The Barack Backlash

"Those disinclined to vote for the Illinois senator based on his ties to Wright (44 percent) outweigh those who would be inclined to vote for him (12 percent) by a wide margin. While the margin is somewhat closer among Democrats (36 percent disinclined; 16 inclined), the toll on Obama is still quite severe."

And: "Only 27% of voters have positive views of Republicans, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the lowest level for either party in the survey's nearly two-decade history.

"Yet the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, continues to run nearly even with Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. His showing clouds the outcome of a race that was expected to be tough for Republicans, who face an electorate that overwhelmingly believes the country is headed in the wrong direction under President Bush."

"By questioning Obama's honesty," says National Review's Byron York, "Wright was striking at the heart of the Obama campaign. The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can't say so publicly for political reasons. Put another way, if voters believe that Obama fundamentally rejects Wright's views, they might question Obama's judgment in remaining close to Wright for 20 years. But if voters believe that Obama secretly agrees with Wright but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost . . .

"The threat from Wright remains, all the way until November 4. Wright knows the true nature of his relationship with Obama. He knows what they have said to each other. He knows whether Obama finds Wright's views as offensive as he has said. There are more than six months left before the general election, and if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, that is a lot of time for the voluble -- and publicity-loving -- pastor to remain silent."

I disagree with the first part--everyone knows Obama is a politician. But Wright could inflict more damage if he starts popping off in the fall.

To Dick Polman, Obama's move was a matter of political necessity:

"He had no choice. Jeremiah Wright had turned into a one-man wrecking crew, and it was starting to look like Obama was just a passive bystander, a hapless witness to his own destruction, lacking the requisite guts to take the guy down. Most importantly, that kind of passivity is hardly the kind of character trait that many Americans want to see in a commander-in-chief. A real leader has to show that he can confront and isolate his adversaries. And Wright had indeed become an adversary."

Polman quotes a Democratic strategist as worrying "that in the eyes of swing voters (including the racially enlightened), Obama was starting to look weak; that many voters were perhaps starting to ask themselves whether this new phenom on the political scene was really tough enough to take on the likes of Ahmadinejad when he seemed so reluctant to handle Wright with the ruthlessness that is sometimes required of a chief executive."

Why did the two men hook up in the first place? The New Republic's Noam Scheiber floats two theories:

"The first is cynical: Obama was a black politician in Chicago with an exotic background and intimidating credentials. He needed a home in a black church to gain credibility with his less educated, less affluent, more parochial-minded constituents. Trinity offered him the requisite cred.

"The second, not entirely unrelated, theory is psychoanalytical: Obama, as the product of a racially-mixed marriage, in which the black father was almost entirely absent, had spent his whole life groping for an authentic identity. Wright offered Obama both the father and the identity he never had."