Thanks.  Well, they shouldn't have done that, as the photos are not indicative of anything and are as silly as the whole Wright issue is at heart.

I don't think people will remember too much of it, other then those who were predisposed to look for reasons to dislike Obama to begin with.  March is a long way from October and November.

Now, I'd like to hear you pledge: if Obama is the Dem nominee, you aren't going to work to KEEP it in the minds of people.  Will you?

What is wrong with you, the minute the Republicans have an ad of Wright, the Democrats will have an ad of Haggee preaching New Orleans deserved Katrina, and Robertson's latest rantings, and Rod Parsley calling Catholics "deamons."

/Sad to see Democrats are still afraid of the Republicans.  

Quite a rude comment there, but I'll reply to it. I've been involved in politics since campaigning for Congressman William Fitts Ryan in NYC in 1964. This commenter is correct. The modern day news cycle is about 6 hours, the retention span maybe 6 days.

Just as Bill Clinton's adolescent ranting in SC has long since gone away, so will Wright's youtube videos. What will remain is the image of Obama's brilliant speech on Tuesday. The only ones who will remain influenced by Rev. Wright are those who would never have voted for Obama in the first place.

What will also remain is the war in Iraq and the spiraling economy.

The Clintons were entirely above board on the Wright issue.  If you consider pushing it to the superdelegates as a reason Obama is "unelectable," or Hillary being unable to deny at a press conference that they're pushing it as "above board."

Riiiiiight.

I think that bringing this Wright/Clinton picture to the media's attention serves two purposes:

1)  It is solid evidence that Wright is a respected religious leader, and not just some kook or crank.

2)  It points out the Clintons' hypocrisy for making hay out of this when they have previously acknowledged him as a religious leader.  Important enough to come to D.C. for Bill's mea culpa about Monica, and apparently sit right beside Hillary during the meal.

It in no way should equivocate the two relationships.  Obama's is obviously a lot closer.  But it does . . . or should . . . serve to defuse the situation a little more, and maybe get team Clinton to STFU about it.

Then what, exactly, is a "typical white person"?

If the people (s)he's debating won't read for comprehension or follow the rules of logic.

You completely ignored zonk's point, and restated your own.  No one can win a debate with someone that uses those tacticts!  Please re-read zonk's post and attempt to comprehend.  If what zonk said is unclear, ask for some clarification.

I'll even try to help:

The point isn't that the Clintons are as close to Wright as Obama.  That is a silly thing to claim.  The point is that Rev. Wright is considered enough of a respected religious leader to be invited to the White House.  For Bill's big Lewinsky confession, even!  The point is Wright is enough of a religious leader to sit at Hillary's right side during the dinner.  Are you getting it yet?

The point is, the Clintons are hypocrites for peddling Wright as a racist fearmonger when in the past, by their own actions, they have acknowledged that there is much more to him than that.