Well, one thing is for sure - you shoose to comment about issues that bring in the letters! I wonder if you had the time to sit down and talk to, sorry I mean with, Jeremiah Wright you'd wlak away with the same impressions you exposed in your piece? It seems as if that race dialogue that should happen between blacks and whites won't happen because we can't hear what's acutally being said. The words that Wright spoke were English but Walsh didn't hear what the man was saying. Myabe it might have helped if she had been black or maybe half black to have heard what the minister was trying to explain to a white nation that has almost always closed its mind to black dialogue unless during a time of crisis - say a riot in the streets by angry blacks. And the reaction of the white media and a whole lot of white people is always the same: "Why? Why are they so angry?"

I'd like to know why Walsh believes that Wright is so wrong for recounting the atricities that our country is so notorious for perpetrating against other nations and peoples? Why does she think that it is so unusal for a man of God to talk about retribution for sins committed and not atoned for?

How can blacks and whites speak the same language and still not understand one another? It's simple: everyone goes into every discussion with their blinders on - no one really wants to hear the truth because once your hear it you have to do something about injustice. But America isn't ready to deal with injustice much less face the truth about itself.

Race is obviously a hot button issue, as demonstrated by the number of letters this oiece has generated, but no one, not even Ms. Walsh want to take the dialogue to a place where people might find a common ground to speak to one another. It's still about"how misguided the right reverend Wright is and if he's really trying to sabotage Obama's political quest."

Give my old, tired black butt a break!

the "norm" is not healthy but

I don't think Joan wants Hillary to be the nominee. In fact, I think if Hillary was in the lead right now, Joan would be blogging as intensely "against" her. She would scratch her head and be sad that more American's are not holding Hillary's feet the fire for her comments about Bosnia because Joan would be sure to point out that those comments can not have anything to do with simple misspeaking. Joan would write "thoughtful" blogs wondering why we refuse to really look at what is behind that kind of comment by Hillary and she would examine issues like privilege, entitlement, out-of-touchness. She would remind us that Hillary has some great qualities, but she would also share her disappointment in Hillary and she would scratch her head in front of us. Joan would be seriously saddened by the way Barack was being discounted for relatively superficial reasons and she would point out that Hillary very well might be too polarizing for the general election. Imagine if Hillary was winning and she had said those recent comments about Iran. Joan would write brilliantly about how that might be a warning signal as to why a President Hillary could put us in more danger because of the pressure she feels to always show how strong she is....

Joan really does think that her constant head-scratching about Barack and all his potential problems is helping him become president. She has said so. She considers it her duty to help him.

As to those of you who think Joan is unaware of American history, I must disagree. But I do think that Joan is of the opinion that you have to consider the American Shadow a result of times we have made mistakes, not as indicative of anything inherent with how collections of massive power function in the world. I think Joan is a firm believer that our darkest hours were mostly a function of misstatements and tactical errors and she would hope that we all see that we have put most of that shadow behind us by now.

I disagree with her firmly, but I do think she is ready to acknowledge we have a much darker legacy than we are typically told to mention. But Joan is fairly comfortable taking the mainstream media's tendencies to heart. I bet Greenwald's work often rubs her the wrong way. She must get fairly sick of him harping that it is a journalists responsibility to dig deeper than the given narratives. Joan is an interesting example of a progressive journalist who will do such digging, but only when it is strategic for her interests. That's why I think when Barack is running for president Joan will be the first to really question the functioning of mainstream media. Except for the sexism, she is currently a fairly accurate reflector of the mainstream narrative machine right now. Not much better, not much worse.

And whose place is it to label true chrsitianity? are we in the middle ages? Do the pope's and cardnals have soul destresion on christianity? the killers of JEsus? only they can say who a true follower of Jesus is? Please tell me how that works as you and yoru cult are the lone arbitors of what is right and what is wrong. Since we don't haev freedom of religon in america anymore please explain where our religous freedoms lie. Also who can and can't be president based on their preacher/pastos teachings, as I have heard very questionalbe things for the "religous right", and would liek to apply the same stanards you apply to obama, to the right.

"Being different does not mean one is deficient. It simply means one is different, like snowflakes, like the diversity that God loves. Black music is different from European and European music. It is not deficient; it is just different.

Black worship is different from European and European-American worship. It is not deficient; it is just different.

Black preaching is different from European and European-American preaching. It is not deficient; it is just different. It is not bombastic; it is not controversial; it's different.

"

I expect answers to these questions joan, and her bopbble heads. Your angry right? Let's get to teh root of it. Why are you angry? Is it obama's fault, as he is the one running for prez.