

Salon could use another editor.

The Wright thing is, by any measure, a bad thing for the Obama campaign. Here's the thing: no candidate, of whatever party, is ever going to win an election based on the slogan, "God damn America." Obama should be brutal, and throw the brother under the bus. He's already been cold-blooded in certain ways: the selective race-baiting, usually just in time for a primary or caucus where blacks are numerous, by deconstructing Bill's or Hillary's words to solidify the black vote and to get Hillary's negatives up. (Psst, that's called the "old politics," and "negative campaigning."

Another thing to watch is the Sean Bell shooting in New York. Watch how far Obama stays from something like that.

Every time an African-American gets to any position of power, white race-baiters like Joan seek to make denounce every black person in his life that he has ever associated with, known, or seen in the street. Barack must answer for every African-American he has ever known. Hillary however, does not. No similar controversy erupts around her, because we don't attribute the words of her friends and surrogates (ahem, Ferraro) to her. This is racism, this is how it works in 21st Century America.

That is why the Farrakhan test is so important. If you were born and raised on the South Side of Chicago, you know that well intentioned people like Joan never make into your neighborhood. Neither does HRC or even you Hotspur. Instead, the people working in your neighborhood are people like Wright, like Farrahkan, like Obama. And these people, who represent vastly different perspectives learn to work together for a common goal, uplifting their community. Sometimes they form friendships, other times bonds of mutual respect. I'll give yo another example, in the ABC debate both candidates were asked about Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action hasn't been a part of the national conversation since 96, possibly not evven than. But Obama is black, which makes it relevant. Even though white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of AA.

When you leaver your community, as Obama has, as I have, people like Joan seek to make you distance yourself from these people, these ideas, in order to prove that you aren't some hidden radical, some crazed negro. You can reject, you can denounce, but you will never meet their lofty expectations because you will never be one of them. There is nothing Obama can do to appease people like Joan. Nothing. No one brings up Rev. Wright more than Joan. She does it repeatedly, she does it with out providing context, she does it while completely ignoring Obama's own words. She will never let this go. I'm too lazy to do the research, but I would guess that Joan has mentioned Rev. Wright in more than 75% of her articles (sometimes just in passing) since the Wright controversy erupted. This only matters to her and people like her. It is a subtle form of racism; you must argue against statements you've never made, that you probably don't even support, and that don't even concern you, because you share a special connection - i.e. your skin color.

Does anyone know what HRC pastor has said? Does anyone care? I wonder why. Any minority candidate running for president will find themselves subject to a "loyalty test". This doesn't bother Joan. I'm not surprised.