More on my Obama post

I appreciate commenter "Lauren" adding her $0.02. I wasn't going to respond because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat about this, but Jonathon Last over at the Weekly Standard Blog linked to an article by Jay Cost that asks a very good question of Obama. It's a good way to look at it other than "I don't like guilt-by-association":

My concern with the speech is the following. I am not sure what I think about Obama's claim that he never heard Wright make incendiary comments. I think that hinges on the definition of "incendiary." More importantly, I have always thought this was a moot point. Incendiary comments make for great television--but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that undergirds them. . . . .

This philosophy is divisive, and Obama was aware of it even if he had not heard its most extreme articulations. At the same time, this philosophy is clearly not the core mission of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright does not wake up every morning dedicated to dividing people. However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. . . .

Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. . . . I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?

When Obama moved to Chicago some 20 years ago, he could have chosen from any of hundreds of churches in his neighborhood. He chose this one. He then became close to Wright. It's not as though he was raised in the church and thus feels an obligation to stay with it.

So why did he choose this church to begin with? The obvious answer is that he agreed with the pastor. After all, he's the face of the church and the first guy he with know a lot about.