Carl, The difference is that no one of note claims to be a parishioner or follower of Rev. Manning's, whereas a person who is attempting to gain the approbation of a majority of US voters (yes, I mean Barak Obama) has been a devoted follower of Rev. Wright. I do not find it difficult to assume that Senator Obama sat through previous similar tirades without objection or criticism, and thereby it can easily be further assumed he accepted if not fully agreed with these irrational rantings. If it had not been for this connection, the idiotic blatherings of Rev. Wright would have been largely ignored, as were those of Rev. Manning until you gave him audience in your column today. Their words would have obtained as little attention among that small fraction of the public that has the capability of independent, rational thought as is obtained by the rest of those who claim greater authority in their pulpits within the Christian churches as well as in those of every other organized Superstition.

Carl, aren't we missing an important point in this discussion so far? We have had seven + years of the most corrupt, the most incompetant, and certainly the most arrogant administration in Washington in my lifetime (currently 87 years) and probably the history of the country. We now have an opportunity to pick a leader for a new and, hopefully, different administration and it appears that the choice is boiling down to three individuals: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

It seems to me that the important question, concerning Barack, is does he have the political maturity, and strength, to accoplish what he says he will accomplish, and I don't see how all this emphasis on what church he attended, or didn't attend is relevant to that question.

Will he appoint people to run his administration that will be competant in their appointed jobs, and willing and able to present alternative ideas for the solution of the difficult problems that most certainly will arise. Barack says he wants to try a new approach that will involve consideration for the other person's needs and concerns and that he wants to have a dialog that will surface these possible considerations, and identify solutions that bring benefits to both parties.

This would certainly be a change from the current administration's approach to problems. I understand that Hillary has a reputation for surrounding herself with people that support her ideas, rather than ones that might suggest alternative approaches. I am also concerned that her demonstrated commitment to "winning" might preclude her looking for compatible solutions when dealing with Iran or North Korea (or others). John McCain seems to be a proponent of business as usual, just a little more honest and possibly more competant (how could he be less?)

It blows me away when people say this is the most corrupt and arrogant administration. They all are. Are we forgetting the Clintons? Sex in the Oval Office, lying under oath, renting the Lincoln bedroom? Johnson throwing Mrs. Kennedy off Air Force One, demanding to be sworn in before taking off? Haag deciding he's in charge? Roosevelt knowing the planes were coming to Pearl Harbor and knowing about the abuse of Jews (not yet known how extreme)? Name an administration, nationally, governor/president, senator/congressmen that didn't have some sort of dirt?
In your opinion Bush is the worst; others may think its Clinton, nevertherless - we've been duped and we're paying for it across the board.
What is reallly scary is the choices we have now. Another Clinton and their dirty tricks, Obama lying before taking the oath and showing no loyalty to Americans, McCain-not knowing which side he's on.

Nothing that Mr. Obama has said or done that I am aware of leads me to believe that his core beliefs have been swayed by the histrionics indulged in on occasion by his former pastor. I often read your column, Carl, and some of the things you say reflect a certain degree of pomposity and intolerance that I find offensive. Had I stopped reading your column when you said something I found particularly egregious, which isn't often, I would have missed the many pearls of wisdom that you have bestowed on your readers. Perhaps Rev. Wright had several pearls to share with his congregation as well, and Mr. Obama tolerated his pomposity, as I tolerate yours, to broaden his horizons. I am confidant that he has the maturity and wisdom to separate the wheat from the chaff, and will make as fine a president as you are a columnist.