I am struck, though not entirely surprised, by the widening gulf between some Cable TV commentators and pundits reaction to Obama's speech and that of most of middle america. So disparate is the treatment, that It leads me to ask: did we watch the same speech? By and large, the acclamation given his speech by most liberal pundits has been unrestrained and effusive: On MSNBC, Sally Quinn gushed that it was the greatest in all of human history; tune in to any cable news channel and you will hear similar accolades.

We have seen this all before, most notably in the immediate aftermath of Obama's Iowa victory. So over the top was the mainstream media's transparent love for Obama, that it supplied the grist for Saturday Night Live's hilarity mill. After Iowa, MSNBC's Chris Matthews practically was drafting Obama's inauguration speech and had the Messiah of Hope measuring drapes for his all but certain tenure in the Oval Office. After his soaring Iowa victory speech, Matthews was stunned to learn that Obama, the rhetorical steam roller, didn't sweep New Hampshire as many had predicted. The only plausible explanation for Matthews, and others whose views of Obama were similarly inclined, was that Obama was a victim of the Bradley Effect, i.e, white racism.

Let's stipulate that it was a very good speech; but the greatest in all of human history? Of the last century? Sorry, but in this regard, Obama, even though he has been anointed Messianic status by many in the chattering class, does have some stiff competition (Lincoln, Martin Luther King, William Jennings Bryan, to name but a few). Let's just say that I'm not going to throw away my copy of Pericles Funeral Oration just yet…

No matter what you hear from the pundits, the Obama candidacy suffered a gaping, almost mortal wound from the Jeremiah Wright controversy. His speech was a political necessity in the sense that he needed to try and staunch the bleeding. What those in the mainstream media utterly fail to grasp is that the New Messiah was caught abjectly with one foot in the fetid and feverish swamp of Democratic Party identity politics, the other, dangling pretentiously, in the transcendent bliss of the clouds of conciliation. As one who had laid claim, with all the attendant moral authority, to the mantle of the Great Uniter, he was forced to reconcile his dual personality. As such, the only issue that concerned most voters after hearing the speech was, how well did Obama do in harmonizing these discordant strains of his candidacy?

For many in the mainstream media the predictable answer reflects their belief, and hope, that Obama's rhetoric more than sufficiently addressed the major concerns prompted by the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio and it's time to move on. But this is wishful thinking on their part. Indeed, the Politico interview buttresses this contention. Despite the fact that they may characterize the controversy as a "distraction", no amount of media spin, on behalf of their candidate of choice, is going to change the fact that Obama failed to resolve in a satisfactory manner, the glaring contradictions of his candidacy.

Through his speech, Obama revealed to us that he is not transcendent, but a mere mortal with all the baggage and inconsistencies of an ordinary aspiring politician. He came to Chicago as a light-skinned African-American, a transplant from Harvard, Hawaii and Indonesia, attempting to launch a promising career in politics amongst a predominantly African-American constituency. Can there be any doubt now that naked political ambition led him to his association with his parish and his pastor? But, by the sheer inadequacy of his response to his twenty-year membership in a black separatist church with a racist pastor, it is highly dubious whether or not he can regain his legitimacy as a healer and uniter.

What the Jeremiah Wright affair reveals to us is that in the end, Obama's wings, like those of Icarus, were made of wax, and he has flown too close to the sun.