Joan's analysis is on target here. Bill Moyers did his usual good job, but the concerns remain.

Obama is on record for his disagreement with Wright. Why are his supporters insisting on Wright's wrong cause.

I guess the obvious really is upsetting to you. However, from reading other posts, it would seem that many feel that Rev. Wright has not done anything which will reflect badly on Obama. They also believe that he is misunderstood and being unfairly painted. Apparently, they think that if it is spun properly, Rev. Wright will go away as an issue. It is not spinnable. Period. How many times have I read here and elsewhere that Rev. Wright is old news no longer influencing this race? This is not correct and I am glad that you realize it.

Wow. Joan, your reading of the Wright interview reeks of anti-intellectualism and just the sort of tunnel-vision Wright spoke of as being such a problem in our cultural discourse. Whether this is due to the damage caused you by the church or your blind loyalty to Sen. Clinton, one can only guess.

You are, I have assumed, a learned woman capable, I have assumed, of incorporating new ideas and frameworks into your own hermeneutic. That you could miss the deep thought and conviction in Wright's assessment, not only of this political brouhaha but also of his own theology and his values of community outreach and thoughtful discourse shows me that I have been terribly, terribly mistaken.

I've made an ass of us both.

How did you ever get such a prominent platform to air such poorly thought out positions? It bothers me that I am paying for this crap.

...for giving this gift to the 2008 campaign.

Who the hell woulda thunk that African-American children have different brains from European-American children?

If we can't get Rev. Wright out for a long speaking tour between now and November, can we at least get Damon Wayans to work up a 'Rev. Wright' character to take on the road.

This is like two hours of Howard Dean's "I Have a Scream".

But, I have to hand this much to Obama. Clearly, unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, Rev. Wright DOES NOT speak for Obama. If Obama's handlers had gotten wind of this cockamamy speech, they'd have crashed the limo before Rev. Wright got to the dinner. Un-freaking-believable.

So world weary; poor Joan Walsh. Maybe you should take a vacation until after Nov. 4th. You (and we) will feel better.

Now, I come here to see "opposing viewpoint" and to read the letters of some very thoughtful and talented letter-writers. I come here for a preview of how the MSM is going to try to disparage Obama today. How sad is that?

I know how you feel. Thanks for your post!

Well, the US has always been, and will always be a deeply racially divided country because it reflects the world, which has always been the same way too. This is not going to change substantially or permanently, in the next 4 years, in the same way it has not changed in the past 200 or 2000.

So if you can get past that, and realize that, in the same way the difference between "hunger" and "hungry" reflects whether you are a commentator or actually on the receiving end, and how different things feel from those two perspectives, then you can perhaps find the wherewithall to simply resist the temptation to amplify the comments of someone who speaks from the viewpoint of actual racial disadvantage first hand, salacious as it may currently be to comment on it, and maybe Salon can focus its not incosiderable megaphone on the likes of McCain & Bob Jones University. Or do something really crazy like send someone from SF to the deep south to actually video that, and post that video,

Because every coin has two sides, and it is when the coin really needs flipping that the will and effort to flip it has to be found. That may even put you ahead of the curve.

I'm more concerned about Clinton's statements on Iran, or McCain's position on abortion.

But "comfort level" is the key. Americans, Walsh implies, aren't "comfortable" with Wright.

Ouch!

In my post below I facetiously suggested an investigation of whether HRC may have befriended and maintained a long-term intellectual relation with some Marxist professor from her college days and, if so, the media can make an instant celeb out of the prof.

Just moments ago I stumbled upon the following article titled Tom Hayden Takes A Look at Clinton's 60s Past.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/tom-hayden-look.html

As long as one keeps in mind that this whole Wright thing is a creation of the HRC campaign, the article above illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the tactic.

The only things that upset me are warrantless witch hunts. When you can proove that Obama is an apprentice of the black arts under Wright's tutorship, or a sinister Saracen hell bent on evening out some ancient score, or a "colored" commie, or any other imagining you or anybody else would like to contrive, then you get back to me with that evidence, and I'll give it a good long look.

lots 'o luck and don't forget to duck...

Dear Ms. Walsh, you are the one who posted that a long campaign was good. Are you still standing by your words? My other question is, what exactly is the "idea" of America?

------------------

Isn't it a testament to Barack Obama that he talks hope and change, and the beauty and wonder of America, when surrounded by these "hate America" radicals? That he inspires MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, that he totally eclipsed the LONG ANNOINTED CANDIDATE, has far outstripped her in funding, and is being cheered by the entire planet?

Not bad for someone from the dreaded hotbed of Hate Americans...Hyde Park.

Obama was a member of the church for 20 years - it's no stretch at all for anyone to "associate" him with Wright's views. I'm not saying they're necessarily Obama's views at all. Personally I find his distancing himself from Wright problematic both because I think it's disengenuous, and also because I wish it wasn't necessary. I don't blame Obama for either of these things - I don't really think he has a choice, and he's trying to with a situation that has to be very awkward for any politician (but especially one who's done so much to position himself as a cross-over to the other side of the aisle candidate).

But to pretend this isn't an issue helps no one - especially not Obama. As the comments here have made clear, many, many people espouse an agreement with some or all of what Wright has said - and, indeed, many of those positions are part and parcel of the progressive left. Even as Obama the candidate is deftly edging away from the political implications of Wright's words, many Obama supporters are, in fact, trumpeting their agreement with Wright.

It's not "joining the right-wing chorus" to suggest that this is an issue. My point is that it doesn't have to be an only negative issue, and it doesn't mean Democrats have to allow Republicans to frame it (however much they'll work to do so) - because, to me, the conversation is really about radicalism and centrism. The fact that, as you say, Obama is distancing himself from positions so many of his supporters (and, frankly, a lot of Clinton supporters) subscribe to is that much more evidence of how compromised the situation is.

I find a lot of what Wright says simplistic. But what I'd appreciate as a Democrat wanting to win in November is less shouting about how this doesn't matter and anyone who brings it up is stupid. Because it is going to be brought up - it's going to be brought up if Hilary Clinton concedes this very afternoon - and pretending it isn't is just foolish. It's especially foolish because it's actually a legitimate question - one that ought to have been aggressively raised with Bush on the "faith-based" element of his presidency. A progressive agenda isn't going to be broadly articulated when supporters stick fingers in their ears and shout to drown out criticism any more than it will be by candidates who sidle away from those positions. I think Joan is right to characterize some of the difficulty here as the problem of a Hype Park liberal running for an office where he can't appear to be a Hyde Park liberal - or at least doesn't believe he can. I would prefer he found a way to at least split the difference, and that means being prepared for this question in the general and using it to the Democrats' advantage.