We are going to be known for what we do, not what we say or think about ourselves. We would like to think of ourselves as a generous, good people, but our history inconveniently disagrees. We did exterminate the Native Americans. We did enslave the blacks. We did support Suharto. We did support Saddam, before he became inconvenient. We did kill close to a million Vietnamese. We did subjugate the Filipinos for over 50 years. We did effect "regime-change" in many, many countries, often overthrowing democratically elected governments just because they did not toe our line.

We can't undo what we've done, and we can't live it down. But if we are going to claim to be redeemed, we had better show it. Because we still are at it in Iraq, aren't we? And the argument that most of us are not responsible for what our government and Mr. Bush did and does is disingenuous. We did re-elect George W. Bush, even after we knew his crimes (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and a never ending list of other crimes), didn't we? And don't bet that we won't elect John McCain for four more years of this crap. (Oh, yeah; he's going to be Hamas' worst nightmare. Here we go again.)

You think Wright is wrong? Let's prove him wrong! Let's get out of Iraq and pay them reparations for systematically destroying their country. Let's pay Nicaragua the reparations that are due them as a result of a World Court ruling, for ruining their country in yet another "regime-change" attempt. Let's broker a truly just peace in Palestine. Let's give back Guantanamo to Cuba, and free or try the prisoners we hold there. Let's revamp a criminal justice system that incarcerates a scandalous proportion of blacks, and maintains one of the largest prison population in the world, but does nothing about high placed criminals like Mr. Bush.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Until we do we do not have the moral standing to judge the Rev. Wright.

You make very good points. Just one quibble. I think part of the Bush Adminstration's failure where Katrina was concerned was due to a rather ugly lack of will. Probably partly for some pretty ugly reasons. Much of this is reflected in Barbara Bush's comment that (paraphrasing) those people were better off after Katrina due to government benefits than before. The inability of this arrogant privileged woman to understand that people are traumatized by being uprooted from their homes and their hometown galled me. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

There is simply no excuse for the travesty of the government's response to Katrina.

This article was problematic on many levels, making it hard to narrow it down. But a couple points. In her update she notes that Obama agrees with her. Rhetorically, it sounds like Obama responded to the article afterwards (even though she did mention the date of the speech).

Next, Walsh probably accurately reflects how the MSM will react to the Wright interview: recycling the same complaints and worries about Obama. But what is more problematic is that Walsh laments that time is to short to begin a thoughtful national dialogue on race. But here she is with a national column and could have contributed to a better discussion on the issue.

FInally, its clear Walsh favors Clinton. Instead of revisiting the Wright issue, how about making a stronger case for Clinton or explaining the logic of some the more distasteful parts of her campaign. I personally have found her threats to bomb Iran troubling, her "misstatements" on her foreign policy experience worrisome, the strangely paternalistic gender dynamic in her ads a step backwards, her rejection of NAFTA hypocritical. I started out thinking she would not be bad, but these issues have caused me to question her leadership and character. Rather than beating down Obama, I would sincerely like to see Walsh produce a column dealing with these issues and why Clinton still deserves to be president without the distortions that Krugman resorts to. Maybe she could remind me of something I have forgotten.

PBS for continuing to give Bill Moyers a job. You call that an interview? Where was the AIDS question, or the "why are you endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling people to vote for Obama simply because his opponents have never been called a ______," or "where did you get the idea that the Middle East is in Africa when it's in Asia"... the guy doesn't even know what hermeneutic means. Moyers was pathetic. Wright came off very well, but anyone would when all they get asked is softballs.

...we can not be led by fear, fear can not govern our decisions."

--Michelle Obama

I, for one, reject the politics of fear.

I hope I'm not alone.

Or do they just want to?

Bill Moyers is a journalist, not Chris Wallace or George Stephanopoulis, you idiot.

I just heard the REV/ Jerimiah Wright speaking at the Detroit chapter of the NAACP. The entire speech is covered on CNN. It was a great speech. If anyone can snip this into something negative or say it bad for Obama or done for poltical purposes. I say they are very devious person.

You're absolutely right and I didn't mean to suggest that the lack of foresight/response was only due to having money and guardsmen in Iraq.

It's pretty sick, all right, and if anyone's interested in how some of the mega corps are profiting off of the disaster, check out out Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine...

Why should Jeremiah Wright go away? If you want to have a conversation about race, well then let's have it! Nobody said it was going to be pretty. He's wounded, as you say, and needs to be heard out. When a victim speaks one must listen with compassion. You are too quick to score points for your gal Hillary (although sometimes it seems like you yourself don't realize your own surreptitious motivations).

Also remember that Jeremiah Wright is not running for president. Throughout your article you conflate his limited role as a pastor in a black church with Obama's position as a politician running for the US presidency. Wright has nothing to defend, no position to refine or hedge or maneuver around. His ideas about America's sins are not Obama's positions, as much as you and your media buddies would like to believe otherwise. You take it for granted that simply because a man sits in a church he agrees with everything the guy in the pulpit is saying. Maybe he just likes the energy, the community, or maybe it's just a place to network. Is that so wrong?

Furthermore, I'll give Jeremiah Wright credit for not kowtowing to the media. The man's got some balls to keep keepin' on. I'll chalk that up to courage and integrity. You, you just keep smearing the guy and patting yourself on the back for being more "enlightened" so much that you think you can glimpse into his soul and divine his real motivations.

Maybe you should go away Joan!