Senator Obama has now made perfectly clear where he stands in regard to Rev. Wright's most off the rails opinions. In fact, he did so at the very start of his campaign, well over a year ago now. That means those who want to pin the Wright bugaboo on his parishioner have had an eternity, in political time, to find a way to somehow make it seem as if Obama shares any of Wright's more unpalatable ideas; they have completely failed to do so. Now why is that?

Those who approach the story from the Hitchens angle of an atheism dismissive of any religious faith are hindered by the fact that they would have to agree that all religions are full of crackpots espousing failed ideas and morally questionable political intentions -- if Rev Wright is reprehensible and any association with him should disqualify Obama, then shouldn't all Catholics be disqualified by association with the Antichrist of Rome, that protector of child molesters? At least Hitchens in various of his other writings has sort of suggested as much, without wanting to spell it out for some reason. You have to grant him at least a limited rhetorical consistency.

And for those who are believers, they are hindered from laying unqualified anathema on Sen Obama's head, I would say, by virtue of their and our common experience of religious authority in everyday life. There is simply too much empirical reality in support of the notion that people can be religious without sharing all the ideological nuances of their spiritual "mentors." To whom, for instance, are our conservative Anglicans turning for support in their intra-ecclesiastical battles with liberals over gay marriage? Well, as a matter of fact, to the African bishops, some of whom preach the same sort of anger-mismanagement-based, fiery "prophetic" gospel that is often as resentful of outsiders, in this case decadent homo-loving Westerners, as anything handed down from the pulpits of Chicago's liberation theologists.

The theme of AIDS as an affliction visited on the African community by the white man is one that, eerily, unites those two groups. And yet, we don't see anyone coming out with blanket condemnations of Episcopalians, any op-eds about how anyone with a "mentor" in this hate-spewing crackpot religion should be barred from the White House. On a basic, concrete level, many millions of people have had the existence of belonging to a church whose leaders, or at least some of them - besides organizing food drives, community education, advocating for the most disadvantaged - also preach eschatological, self-martyring nonsense. And millions of believers in various faiths have learned to accept such preachments with a grain of salt. That would certainly seem to be the verdict of the voters, judging by last night's results.

Which is where your complete inability to understand the contrast between Obama and Buchanan comes in. Buchanan wasn't just "associated" with white supremacists; he is one. The entire basis of his political career is his proposal to undertake a program of political measures for the sole purpose of ensuring that America remain a "white nation." Obama, at the furthest possible remove from any such accommodation with extremism, stands for reconciliation across the dividing lines of race, class and historical experience. If you share those values, I advise you to join his campaign. If you honestly believe Sen Obama is outside the mainstream on any of the issues that really matter, including racial conflict, please give concrete evidence, and leave all the Wright-ist scare-mongering out of it.