Academy Award-winning actor Julie Andrews pens a spirited defense of the Los Angeles Public Library's funding, and Patt Morrison pickets in front of the June 3 ballot for better voting conditions. Cartoonist Ed Rall slips some snide commentary by the airline industry, and Rosa Brooks tells overbearing parents to give their kids a little independence. Pollster Douglas E. Schoen figures the recent controversies surrounding Obama's campaign may be "the best things that could have happened to his candidacy":

The last six weeks have been a great benefit to Obama -- and may emerge as the most important period of his quest for the presidency.

The poll evidence is unambiguous: He's suffered no short-term damage. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading McCain in a hypothetical matchup by six points; in February, he was trailing by two. The Rasmussen Reports' estimate of electoral college strength has him leading McCain, 260 to 240. And a recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that over the last few weeks, Obama's favorability rating actually increased by five points.

The editorial board wonders if the governor's revised budget plan is too clever by half, and calls the House-approved farm bill a lost opportunity for reform. The board also gives a chilly nod to the federal government's half-hearted move to list the polar bear as an endangered species:

Under legal pressure, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne officially -- and historically -- added the polar bear to the threatened-species list, the first time a species has made the list because of global warming. His action Wednesday was extraordinary. Even more remarkable was Kempthorne's blatant undercutting of his own decision with regulatory shenanigans that will almost certainly mean no new restrictions on carbon emissions and no need to scale back on drilling for Alaskan oil....

What we have here is a newly protected polar bear with virtually no new protections.

Readers react to Hillary Clinton's primary win in West Virginia. Anna Shaff asks:

If the next few weeks afford Clinton a single moment of introspection, she should ask herself the following question: Has the fighter become a piranha?

Not white and black, or red and blue ... Given how well their campaign slogans mesh together, it's no wonder John Edwards put his defunct catchphrase to good use and backed Barack Obama for president.

The Obama campaign has turned big-name endorsements into an art, revealing a few key supporters every time Hillary Clinton's fortunes seem to be on the rise. Edwards' announcement is no exception — Clinton just swept the West Virginia primary, and according to ABC's Political Radar, had been planning some key fundraisers over the next few days. In addition to hitting her debt-ridden pocketbook, the votes Obama will likely receive from Edwards delegates more than offset the pledged delegates she won last night.

It's not just delegates: As the Radar points out, the move was "a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama's appeal to working-class voters." The Wall Street Journal's Political Wire sneers:

Edwards could give a boost to Obama’s candidacy by attracting the exact sort of voter that has been Clinton’s strength — white, working-class voters from rust-belt states who are drawn to a populist political philosophy. ...

People close to Edwards have said that he sees deep flaws in both Clinton and Obama. He thinks Obama lacks the fire to wage war against special interests in Washington, and objects that Clinton takes money from lobbyists and is part of the inside-the-beltway aristocracy, which he considers to be the problem with American politics.

If you're looking for hard numbers, NPR points out that 7% of the West Virginia vote went to the former vice presidential candidate, even though he's no longer running. And, at a point when Obama is campaigning against John McCain rather than against Clinton, Edwards might help him finally close the deal — or end the agony, as The Washington Post's The Fix observes:

Edwards is widely seen as one of the major party figures who had remained on the sidelines in the race between Clinton and Obama. That he has stepped in to the fray in hopes of, perhaps, bringing this race to an end should send a powerful signal to undecided superdelegates about the direction of the contest. 

Edwards is the picture of modesty about the power of his endorsement in this MSNBC interview, but you have to wonder about the timing on his end: Is he late to the party or the crucial tiebreaker? Is this a bid for the vice presidency? They'd certainly make a cute ticket.

The Moderate Voice isn't enamored, though. They have a thing or two to say about unifying the party:

If the endorsement is meant to show solidarity by one party member toward one of the candidates, that is a fait acoompli. Unifying the party at this point is likely premature. Unifying isnt done by one person saying ‘unify now.’ It is a far more many layered process that includes more meeting and greeting with many groups and people. That would be later. Not now.

Slate's Trailhead blog, however, says Edward's swing Obama-ward "isn’t the last round of battle; it’s the first round of cleanup":

Enter John Edwards. By endorsing Obama now, Edwards isn’t handing him the nomination. He’s minimizing the damage wrought upon the all-but-inevitable nominee. Clinton insists a drawn-out election isn’t hurting the party. But it is clearly exposing huge holes in each candidate’s armor. By weighing in now, Edwards is reassuring Democrats—and perhaps telegraphing to Kentucky voters—that Obama is a safe choice.

John Edwards: Kingmaker? Deal-closer? Irrelevant? VP material? Post your take below. Also, check out Google's quotes page to judge if Edwards let the cat out of the bag days ago.

Columnist Tim Rutten puts bluntly his opinion of the Los Angeles Unified School District:

Every day, the Los Angeles Unified School District fails its tens of thousands of ambitious students, dedicated teachers and hardworking principals in so many ways that it's difficult to imagine how its elephantine bureaucracy could shamble into some new outrage.

Difficult, but not impossible, because the LAUSD runs this city's schools about like the generals run Myanmar.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has a proposal for reviving King-Harbor Hospital. Dickinson College's Crispin Sartwell discusses the demographic tricks behind political polling. And 27-year-old Erica Sackin says tax rebates won't help her in-the-red generation.

The editorial board encourages Bush to veto a bill that would stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and wonders why Congress is allowing the banning of all flavored cigarettes except the most popular kind, menthols. The board also says environmentalists have more work to do to prevent sprawl on Tejon Ranch.

On the letters page, readers question Nick Turse's Op-Ed linking the purchase of consumer products like Krispy Kreme and Pepsi to supporting Iraq war profits. Thomas J. Weiss of Ft. Hood, Texas, says, "Nick Turse's Op-Ed article has to be one of the most ridiculously alarmist articles I've ever read."

Sorry, Bill Johnson supporters, but your man really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Devoted Johnsonians will recall that the good judicial candidate first appeared on our radar screen thanks to his help with an effort to unseat a group of Latino jurists and get Filipino-Americans get onto the bench. That effort was led by a minister in Carson, who explained his ambition:

"When you're running against a Caucasian, it's kind of hard," the Rev. Ronald C. Tan of Carson said. "As Filipinos, our names are almost the same as Hispanics, so that puts us on co-equal ground."

In Johnson's book they're already on co-equal ground. Amendment to the Constitution, the 1985 book written by Johnson under the alias "James O. Pace," presents the text of the proposed "Pace Amendment" mandating expulsion of non-whites from the United States, along with an extensive, Federalist Papers-style unpacking of the proposed law's text. Here's what the book has to say on Filipinos in its explanation of how folks of various ethnicities will be sent packing:

Filipinos. The Filipinos are generally new arrivals, and many are still Philippine citizens. Accordingly, they can be repatriated without much difficulty. The Philippine government can be encouraged to assist.

This is more mildly worded than Pace's suggestions for assorted Latinos ("The Puerto Ricans should be returned to Puerto Rico," "Central Americans should be returned to Central America," "It should be noted that repatriation has become necessary primarily because of the abuses that the Hispanics have made of our system"). But while Pace allows that "Hispanic whites who are basically indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe, need not be repatriated," he is silent on the matter of Filipinos who can pass. (Are there any of those? Is there a whiteometer we can check?)

But I'd rather light a candle than curse anybody's darkness. A few days ago our news side had an interesting story about the proliferation of headline-driven legislation bearing names like "R.J.'s Law," "Adam's Law" and so on.

Would the Pace Amendment have fared better if it had a nice round name attached?

"Ziegfried's Law," maybe?

Is North Carolina the fat lady that sang for Hillary Clinton? The editorial board suggested that it's finally over for her, and L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks called it way back in March. The Hill reports that backs are turning on her. What are the other papers saying?

The Washington Post editorial board focuses on Barack Obama even as it comes to the same conclusion on Clinton:

Hillary Clinton may, as she promised yesterday, fight on through the next few weeks of primaries, but after her disappointing showing Tuesday she has no plausible route to victory. So Mr. Obama was sounding themes for the coming battle against John McCain.... These are familiar phrases by now, appealing but also insubstantial.

Its columnists Harold Meyerson and George F. Will agree...

Mayoral candidate Walter Moore said Thursday he has begun a drive to put "Jamiel's Law" on the March 2009 Los Angeles city ballot — the same one in which he is trying to unseat Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

If adopted, the law would permit Los Angeles police officers to arrest gang members for breaking U.S. immigration law. It would supersede Special Order 40, a 29-year-old LAPD policy that bars officers from arresting or questioning people solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally. Moore told a crowd of about 200 people — gathered at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre to hear about his proposal — that he decided on an initiative after hearing no response from City Council members to his request for an ordinance.

Jamiel's Law is named for Jamiel Shaw II, 17, who was shot to death by suspected gang members on March 2 close to his Arlington Heights home. Police arrested Pedro Espinoza, 19, who reportedly entered the U.S. illegally at age 4. Police say Espinoza is a member of the 18th Street Gang. He was released from jail, where he was being held on a weapons charge, a day before the killing.

Espinoza had been arrested by Culver City police and jailed and released by the Sheriff's Department, so the LAPD and Special Order 40 did not come into play. But Moore has dismissed that point, saying, in effect, that if his law had been in place, LAPD officers at some point prior to his weapons arrest would have seen Espinoza, identified him as a gang member, and arrested him on immigration charges.

The killing of Jamiel Shaw II, and Moore's advocacy for the change in the law, has united some black and white illegal immigration opponents, threatened to widen a gulf between African Americans and Latino immigrants, and forced city officials to refocus on Special Order 40. At least some LAPD officers appear to believe, incorrectly, that the policy prevents them from cooperating or even communicating with immigration authorities. A senior lead officer who misquoted Special Order 40 in a March newsletter, adding in anti-cooperation language, acknowledged that he got the wording not from the LAPD manual but from the American Patrol anti-illegal-immigration web site.

LAPD Chief William J. Bratton said he would clarify the policy for his officers. He also told the Times editorial board that he would make no changes to the order.

Moore repeated his assertion that the Times caters to Latino illegal immigrants because its parent company, Tribune, also owns the Spanish-language paper Hoy.

"The mayor, the City Council, and L.A. Times/Hoy won't take action," Moore said. "It's up to you."

Also speaking at the event were KRLA radio personality Kevin James and the young victim's father, Jamiel Shaw Sr.

James called for audience members to support Moore's campaign financially. "It's really expensive to run for mayor of Los Angeles against a former gang member who is the incumbent," James said.

Villaraigosa was not a gang member, but the claim that he was has become popular among illegal immigration opponents.

Shaw criticized the deputy district attorney prosecuting Espinoza, saying he worried she would try to portray his son as a gang member because he was carrying a red Spiderman backpack. "I want everybody to know," he said, "the fix is in."

Big Sunday founder David T. Levinson reflects on the idiosyncrasies of pop volunteerism, and Ronald Brownstein picks apart John McCain's true views on the U.S. military's future in Iraq. Merrick J. Bob, executive director of the Police Assessment Resource Center, investigates better ways to track racial profiling by LAPD officers, and cartoonist Rob Rogers snarks at Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's problem relationships. Joel Stein finds out that a new citizen's vote is worth $6 and a cookie:

There's an emotional ceremony every month in which 3,500 newly naturalized citizens pledge their loyalty to the United States, and it really feels like they've joined a community of shared values, goals and purpose. Then, as soon as they pass through the gates of the L.A. County fairgrounds and enter the parking lot, they are charged from the right by Republicans and from the left by Democrats, begging them to register to vote. It is a bit like kissing the bride and being told your new father-in-law is a Capulet and your mother-in-law's a Montague and they've each registered you for a Glock.

The editorial board calls for the Supreme Court to let a murder victim's posthumous testimony stand, and wonders how to turn the beleaguered Santa Barbara Plaza project around. The board also whips out its pen to defend taco trucks against a new L.A. County ordinance:

Supervisors may have expected the new law to attract little controversy; after all, it was backed by Eastside restaurateurs and developers, a group with considerably more money and political power than the largely immigrant entrepreneurs who own taco trucks. But it has raised the ire of a far larger group: the thousands of Angelenos who have long gathered at taco trucks, in many cases since childhood, for quick carnitas burritos or mouthwatering cemitas, central Mexican sandwiches filled with avocado, cheese, fried meat and other gut-busting goodness. An Internet-driven movement started by a pair of Highland Park residents has already produced 2,200 signatures on a petition to repeal the law. Sign us up too.

Readers also react to the LAPD's dismissal of all complaints of racial profiling from last year. Leni Fleming writes:

"Los Angeles Police Department officials announced Tuesday that they investigated more than 300 complaints of racial profiling against officers last year and found that none had merit" is, bar none, the most hilarious sentence I have ever read in The Times.

And I'm white!

It just goes to show what can happen if you don't pay attention to judicial elections. Los Angeles voters could unwittingly end up electing white separatist Bill Johnson to the court. Vote-by-mail ballots are available Monday, so it's important for anyone planning to vote anytime soon to first read an April 29 Metropolitan News-Enterprise profile on Johnson. The story by editor Roger Grace exposes the candidate as the author of a proposed constitutional amendment to reserve U.S. citizenship exclusively to white people "of the European race."

Last month The Times endorsed James Bianco for the Los Angeles Superior Court seat, saying that  Bianco was "impressive as a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner and would make an excellent judge." We didn't mention Johnson, his opponent, who ran for Congress in Arizona in 2006 on an anti-immigration platform; we simply focused on the fact that Bianco is the better choice.

I did note in a blog entry the previous month that Johnson helped circulate petitions for Carson minister Ronald C. Tan, whose petition campaign forced six Latino judges to be put on the ballot to face possible write-in opponents (none apparently have stepped forward).

Grace writes that Johnson wrote a 1989 book, under the name James O. Pace, called "Amendment to the Constitution," backing what became known as the Pace Amendment. Here it is, in part:

No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.

This would likely come as news to Reverend Tan, the Filipino-American minister who got Johnson to circulate petitions to help him oust Latino judges — so Tan could try to get Filipinos elected. Tan earlier claimed not to know that Johnson was active in the Ron Paul for president campaign; here's something else for him to be surprised about.

The MetNews story also notes that Johnson ran for Congress in Wyoming 1989 under the name Daniel Johnson in a special election to replace Dick Cheney, who had been named secretary of defense in the administration of the first President Bush. Times stories from the 1980s connect attorney Daniel Johnson with the League of Pace Amendment Advocates and identify him as the author of the Pace amendment.

So here's a candidate for judge who espoused (and may still support) disenfranchisement and deportation of non-whites, and who ran for Congress from two different states, once under a different name, while maintaining his law practice in Los Angeles.

(Full disclosure: I worked for Grace at the Metropolitan News-Enterprise for 11 years. But I wish I'd gotten this story before he did.)

Could voters elect Johnson? Yes, they could, if they don't learn anything about the candidates. The MetNews story — and, I hope, our link to it — will help voters make wise choices.

And in case there was any doubt, we still support Bianco, now more vociferously than before.

Today marks a few other holidays that I missed. President Bush marked the National Day of Prayer by recounting how past presidents prayed, and sort of taking a few shots at himself:

[W]hen you think about our faith you can find it in the Pledge of Allegiance, you can find an expression of American faith in the Declaration of Independence, and you can find it in the coins in our pockets. I used to carry coins -- (laughter) -- in about 10 months I'll be carrying them again. (Laughter and applause.)

The fidelity to faith has been present in our nation's leaders from its very start.... On John Adams's first day in the White House, he wrote a prayer that is now etched in marble on the fireplace in the State Dining Room, and he prayed, "May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." Now we'll leave it to the historians to judge whether or not that happened throughout our history. (Laughter.)

Bush also made a speech appreciating the start of Asian Pacific American History Month, and of course, made his Law Day proclamation.

And you wouldn't know it from Bush's speeches, but today marks the fifth anniversary of the unfurling of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Hillary Clinton and even John McCain took the opportunity to lash out on war policy. Barack Obama said Clinton and McCain's gas tax plans were gimmicks, like the sign.

Even if Bush was silent, press rep Dana Perino did comment on the banner yesterday. As USA Today reported:

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."

Perino has my number.

The American Enterprise Institute's Norman Ornstein pities the uncommitted superdelegate, while columnist Patt Morrison laments the possible loss of local Channel 36. And columnist Rosa Brooks takes a more generous stance than most on Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s latest shenanigans:

Something about our collective willingness to throw Wright under the nearest subway train strikes me as a bit too easy.

Sure, Wright's a self-centered jerk, but he's unfortunately not the only man in the United States who believes the conspiracy theories he's been spouting....

We can dismiss Wright as bitter and twisted -- but are we prepared to also write off somewhere between a quarter and half of all African Americans? If not, we'd better ask why do so many ordinary people give credence to such wrongheaded theories?

The editorial board offers its take on Wright, too:

Obama countered Wright's angry oratory with graceful rhetoric once, but it didn't keep his erstwhile pastor quiet. So rather than giving another thoughtful critique of Americans' attitudes about race, Obama was right to denounce, clearly and specifically, Wright's most objectionable statements. It may have been a capitulation to his fiercest critics, but it was the repudiation that circumstances -- and Wright's latest pronouncements -- demanded.

The board looks ahead to "a new May Day," without the violence that marred last year's protests, and explores the dangers of overusing antibiotics in livestock.

Readers discuss Wright on the letters page. Saugus' Art Saginian says: "Wright is a radical. So what? Americans are as well-known for their brutal savagery as they are for their compassionate philanthropy."

... and soars on hot air from the blogosphere.

After more than a month of studied silence, the reverend has stepped into the public spotlight to defend his controversial remarks on race in America -- and make veiled criticisms of Sen. Barack Obama in the process. On Obama's repudiation of his incendiary statements, the minister had this to say: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician."

Obama reacted angrily to his former pastor's comments, calling them "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." Jonah Goldberg gleefully celebrated Wright's coming-out as "every bit as radical as his detractors claimed."

They're not the only ones with choice words about Wright's recent performances:

The Times' own Top of the Ticket blog asks, "Was Jeremiah Wright's speech set up by a Clinton supporter?"

... we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at ... who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds ... an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Jeffrey Weiss over at the Dallas Morning News' religion blog wonders why pundits can't take Obama out of the equation:

After the NAACP speech, the all-news networks talking heads were mostly falling all over themselves to do political analysis about whether or not the speech would help or hurt Barack Obama, rather than attempt even a moment of thought about the meaning of what Wright actually said.

The Caucus over at the NY Times does a roundup of its own, observing:

Voices around the blogosphere say they’re tired of the media kerfuffle surrounding Barack Obama and his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., but they certainly keep writing about it.

They also say they’re sick of the expression “thrown under the bus,” but they keep using it.

For some Wright-Obama commentary with both local and international flavor, Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner invokes the "Bradley Effect," but also snarks at the minister's comments about Israel:

At moments he came off as mocking and somewhat vain, but made an effort to soften the hardliner perception his speech had left behind. He was also asked about his views on Israel. "Apartheid?" he asked, adding that Jimmy Carter used this term, not him.

Israel, Wright said, "has a right to exist". His only desire was that the Israelis and Palestinians live in peace. He made no reference to the sermon in which he connected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the September 11th attacks, but he did make sure to emphasize his "Jewish friends". As it turns out, Jeremiah Wright also has a couple of those.

Daniel Nichanian at the Huffington Post compares Wright's position to one of the 2000 presidential election's most beleaguered political players:

Wright has no obligation to put Obama's interest above his own; dragged through the mud for news, the pastor has an opening to make people listen to him and hear the full context of his theology. Those who today profess themselves appalled that Wright would throw Obama under the bus miss the point that Wright does not think of himself as having any allegiance to Obama or to his election, just as Ralph Nader had no any allegiance to the Democratic Party making it hard to understand why 2004 was "a betrayal."

Wonkette agrees, in an offbeat sort of way:

He's blowing open the racial politics that Obama wants to close and claiming that Obama is insincere when he rejects Wright's "extreme sermons"; he's trying to balance a deserved self-defense with the collateral damage that that brings on Obama. He has an ego. Most importantly, he's just some old preacher and not Obama's surrogate father. He can say whatever he wants and Barry will just have to deal with it. Individual people have a right to defend themselves, and politicians have a right to disown them. That's all, goodnight.

While Sen. McCain had the plug pulled on the North Carolina Republican Party's ad highlighting the Obama-Wright connection, it seems the state party leaders will be getting the airtime they wanted for free.

UC Santa Barbara professor Brian Fagan warns that our future survival in a drier world depends on our ability to adapt to our environment, and writer Francis Fukuyama blames the Chinese government's weakness, not strength, for domestic human rights violations. Economist Korinna Horta and attorney Delphine Djiraibe argue that Darfur cannot be saved without fixing Chad first, and Jonah Goldberg thanks the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for revealing how radical he really is:

Asked whether he stood by his assertion that the U.S. government created HIV as part of a genocidal program to wipe out the black race, Wright mostly dodged but ultimately offered this nondenial denial: "I believe our government is capable of doing anything." He also offered a zesty defense of Louis Farrakhan -- "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century" -- and dismissed criticism of Farrakhan as an anti-Semite.

To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff "politicians say." They "do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." So much for Obama's new politics.

The editorial board warns parents that avoiding vaccinations for fear of autism could result in a future epidemic, and gives a reluctant green light to MTA's decision to turn some carpool lanes into toll lanes. The board also condemns the Supreme Court for upholding Indiana's voter ID law:

Indiana has a right to safeguard the integrity of its elections, but its identification requirement imposes sufficiently burdensome rules that it raises the question of whether the state is actually trying to discourage certain types of people -- the poor, the elderly, the infirm -- from exercising their right to vote. It's one thing to deter fraud; it's another to deter voting, particularly by certain classes of voters.

Readers react to the Dodger Stadium makeover. Ken Chane writes:

The Dodgers' new stadium plan sounds and looks wonderful. But before it attracts larger crowds, the current chaotic parking situation should be corrected. Management keeps touting the "wonderful fan experience." No matter how great it may be, it dissipates quickly when it's time to go home.

Author David K. Shipler explores how candidates' words can strike a nerve:

Whether by calculation or coincidence, Hillary Clinton and Republicans who have attacked Barack Obama for elitism have struck a chord in a long-standing symphony of racial codes. It is a rebuke that gets magnified by historic beliefs about what blacks are and what they have no right to be.

Clinton is no racist, and Obama has made some real missteps.... But when his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn't belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.

Columnist Tim Rutten analyzes Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's State of the City address. Internist Albert Fuchs says the only way for a doctor to do a good job and make a living is to reject insurers. And contributing editor Gustavo Arellano notes that Fullerton's efforts to paint over murals is par for the Orange County course.

The editorial board maintains its anti-execution stance as the Supreme Court considers whether to allow the death penalty for rapists, and comments on the start of SAG negotiations. Editorial writer Lisa Richardson writes in from San Francisco, where Chevron Corp. faced off against a couple Ecuadorean environmentalists.

Readers discuss Irvine's Great Park. L.A.'s Danila Oder says, "The American 20th century experience was an anomaly and should be treated by governments and builders as such. The environmental factors that are assumed to underpin bonds for the Great Park project are no longer operative."

Men reading fashion magazines, oh what a world it seems we live in, where stories about straight men who wear skirts and a holy man who wears flowing gowns dominate our most popular stories of the week. Here are the Top 10:

1. The Scots show their true colors, by Sean Connery
2. The prophetic anger of MLK, by Michael Eric Dyson
3. Papal dress code, by Michael McGough
4. The day the beer flowed again, by Maureen Ogle
5. 'Allah' vs. 'God' by Rabih Alameddine
6. Resist the urge to leave Iraq, by Max Boot
7. The GOP, a casualty of war, by Rosa Brooks
8. Disney, we are not amused, by the editorial board
9. The genocide loophole, by Jonah Goldberg
10. Washington s $4-billion land grab, by Paul Thornton

As always, thanks for reading Opinion L.A.

Italian columnist Massimo Franco heralds the Vatican's first official visit to the U.S. by explaining what took them so long, and cartoonist Rob Rogers wonders if the people running American Airlines into the ground are flying the Iraq war, too. Former CNN correspondent Mike Chinoy calls on the U.S., North Korea and South Korea to repair their damaged relationships, and Gregory Rodriguez considers boycotting Absolut vodka for its ads that raised Americans' "reconquista" paranoia:

Last week I was in Las Vegas, and I found myself having a depressing chat with a Croatian maid at the Mandalay Bay hotel. "Your name is Rodriguez, are you Spanish?" she asked. "No," I told her, "I'm Mexican American." To which she responded glumly, "then pretty soon, this land will be yours. You are taking over."

The editorial board looks into public workers' immunity from traffic tickets and tolls, and finds a "disturbing recalibration of public accountability." The board also approves of President Bush's call for the government to guarantee loans for sub-prime borrowers, and expects Mayor Villaraigosa to prove in his State of the City address that he has a "firm grip" on the budget and gang violence:

The issues are intertwined. Villaraigosa has adopted as his own the priority his predecessors placed on increasing the number of Los Angeles Police Department officers ready to serve. The LAPD of today is larger -- and the city safer -- in part because the mayor insisted on increasing the fees that residents pay to get their trash picked up. Those higher fees aren't earmarked for more officers, and they still don't cover the cost of garbage collection, but the new revenue has given the mayor and the City Council the flexibility they needed to increase police hiring.

Readers size up Army Gen. David Petraeus' "ribbon creep" against other military icons. Eric Johnson points out:

Ike went on to lead this country ably, if quietly, warning us against the military-industrial complex gaining so much power, and Marsdhall earned the gratitude of an entire generation of Europeans, including those we defeated. Where are the generals of that caliber now?

Thomas Sowell excoriates Barack Obama in a column that says the candidate's relationship with Jeremiah Wright indicates deeper problems. According to Sowell, a passage from the book Dreams From My Father, in which the author discusses his college-era comrades, reveals that Obama's fondness for racial exremists goes way back:

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things.

For Sowell, this proves Obama "was trying to become a convert to blackness" and seeking "a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world."

I have no beef with Sowell's judgment on Obama's fondness for "members of the left, anti-American counter-culture." But his citation here indicates a misunderstanding of popular culture that is glaring even for a 78-year-old economist.

To wit: If you were looking to find your own blackness, in Obama's day or (to a slightly lesser extent) now, you might possibly cozy up to Marxist professors. There's a very outside chance you might associate with structural feminists. But you would not go anywhere near punk rock performance poets.

Punk was many things, but it was first and foremost white-kid music. I neither praise nor condemn punk for that. It just is — or was: These days, we have Afro-Punk, and we have black punkers willing to speak about the genre's racial divides. But back then, it was vanishingly rare to find any color but untanned-pale in punk rock. Indeed, the hints of white supremacy that always circled around Siouxsie and the Banshees and New Order should be the tipoff. When Obama claims alliances with punkers, he is doing the exact opposite of what Sowell accuses him of: He's indicating his willingness to make friends across racial and cultural lines.

I don't think Obama should be praised for that, as I always find something vain and self-regarding in bragging about your disreputable friends. But a decent respect for the truth demands that we point this out. During the candidate's misspent youth, the only hint of black identity you were likely to find in the punk universe was Sy Richardson's bravura performance in Repo Man.

Update: Interesting discussion of the history of black punk in the comments. Thanks to everybody who contributed.

Both pages recall the death of Martin Luther King Jr., 40 years ago today. The editorial board imagines the U.S. if King had lived:

We don't need to canonize King to appreciate his many accomplishments, nor declare time-wasting moratoriums to mourn his passing. He was a complex man with messy personal affairs who unified people of all races on the issue of civil rights, while dividing many with his controversial stance on the Vietnam War.... In the final years of his short life, King became nearly as concerned about the war and the plight of the poor as he was about racial discrimination...if King were alive today (he would have turned 79 on Jan. 15), the fight against poverty would probably be higher on the national political agenda and the opposition to the Iraq war more focused.

Goergetown's Michael Eric Dyson examines King's increasingly angry stance after 1965:

King's skepticism and anger were often muted when he spoke to white America, but they routinely resonated in black sanctuaries and meeting halls across the land. Nothing highlights that split -- or white America's ignorance of it and the prophetic black church King inspired -- more than recalling King's post-1965 odyssey, as he grappled bravely with poverty, war and entrenched racism. That is the King who emerges as we recall the meaning of his death.

And the Op-Ed page features photography of the Lorraine Motel, where King was killed, by Steve Schapiro.

Columnist Joel Stein has learned one thing from the John McCain campaign -- that jokes about the elderly are just fine. And the editorial board praises the House for passing a generous foreign aid package for AIDS patients around the world, and reflects on the Bush Administration's declassified torture memos.

Readers discuss illegal immigration on the letters page. L.A.'s Frank Galvan says, "This article helped put a human face on a population that is too often only considered by many to be just a problem...." But Van Nuys' Phil Hyman retorts, "Pardon me if I"m not breaking down in tears.... Who made them decide to come here illegally in the first place?"

*Photo Steve Schapiro, courtesy Fahey/Klein Gallery, Los Angeles

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) notes that sexual assaults are frequent -- and frequently ignored -- in the military:

Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq....

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist.

Writer Andrew Gumbel knows why Hillary Clinton is fighting so hard to stay in the race -- because it works. Columnist Gregory Rodriguez says Americans have a habit of hero-worshipping candidates, and it tends to backfire. Euro Pacific Capital President Peter Schiff argues that we need to hit bottom before we can recover from the housing crisis.

The editorial board wants better beef tracking, and more nuanced exploration of the links between race and gangs. The board praises the FCC for taking a broad view of media competition in approving the XM/Sirius merger.

Readers react to a shift in John McCain's rhetoric. L.A.'s Susan North says:

Listening to McCain's speech before the World Affairs Council made my brain hurt. In the speech, he admonished America to listen to our democratic ally nations. Would that be all those same nations that have been crying out, for months now, "Surge? Are you people nuts?"

Slaves drivers, racists, greedy farmers, deluded business people and libertarians: The Opinion section was a real rogues’ gallery last week as the continuing history of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Stonehenge-like resurrection of a year-old David Ehrenstein piece proved, um, something about, uh... Well it proved something we already knew — Barack Obama has been very, very good to our traffic.

Thanks for reading the Los Angeles Times. Here are the winners:

1. Obama blew it, by Michael Meyers
2. Someone give Ben Bernanke a hug, by Joel Stein
3. Old Hickory's slaves, by Carl Byker
4. Obama the Magic Negro, by David Ehrenstein
5. Farm bill feeds greed, by the editorial board
6. Where the votes are, by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
7. Welcome to the right, Mr. Mamet, by Andrew Klavan 
8. Equal justice, by the editorial board
9. Obama's Lincoln moment, by Tim Rutten
10. How to get ahead in webcasting, by Jon Healey

The editorial board today says no to nuclear power no matter what Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks, laments the long backlog that legal residents face when applying for citizenship, and explores what to do after the heparin fiasco:

After various scandals involving Chinese products -- pet food, toys, seafood -- many Americans already avoid products labeled "Made in China." But hospital patients have no way of knowing where a widely used pharmaceutical was manufactured or where its ingredients came from. They don't put such information on IV bags, as though stroke victims are in a position to check anyway.

It took a long line of regulatory failures and legal loopholes for a contaminated drug to reach U.S. hospitals.... Legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee would help, though it would not solve all the shortcomings.

Modern Art Notes editor Tyler Green reminds Angelenos not to forget about MOCA as they embrace the Grand Avenue project. Columnist Jonah Goldberg says America was talking about race long before Barack Obama's speech. Memoirist Peter Godwin says that Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has led his country to ruin:

I was one of those who gladly dismissed Rhodesia and became Zimbabwean. Upon the firm economic infrastructure he had inherited, Robert Mugabe, our first black leader, built a health and educational system that was the envy of Africa. Zimbabwe became the continent's most literate country, with its highest per capita income. Zimbabwe easily fed itself and had plenty left over to export to its famine-prone neighbors.... Fast forward to today, and the country is unrecognizable.

Readers react to Gov. Schwarzenegger's dismissal of Clint Eastwood and Bobby Shriver from a state commission. Laguna Niguel's Kurt Page says, "At least the governor defends his action with insight and wisdom when he says that the toll road 'has to go through somewhere'.... Brilliant stuff."

*Photo of Robert Mugabe courtesy Bishop Asare EPA

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez says Barack Obama's speech on race may have been brilliant, but it was the wrong move:

Throughout the campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton's surrogates repeatedly tried to bait Obama into talking about race; they worked to pigeonhole him (and marginalize him) as the "black candidate." But in the end, it was Obama's own alliances that tripped him up and obliged him to directly address a subject (one that he now says we "cannot afford to ignore") that he had so deftly avoided -- or as the Obamaphiles had it, transcended. For all the kudos the Illinois senator has received for his candor, the very act of delivering Tuesday's address was a defeat. Obama was a much more powerful force for racial progress when he so effortlessly symbolized it, rather than when he called on us to address "old wounds."

Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Garden Grove) argues that SAT subject tests should stay, in part because they give recent immigrants a chance to show their strengths. Loyola Law Schools' Karl Manheim and Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court say health insurance mandates of the Clinton and Obama kind may not pass constitutional muster. And writer Joe Queenan wonders why Garth Brooks gets a spot in his kid's academic calendar.

The editorial board notes new Census numbers showing that California sprawl is slowing down, and looks at why double amputee Oscar Pistorius was barred from the Olympics for being too fast. The board also explores why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger dismissed fellow film icon Clint Eastwood and brother-in-law Bobby Shriver from a state commission.

Readers react to the violence in Tibet. Sherman Oaks' Elke Heitmyer says, "Tibet has been 'another Burma' for a long time already."

Sex, shame and Barack Obama: You just can't get enough. Anything having to do with the Democratic presidential hopeful from Illinois was pure gold, topping even sex-scandal evergreens and girls gone wild. Michael Meyers' fiery Blowback on Sen. Obama's Jeremiah Wright speech drew more than twice as many readers as the second-place finisher, Andrew Klavan's analysis of playwright David Mamet's political migration. Thanks a lot, and keep reading. The winners:

1. Obama blew it, by Michael Meyers
2. Welcome to the right, Mr. Mamet, by Andrew Klavan 
3. Obama's Lincoln moment, by Tim Rutten 
4. Maybe Spitzer just needed time at La Costa, by Joel Stein
5. Why Wright is wrong for Obama, by Jonah Goldberg 
6. Open mouth, insert cohorts' feet, by Tim Rutten
7. Europe does sex scandals better, by Theodore Dalrymple
8. Obama on race, by the editorial board
9. White suspicion, black 'luck' by Gregory Rodriguez
10. Raunch is rebranded as 'confidence' by Meghan Daum

Michael Meyers recent Blowback on Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech continues to draw fire, both friendly and unfriendly. Our letters-to-the-editor mailbag is overflowing. Even Flaubert sent in some mots justes:

Hello,

Talk about missing the point, i think your comments are way off base and insulting to many folks who "herd" a different postive message.

Thank you
Ed Faubert

---

Meyers is right. Obama blew it. As a presidential candidate, his speech did miss the mark and by that measure proves he is a man whose depth is too shallow to be president. He is obviously captured in the socio/political black bigotry exemplied by Wright that seeks crutches and excuses while condeming America. As a "genetic Republican" I believe it will be a great crime if Obama and not Clinton is the Democrats standard barrier. That action places the country at risk considering the possibility that he could be elected.

Otis Page 
Arroyo Grande

---

 

Dear Editor:

Mr. Meyer's opinion that Obama Blew It with his speech on race is correct.  Mr Meyers should be a speech writer for Obama.  But, then Obama doesn't believe in his own message because he never walked the talk.  Our culture is so enamored by speeches and words, and sermons.  But after all the talk and great phrases, I ask, what has this person done to give credence to his/her words. St. Francis never gave sermons, he just gave living examples of what he believed.  He put flesh to the word.  This is my main gripe with Obama and his fine sounding words.  In scripture there's a phrase by Jesus, " Not all those who say Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom, but those who do the will of My Father".

In Obama's speech he attempts to give moral equivalence to his White Grandmother's fear of blacks and of her saying some inflammatory remarks about Blacks, He goes on to say, should I then renounce my Grandmother.

To try and make his Grandmother's remarks the moral equivalent with Pastor's Wright is false.  The Pastor was speaking in church publicly to many people. His Grandmother was speaking to him privately.  This is typical of a man with no experience to back up his fine words, and then resorts to weak arguments to make his point.

So, Mr Meyer, you wished he could have said the things you offered in your column. But Obama could never do that because he doesn't believe it.  Does it strike anyone that the two themes of Obama's message -- 1. Time for a Change, and 2. Coming together as One -- have been used time and time again as political rhetoric. Every new administration runs on Change. The coming together as One is nothing but a slogan. All that is needed is bipartisanship and/or a veto congress to get things done.

Obama's one claim of experience is as a Community Organizer. You have to hand it to him, he's taken this one experience and his oratory and will almost become President of the U.S.  One last thing Senator Kerry made a brilliant statement today.  He said, I'm paraphrasing now, Obama can unite the country because he is Black and will encourage the moderate muslims because he is black.  Talk about playing the Race Card and why Senator Kerry has endorsed Obama.  This alone should make the uncommitted Super Delegates think twice before endorsing Obama.

Yes, Mr Meyers,  Obama Blew it. 

John L Cerrato
Rockville Centre, NY

---

Not since Niall Ferguson's response to Harold Pinter's Nobel Acceptance Speech, that you published in December 2005 (you published the response, not the speech), have I read a more gross misrepresentation and misinterpretaion of a person's words. Meyers cherry-picks the speech Obama delivered, and seems to intentionally miscontrue Obama's words in an apparent attempt to mislead and misinform the newspaper-reading public.  As I did in 2005 in regard to the Ferguson article, I plead with your readers to go straight to the source - read or view the speech before judging it, do not rely on a misleading criticism.  And I request that the latimes editorial staff make some effort to hold their guest writers to at least a minimal degree of accountability.  Even op-ed pieces need to be held accountable or else they become mere propaganda.

joe stanford
venice

---

Letter to the editor;

Michael Meyers writes (“Obama blew it,” Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2008), “We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups.”  Barack Obama did, but apparently it was not forecuflle enough to suit Meyers---Obama neither being black enough, nor forceful enough, not Uncle Tom enough?

On NPR “Talk of the Nation” Meyers criticized Obama, suggesting that he nuanced the displays of bigotry made by his minister.  I did not think that Obama did---at least not as much as Myers has nuanced his brave new attacks of racial bigotry---Meyers ignores the blatantly bigoted comments on right-wing talk radio  and Fox, and finds fault with a guy the is struggling to make a difference. 

“In my considered judgment,” when all is said in done, Barack Obama will have made more of a difference in advancing better race relations by simply running for the presidency than Michael Meyers will do by shooting off his “considerate” mouth for the rest of his life.  Who the hell needs nuance when bigots have someone like Meyers giving them cover from which to spread their attacks on Obama or “racial idiocy?”

Although Meyers divulged that he is black and that he had heroically canceled his membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., I have no reason to nuance my own position by divulging the color of my skin.  Does Meyers know when he will appear on Bill O'Reilly’s no spin zone?

Sam Osborne
West Branch

---

Regarding your "Obama blew It" article.  I believe that Obama was saying what you profess, but he understands that unless we acknowledge the history first we cannot understand the present, and then move on to the future.  I have heard so many say he should have just disowned his pastor.  Had he always just run away, or if he had disassociated himself with everyone who carries the baggage his pastor does, he could never have been in the position of understanding he is now to be able to lead us forward.  His speech was just the first step...together we will get where you are.  It is a journey worth the pain...and as I have emailed to Bill Press, Peter King, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, I would like you to read it too.  Thank you.

Regarding your call for Barack Obama to disown his pastor.  I refer you to Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive and ye shall be forgiven:"  Perhaps Obama is following those words from Jesus!  John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.  Perhaps you missed the sermons where these words were spoken? 

Jim and Ginny

On this anniversary of the Iraq war, columnist Rosa Brooks is getting a five-year itch:

But I don't want to dwell on the bad times, because we did have some good times, didn't we? Remember those peaceful days between "Mission Accomplished" -- I think that was May 1, 2003 -- and ... and ... well, July 2003 or so, when we could still stroll around Baghdad at dusk, interrupted only by occasional small-arms fire? Those were the days, before the car bombs and IEDs.

We were happy then, weren't we, War?... But you can't go back again, can you?

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch notice that all those voters moving to the center and calling themselves independent have a lot in common with Libertarians. University of Missouri-St. Louis professor Richard Rosenfeld says that when it comes to the uptick in homicides, the buck actually doesn't stop with Police Chief Bratton. And columnist Patt Morrison thinks Councilman Tom LaBonge may be ready for mayorship... of the honorary kind, in Hollywood.

In honor of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, "expertologists" Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky study the surge in punditry while cartoonist Ed Stein watches President Bush navigate the labyrinthine occupation. Novelist Andrew Klavan applauds playwright "David Mamet's public coming-out as a political conservative," and Tim Rutten likens Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech on Tuesday to Abraham Lincoln's historic "House Divided" address. Contributing editor Erin Aubry Kaplan also has a thing or two to say about Obama's speech on race:

Obama rebuked Wright, in part, because he knew their association was in mortal danger of morphing him into just another angry black man a la Nat Turner, Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan (whom Obama detractors have already attempted to conflate with Obama). Whatever salient points these men made have been entirely eclipsed by the fact that they were just too mad for comfort.

Strange, when you consider that we live in a culture that thrives on vituperation institutionalized by conservative talk radio -- guys such as Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus are paid to be mad. But, of course, white anger is seen as fundamentally reasoned and righteous, and Americans have an almost limitless capacity to forgive it when it isn't.

The editorial board condemns China's manipulation of media coverage as it cracks down on protesters in Tibet, and urges LAPD Chief William J. Bratton to release a private report examining SWAT. The board also finds great value in Obama's address:

It may have begun as an exercise in political damage control, but Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on "A More Perfect Union" was that rarity in American political discourse: a serious discussion of racial division, distrust and demonization. Whether or not the speech defuses the controversy about some crackpot comments by Obama's longtime pastor, it redefines our national conversation about race and politics and lays down a challenge to the cynical use of the "race card."

Readers react to the McCain campaign's murky plans for Iraq. Harold Tuchel writes:

It is concerning to hear an advisor to John McCain say McCain will not be as robust in military matters as his current campaign speeches indicate.

Although I don't favor any of the presidential candidates because of their policies of amnesty for illegal immigrants, what really concerns me is that they say one thing while fully intending to do another.

We have had enough of this type of chicanery with George W. Bush. 

If you're looking for a little countertonality in the choir of angels praising Barack Obama's anti-disownment speech, Washington Post columnist and former G.W. Bush administration speechwriter Mike Gerson belts it out for you:

The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "damn" our country.

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor...

This accusation [that the government invented HIV as a means of genocide against people of color] does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy." It makes Wright a dangerous man...

And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk because the virus that causes AIDS spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.

Obama's speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama's grandmother, which Obama said made him "cringe" -- both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference....

What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

I don't like columns that ask rhetorical questions, then answer them, then invite me to congratulate myself on agreeing with the answer. I have at least one family member who believes the U.S. Government is up to all manner of criminal and murderous activity. And I object to the political prophylactic of denouncing and excommunicating non-violent zealots — in fact I find all attempts to police the borders of acceptable conversation to be self-serving, authoritarian and worst of all boring. So I'm the worst possible judge of this column.

But if there is some theonomist politician out there, considering whether to make a run: You have not yet lost my vote. The odds are you will lose it. (It's not just you; it happens to most guys!) But if you're offering me something good (or better, not offering me anything at all), I won't pull somebody else's lever just because you have some crazy ideas.

New York University professor Robert E. Wright argues that when it comes to the economy, America needs a second party -- since Democrats and Republicans offer no choice at all. "Prozac Nation" author Elizabeth Wurtzel wonders what happened to feminism in a "Girls Gone Wild" world, and Jonah Goldberg explains why Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright is wrong for Obama:

A Rasmussen poll released Monday found that 29% of blacks surveyed said Wright's comments made them more likely to support Obama, while only 18% said the opposite, and half said Wright's comments would have no effect on them.

That is a symptom of a problem that platitudinous "hope" cannot alone remedy.

The editorial board eyeballs a controversial gun-control case being heard in the Supreme Court today, and shakes its head at the Fed's short-term thinking in the Bear Stearns disaster:

The Bush administration tried to dole out a ration of calm Monday. The country is going through challenging times, President Bush said, but "our capital markets are functioning efficiently and effectively." White House Press Secretary Dana Perino later added, "This isn't about bailing anyone out." Neither happens to be true, though, and that's why the stock market gyrated from open to close.

Readers also react to Rev. Wright's racially incendiary comments. Richard Hawkins asks:

If Obama is to be dismissed for his pastor's rantings, how am I to judge members of the Catholic Church who still attend in spite of its crimes against children? How do I judge members of evangelical churches when their pastors cry out, "I have sinned against God"? How far do we take guilt by association? ... To bind Obama to his pastor's every word is absurd.

See the full text of his speech here, and a primitive (and late-starting) YouTube capture here. We'll update with more reactions, or better video, later today.

Top of the Ticket reacts here.

Leave your comments below.

Professors John G. Geer and Ken Goldstein give a stirring defense of negative campaigning, and documentary maker Manchan Magan chronicles his attempt to speak only Irish as he traveled through the Emerald Isle. Writer Barry Gottlieb wonders why the Vatican tacked pollution onto an already long list of sins, and in Geraldine Ferraro's race-tinged comments on Obama's success, Gregory Rodriguez discovers that white suspicion toward successful minorities is alive and kicking:

If Ferraro had clarified her remarks (and she had oh so many television minutes last week to do so) -- perhaps explaining that what she meant was that Obama's blackness has played a role in his appeal -- she might have saved her role in the Clinton campaign, but she still would have been only partly right.

Because what's impressive about Obama is not so much his African American identity as the way he wields it. He uses both the language of group pride and national unity. Unlike so many -- often media-created -- black leaders, Obama doesn't use a parochia