What about the "Harry and Louise" redux ads that Obama ran in Iowa? That move, however much it went without comment, struck me as just as cynical - or, even more, given that their Gingrich gamesmanship was crucial to torpedoing expanded healthcare - and absolutely a case of aping the worst of Repug tactics.

Whatever, they're fighting hard, and that's fine - to me, this is just Obama's version of crying plagiarism, and just as unimportant.

The fact that Wright was the subject of a lengthy interview on a major network - a situation patently designed to allow him to answer/expand upon/provide context for the earlier controversy regarding his remarks makes it utterly reasonable that Joan (or anyone) revisit this issue. I don't see any conspiracy.

Also, I think the comparisons with Hagee and McCain are missing a point. For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist already, that relationship reflects very poorly on McCain, partly because of McCain's shameless double standard in what he purports to stand for, but also because most people think Hagee's a venomous nutbag. That the media doesn't deal with it fully or fairly, while true, doesn't really fool anyone with even a grain of skepticism.

But I think it's utterly naive to assail Joan for this column, as if the issues she raises are ridiculous or imaginary, when they instead they point to a very real problem for any politician seeking the broad mandate necessary for high office. No one's going to get elected president trumpeting the views of Rev. Wright. Period.

To which the natural rejoinder is, "Obama isn't trumpeting those views in his candidacy", and no, of course he isn't - but that sort of makes Joan's point, because those views are associated with him, whether any of us like it or not, and the idea that the Republicans are going to leave this alone is crazy. Every sound bite will be chopped to its most corrisive form and blasted into every red and battleground state until our ears bleed. I think Obama's responses so far have been reasonable, but this is hardly going to be the end of it. He's been put in a place where he has to answer for the "extreme" wing of his party - and fairly, really, as this is where he comes from, despite his attempts now to run from the middle. I might actually agree with much of what Wright says (though, a lot of it I also find reactionary and childish) but in terms of election rhetoric, it's an albatross around any candidate's neck.

Clinton and her own awkward associations are beside the point. If Obama gets the nomination, this will be even more of an issue, not less. Democrats need to figure out how to talk about it broadly - which also is to say, about progressive issues in general, not just the Goverment's plan to create AIDS - without being condescending or sullen.

Obama was a member of the church for 20 years - it's no stretch at all for anyone to "associate" him with Wright's views. I'm not saying they're necessarily Obama's views at all. Personally I find his distancing himself from Wright problematic both because I think it's disengenuous, and also because I wish it wasn't necessary. I don't blame Obama for either of these things - I don't really think he has a choice, and he's trying to with a situation that has to be very awkward for any politician (but especially one who's done so much to position himself as a cross-over to the other side of the aisle candidate).

But to pretend this isn't an issue helps no one - especially not Obama. As the comments here have made clear, many, many people espouse an agreement with some or all of what Wright has said - and, indeed, many of those positions are part and parcel of the progressive left. Even as Obama the candidate is deftly edging away from the political implications of Wright's words, many Obama supporters are, in fact, trumpeting their agreement with Wright.

It's not "joining the right-wing chorus" to suggest that this is an issue. My point is that it doesn't have to be an only negative issue, and it doesn't mean Democrats have to allow Republicans to frame it (however much they'll work to do so) - because, to me, the conversation is really about radicalism and centrism. The fact that, as you say, Obama is distancing himself from positions so many of his supporters (and, frankly, a lot of Clinton supporters) subscribe to is that much more evidence of how compromised the situation is.

I find a lot of what Wright says simplistic. But what I'd appreciate as a Democrat wanting to win in November is less shouting about how this doesn't matter and anyone who brings it up is stupid. Because it is going to be brought up - it's going to be brought up if Hilary Clinton concedes this very afternoon - and pretending it isn't is just foolish. It's especially foolish because it's actually a legitimate question - one that ought to have been aggressively raised with Bush on the "faith-based" element of his presidency. A progressive agenda isn't going to be broadly articulated when supporters stick fingers in their ears and shout to drown out criticism any more than it will be by candidates who sidle away from those positions. I think Joan is right to characterize some of the difficulty here as the problem of a Hype Park liberal running for an office where he can't appear to be a Hyde Park liberal - or at least doesn't believe he can. I would prefer he found a way to at least split the difference, and that means being prepared for this question in the general and using it to the Democrats' advantage.