If we follow Joan Walsh's logic, JFK should have denounced Catholicism and then dropped out of the race.

Every religion or social movement has it's bad aspects. We won't get anywhere by blacklisting the best and the brightest.

I answered your post on p. 24. I just forgot to put your name in the subject line.

I ask the same to those who think it is so clear that Obama is the better candidate: are you shocked that so many thoughtful and experienced people (who appreciate Hillary) are pulling for Obama? Or do you simply see their support for Barack as a lapse in their thoughtfulness?

Mostly it seems people are just going on types of feelings when they talk about these things that seem so "clear" and "obvious". This question is pointing back to your recent comment to Joan in which you are surprised Joan takes issue with Wright. In that comment you mentioned your support for Hillary and it sounded like, to you, it really is simply a question of applying thought/observation to each of the candidates. That's why I'd find it interesting to know what you think about thoughtful folks who go for Obama.

As you yourself admitted, much of what Mr. Wright points at is true. The United States has perpetrated much evil in this world - ask the Indians, the blacks, the Japanese-Americans, the Vietnamese, the Iranians, the Iraqis etc, etc. It should come as no surprise that we have brought much good to the world also. In former times we were a beacon of hope and freedom to the world, we almost single-handedly broke the cycle of hate that brought the world WWI and WWII, we brought the world science, technology, and innovation that has saved millions of lives, and brought surcease and joy to millions of others, and so much more. It is a perfect example of my dictum that anything capable of great good is also capable, in equal measure, of great evil. Human intervention and human action determines what you get.

I say these things in the (probably forlorn) hope that Americans in general and in particular acquire the maturity to recognize their failures and mistakes and learn from them. In the hope that we'll stop being so cock-sure of ourselves and recognize that we aren't always right and that if we aren't careful we can screw things up worse than they are now, or we can hurt somebody badly, or both. Unfortunately, things don't look good for my hopes; one can but try.

But puleeze! Don't give me this redemption crap. The United States has done zero, zip, nada, nist to redeem itself for its past evils. Indeed, many of the evils are beyond redemption as those we hurt are long dead or close to it. As an example, the compensation given to the remaining Japanese Americans whose lives were ruined by Roosevelt's internment policy can only be described as pasties and a g-string for our consciences; a pittance offered after most of the people we screwed were dead and those that weren't were well into the autumn of their lives. Did we learn anything from what we did? Well, if the roundup of Arab and Muslim men after 9/11 is any indicator, the answer is no.

So back to Reverend Wright... The good reverend isn't wrong but neither is he right (yes, that's a deliberate pun). We need to get over our apparent world view that everything is black or white, good or evil, right or wrong. There's a lot of gray in this world and it doesn't just happen at dawn and dusk.

...exactly so, nothing yet is "written."

Stop being so obtuse. She clearly meant that Joan's whiteness and Americaness is preventing her from seeing other perspectives particularly the perspective of African-Americans and people who don't hold the US in such exceptional regards. You know, like the rest of the world.

From NIxon to Reagan to Shrub, America has deserved damnation in so many ways. Wright spoke for the true spirit of Christ in his pacifism and his concern for the underpriviledged. Romantic patriotism has lead us into this mess and Obama's hope is to speak as sharply as he may to the reality of the conditions for all Americans.

Corporate fascism has truly taken over from Somoza to Monsanto to Haliburton to ABC, CBS, and NBC to the FCC the FDA, the EPA, the White House and the Supreme Court. I could go on and on but suffice it to say that unless the people speak up in a fair election Democracy stands overthrown. Wise up, the time is ripe for truth to power.

The title of Joan's next in depth editorial.

You said to Joan:

Dear Joan,

I have great respect for you and Salon. But after reading your column about Wright, I really have to say - and I don't mean this to sound nasty - but you're really white and you're really American.

Why do you think it would ever be an insult to call someone white or American? I don't understand. Could you please explain the insult factor of your statement?

You're falling into exactly the same trap that both Joan and Obama have ascribed to Wright, namely, that America is static.

You write that, while you're not particularly concerned about the association, others will be: "What people don't seem to understand is that Wright may have a substantial effect upon the General Election."

This story hasn't been written yet, AKA! Why not fight to assure that it will not have such an effect in the general election? Whether it has an effect or not will depend largely upon the conversation we have now, will it not?

Is America so static that we can't have an honest conversation about this? Why do not we, as liberals, work to argue that this is a non-issue rather than conceding so much ground?

How does one ever change the status quo if one refuses to stick one's neck out? Why not work on refining our arguments and making them resonant for why this is a non-issue?

This is the problem with inordinate focus on "electability." We think more about what other people will say and and up championing their cause not because we believe it ourselves, but because we fear their arguments? Because we presume their minds can never be changed because they are static, so the best we can do is pander to their prejudices and ignorance?

Is that not a profoundly patronizing position, to treat the electorate like spoiled infants who need to be placated rather than to take a stand on something of import?

If you believe Wright is a problem, fine, make your case.

But don't hide behind your general impression of how a certain market demographic thinks and acts.