Does not Wright wants Obama to rename the White House.

Some people are really talking and drawing parallels with S Africa and Zimbabwe - that is unfortunate. Black Governments may not be able to control the law and order in these two countries after the regime changed but that has nothing to do with race.

Dear Joan:

Rev Wright was saying that a government that has many sins cannot behave as if it is an innocent. Our government's lack of humility and sense of revenge after 9/11 was extreme in light of the many innocents that it has killed to achieve its goals. He compared our hubris to Egyptian and Roman governments described in the Bible. No politician would ever say these things, but Wright is a Christian first and an American second; to him, killing is never defensible. We may disagree, and that's OK; he has every right to speak his conscience as a Christian and biblical scholar. Democrats needs to stand up and support this man's right to his opinion, and Obama's right to listen to all viewpoints, no matter how extreme. Nobody on the right has been held so accountable for all the crazy things their pastors say.

I like you and your letters, but don't always agree. You wrote:

"The notion that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy is not a legitimate progressive position. The traditional progressive tradition is to redistribute wealth in such a way as to help the poorest in this country."

You make many good points, but in the Bush adminstration the foreign policy of war-making directly affected our ability to provide civil services (Katrina).

In one more fine irony, there are U.S. soldiers (who are most definitely working class) having to deal with home forclosures from Iraq. The war and lack of government oversight combine to hurt the economy as a whole, especially the troops... (many of whom have serious mental health issues and inadequate benefits).

Our foreign policy of fighting terror and our domestic policy of pushing back the rights of U.S. citizens are related, too.

Your overall point makes sense to me, but I think these issues are often pretty tough to untangle.

Maybe Obama should give another pretty speech. Pretty speeches make bad people go away, takes away all their evil powers.

I'm not convinced that:

Rev Wright is so wrong.

Not convinced:

That Reagan and Clinton were great Presidents.

Unconvinced: That John McCain has even a twig of reliable rectitude in his elephant's trunk.

I struggled to mush through Joan Walsh' repetitive judgment assumptions, and found them unconvincing too.

I think the depth and horror of what's been U.S. Governmentally wrong or allowed and mostly untold for @ 50 years is so shocking that a combined majority of Americans are either unaware or in denial of it.

Why, exactly, do we have 16 different 'Intelligence Agencies'?

Since the veil closed again after Viet Nam, the secrets and savagery cloaked up, till recently.

When did our nation become morally superior to all others?

How well can you preach Democracy overseas if you have dismantled it at home?

What legislation did we enact that orders us to dictate a style of government to other nations?

We shouldn't be fools enough to think that the real power structure could possibly prefer losing to Obama.

They're not rooting for Clinton because they hate her and know they can beat her. She's the lesser threat to their rule of unlaw.

And, isn't it funny, the Clintons feel the same way: McCain is the lesser threat to their style of cackling corruption.

I like Salon fine since i happened upon it this season. The topics are hot alot. Some response letters are truly informative and inspiring.

I don't know who's who or how it all works yet, and may never learn nor care why bylines are bestowed on some contributors.

But i don't think Joan Walsh gets Rev Wright right at all.

The greatly seperated psyches of the races are such that the curious mayn't have an inkling of what's in other peoples' minds and hearts.

We should have enough faith in each other to find out.

I'll confess i took @ 30 years off from paying much attention to pols because it made me too mad. I just on and off moaned/seethed every 4 years in early November.

I call now to all of good will to bring forth your skill and join in this chance.

P.S. Why would you fight in a 'War' for 5 years without having any opposing Army left to challenge you? Bush1 kicked them home from Kuwait. Kurds donated the hiding General to Bush2.

It wasn't Normandy and Iwo Jima.

Truce it back to the United Nations ASAP.

Wright is not Obama. It does nobody any good to continue perpetuating a linkage of the two that has become tantamount to a singular identity.

We get it. The Republicans (and the media they control) are defining Obama as an America-hating radical, whether a Muslim, a black nationalist, or a throw-back weatherman/black panther type.

That is not who he is any more than Hillary is any of the labels assigned to her. Or Kerry. Or Gore. ...and McCain isn't who they say he is either.

You wrote:

"I can't help but wonder: Maybe Wright needs Obama to fail to justify his pessimistic view of American promise."

This is true ONLY if Wright's in a hurry, because win or lose, Wright's allegedly 'pessimistic' view is accurate, to a 'T.' (Although woefully incomplete, no doubt due to the limitations of airtime)

If Obama wins, it will be a disaster for the left, for women, for working classs Americans, for the concept of Universal Health Care, and, yes, for all Americans of color. And this view, of course, ignores the legitimate hopes, dreams, and universal rights of people the World over, who will suffer a continuation of the same imperialist, racist, inhumane torture, displacements and mass murders (terrorism,in other words) that America has perpetrated upon the peoples and sovereign countries of the World, relentlessly, since World War II. (With a bit of warm-up in the Robber Baron days, and a nice job murdering 18+ million Indians, of course).

If Obama loses, McCain brings America to Armageddon that much faster.

Those two are flip sides of the same coin, plain and simple. As a lifelong Leftist, I realized Mr. Obama was absolutely anything but a progressive when he started talking about bringing Republicans into the room to 'work out' American issues that were supposedly dividing the country.And his ridiculous notion that the very men who have a stranglehold on health care in this country (which is pathetic) would have any reason whatsoever to just, alll of a sudden sit down with this lightweight and proceed to 'negotiate' away their status quo. (The "I'll invite them to sit down and negotiate' bit is equal evidence of the most dangerous naivete, in addition to being a horrifying example of his typical 'hope' vs. action/results appeal)

I have news for you Mr Obama, we don't need their input. Period. A lot of their leaders, all of their theorists and Think Tank members, as well as a good chunk of the ownership of Big Media, in this country would NOT be negotiating anything, except, perhaps, burial arrangements, after judgment at Nuremberg, if there was even a shred of Justice left in this land.

Ms. Walsh, with all due respect, wake up. The people in power are not sitting on your TV set or occupying specific offices in the White House. And the Howdy Doody, black 'Ross Perot' vs. the 'white' Ross Perot 'choice' in the next election is not going to change anything. These war criminals have been running the Show for decades.

A look at history shows that the outcomes are pretty well limited to a horrifying self destruction, or an armed insurrection. A 'revolution', in other words, to balance the coup d'etat that happened in late 1963, with serious 'mop up' later in the Sixties (Hi Martin, Hi Bobby), and continuing aggrandizement, as we speak (Hi Mr Cheney, Hi Wolfie!). The outcome of the next election, politically speaking, in terms of change, will be the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.