1. Rev. Wright, whether or not he was making well reasoned arguments (and he doesn’t appear to have done that), appeared to use his relationship with a Presidential candidate to gain attention on the national stage. Whether or not he was using his relationship with Obama is beside the point, he appeared to be using it. One of my objections about the politics of the last eight years has been that right or wrong, people in positions of power (any kind) must maintain the appearance of propriety in their political lives… they must not appear to influence, must not appear to bend the rules, they must not appear to misuse their relationships for personal gain.

2. The Obama Campaign is not about Rev. Wright, has little if anything to do with the subject of Rev. Wright’s speech or with Rev. Wright’s personal views. Yet Rev. Wright places himself directly in that dialogue. He quotes, “We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.” When you call a man a liar, I think you should do it to his face, not in a press conference that you claim has nothing to do with him.

3. Which brings us to Michelle Obama. I know nothing about her. She’s not running for office. I haven’t read her essay. I don’t’ particular find Mr. Hitchens a reliable analyst. Yet the public has a problem. How to explain Obama and Wright? How to reconcile a relationship between two men who obviously see the world very differently, value different things, hope for different things? I think Hitchens is grasping at straws trying to find an answer. I don’t know if he’s right, I don’t care. I’m focused on one of the most significant ideological movements in our nation’s history.