I'm sorry about the dead horse, but...

Look at the correction that Joan just made to the article:

We could get mad at her and say that she purposfully left out the fact that Barack made a speech in which he pointed to the weakness of his preacher and all that. We could say that Joan left it out because she has an agenda to make Hillary the winner so that Hillary can run against McCain. As if we have ANY reason to believe that Joan wouldn't be equally worried about the outcome of that.

But I think that Joan's correction validats my theory of how Joan is reporting and why Joan is reporting in the way she is.

Joan does have an agenda, I just don't think it is overtly to destroy Obama. It would have been utterly inconsistant with Joan's approach if she had written an essay about the media's fixation on certain topics related to Hillary and Barack, using Wrights comments as an example. Joan is simply not writing articles that look at the narrative that shapes the media's focus; Read Greenwald if you are looking for that kind of analysis (or wait until the general election: I promise you that Joan will then find that kind of analysis more significant).

Joan had to write about the Wright interview from the point of view of her approach, which means she needs to link the troubling aspects of Wright to those concerns she has about a weakness-based Obama. She does not do this as an attack on Obama. She does it partly to increase Obama's chances of winning, but also so that Salon will not be looked at as a site that has fallen in love with Obama and believes that Obama will end all problems.

Joan is a big believer that the core of America's problems won't go away until a much higher percentage of the public takes responsibility for their own participation in the messy affairs of democracy. Joan is under no illusion that anybody in the office of President can serve as much more than a good cheerleader and example of what healthy participation looks like.

When Joan links the dark side of Rev. Wright to the weaknesess of Obama, she feels concerned and sad and she might even be scratching her head, especially if she does this dance while thinking of those Barack supporters who do think he is a God and who inappropriately call her names and find nothing of value in Clinton. No matter how flawed or upsetting or inappropriate some of us may find Joan's approach, I don't think there is evidence that it is an attack on Barack and I don't think there is evidence that she'll take a new approach; until she's fighting for him against McCain.

That is really funny, about the running mate comment!

in terms of racism: as far as I can tell Joan readily acknowledges the reality of racism but in the context of Clinton vs. Obama she believes that sexism is playing a significantly larger role and deserves more comment. Also, Barack is winning which for Joan requires that she not ignore very many of his weaknesses and the possibly ways they mind upset, sadden, disappoint the wider public and quite possible (if enough people focus on them and consider them significant)lose him the election.

Obama attending Wright's church is a life changing event for the Pastor. Without Obama, Wright's audience would continue to be small and anonymous.

One guy who has to be saying his prayers of thanks is John McCain. His new found friendship with the Reverend Falwell lasted only long enough to win the grudging support of the religious wright and then, the Reverend Jerry left this good earth before becoming a campaign long albatros on the ancient mariner McCain.

As to Hillary's vague bombing solution for Iran? I'm sure she would use her White House experience and bomb first, notifying Congress and US later, just the way Bill did when he bombed the hell out of Iraq, after that imminent threat was uncovered during the Lewinsky/Impeachment trial.

As to the real relationship between a candidate and his belicose, antagonistic, America criticizing, consultant pastor? Did not Bill Clinton seek out the Rev. Je$$e Jack$on whenever another personal crisis 'befell' him? What is worse, a pastor who hates America, yet earned the right to say so by serving that country in the Marine Corp? or a spouse who ran anti-American protests while a draft-dodging student in England? Maybe it is worthy exercise to continue to pour over the outtakes of Obama's pastor's YouTube career, or maybe it is another Clinton political mirror job, reflecting the spotlight to a more vacant canvas, where any blemish is a virtual rorschach test? Or, maybe it is just another 'vast, White Wing conspiracy'?

I had thought the Jeremiah Wright story was dead. Apparently Joan Walsh thinks that the Wright story hurts Obama because the press will focus on negative possible connotations. And then to prove her point, she focuses on negative possible connotations.

Joan, you should not pretend that your actions are not part of the story at this point.

Why does the Jeremiah Wright story get so much more coverage than the story about the reality of what is happening in Iraq and Afganistan?

I don't think its about speaking out against racism that I want from Joan; in this post she is practicing the institutionalized racism I and other posters have complained about by making Obama answer for Wright. And its hard to argue that this is a national issue. Joan is pushing this conversation more than anyone. And Joan will go on MSNBC and use it there too. She is stirring the pot. And its purposeful. Of course she omitted Barack's response to Wright, it lessens her point which is to make Obama look bad. To attribute Wright's words to Obama. That is the goal here.

Right on, Joan. Your assessment of the Moyers-Wright interview is on target. The extended clips of Wright's sermon are even worse than the sound bytes. And just days after the 9/11 atrocity and while the nation is in shocked grief, all he can rant about is the litany of all the "crimes" committed by the U.S.? And I'm sick and tired of hearing about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being included in these lists. Does Wright think that Japan was peacefully minding its own business when we sadistically dropped the A-bomb on them? Has he ever heard of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Shanghai, the Nanking massacre, the bombing of Manila, the Bataan death march, etc? And please don't mention that because it was a sermon, his remarks were somehow conveying another message. And I was disappointed in Bill Moyers softballing questions to Wright, but then that's what he usually does with left wing guests.