Mr. Hitchens,

I share your disdain for the apparent political necessity of 'being a believer' in order to seek higher office. However, what is worse: blaming the U.S. Government for creating and/or spreading AIDS; or blaming liberals, particularly homosexual liberals, for the 9/11 attacks? I would not want to suggest that the Wright controversy lacks merit as an issue for voters' consideration. However, I wonder if the nutcases that McCain is courting for support will receive as much attention. Obama has not sough the support of Mr. Wright in seeking the Presidency. Indeed, from day one Mr. Wright has been excluded from any formal or informal participation in the campaign. What is to be said of McCain's courting of religious conservatives who joyfully piss on any modern conception of equality and treat the basic human method of reproduction as sinful? Will you be a 'Civil Rights Hawk' when it comes to McCain's pandering? If the Wright controversy is worthy of your artful prose, then I can't wait for your coverage of the constant Republican acceptance of the noxious ideas of Pat Robertson and John Hagee.

Criminal_D I do have to point out a distinction here, McCain is flawed, but he never claimed that the people who support him were his mentors, that he listened to every word they said, in fact according to Obama's book he almost never missed a sermon but if he did he listened to it on tape later. He never said "I can no more disown my nut case white religious supporter, than I can disown the white community" The simple truth is, Obama considered Wright to be someone to go to for moral advice, McCain is simply looking for votes. Not to say that I'm voting for McCain, but they are two very different situations.

What perplexes me here is that for years/decades liberals/Democrats have been pointing out the hateful speech of many prominent figures in the Republican religious base as evidence that their values are not shared by the majority of Americans. But when a favorite liberal candidate seems to have a similar skeleton in his closet, it's excusable b/c the Republicans do it? No, it's a cause for concern in both cases. Does that mean Obama is automatically unqualified for being President? I don't think so...though others might. What is true is that to avoid hypocrisy, Dems/liberals need to demand of him the same forthcoming honesty that they say is lacking on the right. And as far as I'm concerned, when a candidate's main platform is that he's someone who can bridge differences and bring people together, then the onus on him to demonstrate that he can is higher. Even if Fox News is out to get him by playing on people's racist fears...b/c that won't stop when he's President. If people are racist and that makes them not trust Obama (something I think is likely), then to be an effective President he's going to have to demonstrate that he can overcome that. I do think it's possible, but I don't think he's shown that he can yet.

He's not running on his grasp of policy or decades of experience, he's running on his personality and attitude. If he can't get Americans to move past something that so many of his supporters claim is irrelevant, I'm a little bit skeptical that he's going to be effective when it really counts. Saying people feel a certain way b/c they're racist doesn't change the fact that they feel that way. The real "change" would be convincing people to reconsider their positions in a way that's not insulting. I understand that was what he was attempting in Philadelphia, but clearly it hasn't yet worked.

With all due respect, Mr. Hitchens, what you've said is completely disengenuous in almost all respects. McCain did, in fact, claim that Rod Parsley was a "spiritual advisor" (his words, not mine) and actively sought out his and Hagee's endorsement. Also, I've read both of Obama's books--and Obama never implies that he "almost never missed a sermon but if he did he listened on tape later." NEVER. You've taken that completely out of thin air in the hopes that those less "learned" won't notice your outright lie. The simple truth is: McCain is looking for votes by deliberately pandering to men who say far worse things than Wright ever said--while Obama stood by a man who said some outrageous things and has done wonderful things for the community (I know--I live here). In other words, McCain not only seeks out men who say outrageous and hateful things--but since he is allegedly doing so only with dishonest, political motives--that makes him somehow better? The only reason that folks like Hagee and Parsley and Falwell haven't been demonized to the extent that Wright has is because they are attacking groups about which the majority of Americans find it acceptable to hate: gays, Muslims, etc. Unlike Wright, they are not attacking mainstream America. There is power in numbers--and mainstream America (and patronizing, dishonest, and intellectually lax Brits) has a better machine for attacking its detractors than do the groups (i.e. gays, Muslims) already marginalized by it. That is the only reason that Hagee and Parsley and Falwell (and McCain by the association he actively has sought) have not YET had their due. But it's coming...and I cannot wait.

Read the book LoriChicago.. then talk to me, if you don't know that he said that you never read the book. If your too lazy to read the book, google it, its not hard to find.