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.

Whatever. I do sneer at anyone prepared to argue that retaining gun rights is more important than climate change or the threat of nuclear war. Not all concerns are of equal import. I know this sounds elitist, but I think it's manifestly true, sorry.

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

Again, I'm not interested in the horse race, I'm interested in (broadly) advancing the cause of liberalism, not simply politically, but every day, in these sorts of exchanges, by standing up for what I consider to be liberal values.

Whew.

Now I'm tired.

Thanks again for interacting, AKA, I appreciate it.

I think we just have (at bottom) irreconcilable differences of orientation and perspective, and that's ok.

As a white person, I am continually amazed at other white people, especially liberals, who continue to condemn Wright, almost as a kind of moderate apologetics. When Wright talks about the God of the slaves in the slave ship being different from the God of the men on the decks of the slave ship, that makes sense to me. The kind of desparate, radical poverty and mistreatment African Americans have suffered in this country calls for a radical response. How can you, Joan, judge the "grim" view of African American liberation theology toward America without taking into account the violence and mayhem that played out this weekend on the streets of Oakland and Richmond just across the Bay from your white liberal enclave?

It is not up to Jeremiah Wright to curtail his ministry to the needs of the "middle American" voter. Nor is it up to Obama to respresent or take resonsibility for everything his preacher says. Wright continues to focus his message with more Christian responsibility and love for the people -- if not the policies -- of this country than any of the right-wing preachers the Republicans have sucked up to like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. These men have essentially "damned" America not for its violenece and racism but for its tolerance towards gay people and allowing women autonomy over their bodies. I hate to play this card, but I'm afraid I have to: the (mainstream, liberal) media's insistence on focusing on Obama's relationship with Wright and not McCain's relationship with Hagee is just plain old-fashioned American racism. "Look at the black candidate and his crazy preacher," these sober liberals tell us, "We're liberal but we would never blame America for its problems like he does." Never mind the white candidate's reliance on truly hate-mongering "ministers" like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and James Dobson.

Not that it was anything that Joan Walsh or any other pundit said or wrote.

That speech by Rev. Wright is going to have funding pouring into Clinton from thousands of terrified Democrats.

Right?

The notion that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy is not a legitimate progressive position.

True. However we are also talking about the swing voters.

As far as electability vs nomination is concerned, I would like to see Obama nominated...I also have the opinion that he is electable. In the GE, I think he'll get most of the base that is going for Clinton in the primary, and get some of the independents. Think Gore + Nader. Of course, that could just be a pipe dream.

I don't see it as forsaking the more electable candidate. If Clinton was that strong, she would have done much better in the primary to date...she's only doing about 50/50 against a virtual unknown. I think Clinton would be Gore II in the GE.

I haven't read all the letters here and so this point may have been make already. Joan Walsh describes herself as on the left. I am beginning to think just barely. She writes:

"He linked the killing of American civilians on 9/11 to Americans killing civilians from the Indians to Hiroshima to Bill Clinton's bombing of Sudan to retaliate against al-Qaida in 1998. I deplore all of those civilian killings as well, but 9/11 was indefensible."

And the killing of Native Americans was not indefensible?

I think Joan Walsh has been a journalist too long. She is obsessed with how things are going to play with the mainstream and seems to fully buy into the guilt by association nonsense that pollutes political debate.

Wright is entitled to his opinions and to express them. He is not running for office. Intellectual discourse would be completely crippled if everyone was forever worrying about what middle America would think of them.

Our task is not easy. To tell uncomfortable truths is an act of love -- to link them with the compassionate social action that has characterized Reverend Wright's quarter century ministry is an act of profound love and courage. We need more patriots like him willing to witness and speak the truth in these difficult times. It might be a good idea to listen to the interview and the sermon once again with both heart and mind. Dare to stand with our brother Rev. Jeremiah Wright and speak truth to power. It's our only chance.

The only question is whether it's intentional or not. Intentional would mean she's purposefully trying to rankle Obama supporters. Unintentionally means she has no understanding of the black community or doesn't care and is just trying to knee-cap Obama. Either way, she is not objective and, unknowingly, is working to undermine a woman's right to choose. Way to go, Joan!

Yup... Hillon.com or Sillary.com...

Maybe even, "Shillon.com?"

:-)

You sound like you've reached the saturation point, as many of us have! Check out Salon: The Parody

http://salonparody.blogspot.com

It'll restore your faith, and you'll realize you're definitely not alone!

Liberals start condoning the divisive and hate filled words of Wright.

Hopefully in their blind passion to reach out they have not started loving the violent elements of OTHER side.

Won't make it right because two Wrongs do not make a Wright.