Yes, not renewing our subscription to Salon is the response this deserves. However, since we don't have the option to outright cancel, only to let the sub run out, we should use the time in between to speak-up against the horrid mindset displayed by Salon through Joan Walsh's inept editorializing.

Danger Wil Robinson, Danger!

/obligatory

I bet you get a lot of that.

who have had enough. This is a disgusting little piece of guilty by association journalism of the O'Reilly/Hannity variety. Any doubts about whether I would let my subscription run are gone, now.

My sincere hope, Joan, is that at some point you are going to look back at your editorial decisions over the last couple of months, realize how dishonest you've been, and apologize. I doubt that's coming, so . . .

goodbye, Salon. Its been a nice few years.

I've admired both of your letters -- as I have of many other regular contributors -- in this space and others around here for some time.

I really think the correct response to Ms. Walsh is to boycott our own participation in her forums. She uses us like wind-up toys. I doubt if there's any space on the web where more PhDs and ABDs offer reasoned critique and response and receive for it nothing but derision. Walsh has one belief: that the sexism shown toward Hillary Clinton in the media coverage of this campaign is the greatest offense.

Certainly there has been sexism, and Walsh is correct to draw attention to it. But on every other point her position is conservative and reactionary and her response to intelligent commententers pointing this out has been hostility.

All of these erudite and impassioned letters have served only to entrench her more securely in her myopia and to generate traffic. I think when you're no longer being listened to, when you're being sneered at even as you offer up alternative viewpoints, it's time to leave the conversation. I'm with Dr. Zachary Smith. Walsh has proven herself to be unworthy of her readers.

It's time to stop writing.

I admit I haven't read every single letter, but I've read lots of them, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how exactly Wright's influence on Obama, whatever that is, is relevant.

The closest anyone can come is arguing the GOP will use it as a way to scare ignorant, racist voters in the general (duh), or that it somehow shows a lack of political expediency on Obama's part (which he freely admits), but those are not relevant to Wright's influence on Obama. Rather, those are just the obvious and expected political results of their being associated, and they stem from the type of ignorance and institutionalized racism that other posters have covered more than sufficiently.

I want to know how Wright's influence is relevant. And of course that assumes 1) there is influence; and 2) we have any way of knowing what that influence is. But because so many people seem to be concerned about it (not here, obviously, but in other spheres), I just want to see if someone can explain it.

As a Black man after reading Joan's rants I really feel she is in denial about her own latent racism..I know I am right in my belief as a Black man as she is in her belief about the world as a white woman..

The question is where to we intersect?..Should we?

Sorry, Joan, but this is much ado about nothing. If, for whatever reason, Reverend Wright has a pessimistic view of America because he thinks that our actions don't correspond with our ideals, that's his business. Like all Americans, he has a right to criticize his own country. Is what he said any worse than some of the comments made by Pat Robertson? Of course not! Yet I don't see anybody forcing John McCain or any other Republican to condemn statements made by Robertson and other conservative preachers. When minorities criticize anything about America, it's always considered "subversive." It's ridiculous.

The people milking this scandal are not going to vote for Obama anyway.

If you want to run for president its best to choose a religion and a pastor that are bland. The kind that doesn't require special underwear or require handing out pamphlets at airports. The kind that doesn't take the bible literally and believe in the talking snake. The kind that doesn't blame natural disasters upon sinners. The kind that doesn't judge a nation as a whole.

What makes America great is that it eventually tries to correct its mistakes. And I have faith that the voters will do that this fall.

I have noted that the most troublesome religious leaders are demagogues. The fundamentalist and black churches lead the way in this regard.

Oh how I wish for a candidate that didn't have to profess devotion to a religion. But it won't happen. The best I can hope for is someone who does not make decisions based on the idea that America is specially blessed by a god or that a god guides them to make the right decisions.

Thanks for that succinct synopsis of liberalism. Your description of a liberal response to 9/11 perfectly mirrors my own: not "I hope somebody kills the bastards that did this," but, "Shit, those dudes must have been supremely pissed off--and I can think of a few reasons why. I hope we DON'T bomb anybody--I just want this to stop."

The difficulty here is that empathy is blocked by guilt. And white Americans know (subconsciously, often, but they know) that they bear at least some responsibility for the fact that racism is not dead in America.

Our ancestors made certain choices. They made choices that were morally reprehensible. And now we must deal with the consequences. Me personally, I can look back and find slave-owning ancestors, abolitionist newspaper-starting ancestors, and ancestors who were fishing off the coast of Norway while all this stuff was going down. Nevertheless, it is now my responsibility, fairly or unfairly, to confront the legacy of white supremacy.

I believe that white Americans need to do this in general: to open their eyes and ears and really become aware of the ways in which white supremacy has been the dominant ideology in this country for centuries, how this has benefited them and their family (no matter when they came to America) and how the legacy of violence and discrimination against black Americans still lingers in every community. If the Jews can still acknowledge the effect that being enslaved had on them, why is it so terrible for blacks to do the same?

The answer to that question lies in the question of responsibility. The idea of liberalism you espoused also requires a large measure of personal responsibility: to be honest with oneself about the benefits one receives from a system that is not equal in the way it distributes opportunities and wealth.

It is MOST uncomfortable when you realize that other people have been suffering, and you have been accruing advantages because of that suffering. This is the thing that Rev. Wright brings before us, which we do not want to confront.

We all want to be good people. We don't want to hurt other people. But when it comes right down to it, we'd rather not know about the pain and anger of those without power, who suffer because of the actions of a government purporting to represent us. Because it's too damn uncomfortable! I don't see any way around this. People are going to be discomfited one way or another. Sometimes persuasion must give way to direct action.