There's not a lot I can add to a lot of the fine posts I've read already, but it really is odd how Ms. Walsh clearly watched an interview I didn't see, even though we were apparently viewing the same program. Reverend Wright drew a broad clear line under the conservative meme of America's phoney perfection, and his candor should be embraced (and a great boon to Obama, not a liability).

But when you read the take of who I thought was an intelligent thoughtful woman you can see how America has reached the sad place we are today. There is no hope without honesty and clarity; there are no solutions to problems without staring the problems in the face.

The truth may sting, but it never, ever hurts you if you if you deal with it head-on. And Ms. Walsh, like so many others, turns away.

Sorry, but this is too much.

Is the next column going to be about lapel pins?

Hmmm. Wright "could have gotten away with God damn Bush...or Truman" but it hurts you - it depresses you, even - to have him condemn the actions of the governments under these Presidents because it sounds as if he is against the very things this country stands for.

One thing this country stands for is self-correction. That is the brilliant center, the absolute core, of the Constitution. It is the reason this country remains "the last best hope of mankind" despite the flaws of the individuals who lead it. We aren't the best and freest country because we are perfect; we are the best and freest, to borrow from Senator Obama's speech on race, because we are always in the process of becoming perfected. This process is itself imperfect: we tilt too far one way, we tilt too far the other way in response. But after this rocking back and forth we find our way back on course, and we stay the course until the next crisis. The Constitution permits freedom of speech for just that reason: because the exchange of ideas, however misguided any one idea is, draws out the best idea.

And The Reverend Wright contributes to this in a perfectly honorable way. He tilts too far one way in demanding a standard of conduct from the government: he wants the government to be without sin. He wants us not to kill civilians when we mean only to attack military targets. He wants us not to use weapons of mass destruction. He wants us not to punish states we don't like by starving their populations.

This is what the founders hoped he'd do. He isn't against the idea of America. He is the essence of it. You care about what your country does, you make your best and most impassioned case from your side of center, and you set in motion exactly the debate that ensures that something better than what you started with will emerge.

The Reverend Wright says provocative things, a wild reaction sets in, and out of it comes Senator Obama's brilliant, once-in-century address on race.

And this depresses you? What would it take to make you happy?

Jeremiah Wright is a fine, and honorable company to keep. Who, on his opponents side, and indeed among the punditry comes even close to his intellectual brilliance, and integrity? Please.

Cheers to the emergence of a sophisticated public discourse on what ails us, instead of the asinine nationalist cheer leading we've had to suffer for so long.

to know that the Uber Obamatons would be a snarling mass...Didn't have to get past page one to see the KKK references to Joan...Keep up the good work Obamanuts...You're respresenting him well...

We, with our mushy brains, are capable of hearing the admonitions from the various religious, or ethical culture prophets - and then applying the precepts selectively in manner to exempt ourselves from "the rules".

I did not hear Rev. Wright approve of the acts of 9/11. He simply reminded us of Ambassador Ed Peck's analysis that when we, as a nation, do evil, then "chickens come home to roost."

Homeland security is most economically assured when we refrain from creating enemies. So, tell me then that we haven't made enemies by our support of oppressive regimes, our suppression of democracy in countries having resources that we covet - and by our cult-inspired support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-winer/why-is-it-so-quiet-after_b_98763.html

or how about:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/wright-on-moy-1.html

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/04/who_is_jeremiah_wright.html

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/COL10/804280430/1001/NEWS

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/NEWS06/804280436

Do why do we see nothing like this here on Salon - or any balance - I am switching to reading the Huffington post more. At least it has some balance. At least its editor is not someone who pretends to be progressive, while letting a mail-order-brides business pay her salary, who does not delude herself that she is making an effort to be fair.

Instead, the worthless editor of Salon has failed to achieve any balance. Not only has she strained to search for offence in the Moyers' interview, she appears to have spiked any disagreement with her in Salon.

Read these columnists -- read more, even in Republican mouthpieces, and then go back read Walsh's latest screed, and ask yourself, is this the same interview? How can she end up with a take on the interview that only the extreme Republican right might echo, and then wonder, what is Joan Walsh?

is that we shouldn't be using taxpayers money for the CIA to create AIDS...That's just irresponsible...

You have officially made the horse glue. Please, please, just stop beating it already.

It's Monday morning and I'm listening to Rev. Wright speak to the Washington Press Club, after having listened closely to his speech last night to the Detroit NAACP. Aside from the obvious change in voice pattern and inflection so as to "play to his crowd" more effectively, the messages are quite similar: African Americans and their cultural nuances are DIFFERENT from White Americans, NOT INFERIOR. But the real importance of these cosmetically concocted "clean-up the mess speeches" is that they were replete with Obama campaign code words like "TRANSFORMATION", "CHANGE" and that all purpose phrase; " WE CAN SUCCEED (Yes we can!) Either Mr. Axelrod's speech writing staff was duly influential, or, Rev. Wright's own preparation included carefully considered messages that would best serve to reinforce the candidate's appeal. Either way. these diatribes won't be well received by anyone except those individuals already firmly entrenched as members of the Obama Redemption Parade. That means that over 51% of voting Americans will cast their vote elsewhere.