From the very start, Barack Obama's attempt to distance himself from the controversial sermonizing and policies of his pastor Jeremiah Wright has resembled someone trying to thread a needle. When asked at the Democratic debate in Cleveland about the racist Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of his candidacy, Obama's visage became strained, and his subsequent response to the question about whether he agreed with the views of Farrakhan, was measured, pained, judicious and less than forthright. It seemed that only after being prodded by Hillary did he claim that he repudiated all that Farrakhan stood for. So too, during his interview with Fox News' Major Garrett, Obama's responses to the questions about his long-term association with his pastor, Jeriamiah Wright, Obama seemed to want to have it both ways. It was only after prodding by Garrett, that Obama stated that he would leave his church if he had personally heard the deplorable comments. He didn't state this position unequivocally initially.

His continuing attempt at dousing the flames of this controversy have led to some incongruous and highly contradictory statements that do nothing except give prominence to the gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his political experience. He stated on Saturday that, "The forces of division have begun to raise their ugly head again,"and later,"It reminds me: We've got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. A lot of pent-up anger and mistrust and bitterness. This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things."

Huh?

It is clear that Obama is grasping at straws in responding to the central issue concerning his close association with a merchant of venom: how can he claim to have the qualifications to be a racial healer when he allies himself with a racial polarizer?

Some commentators on last Thursday's CNN Anderson Cooper show seemed to want to bury the controversy as much ado about nothing and move on to a discussion of the "real issues" such as health care and the economy. David Gergen dismissed Wright's incendiary comments as merely differences between the views of black and white America. His posture on this score is downright silly. Would Gergen be equally dismissive of an all-white denomination that preached white supremacy? We used to call such organizations similarly disposed in the proselytization of such dogma the Ku Klux Clan. Somehow I think Gergen would not be so quick to explain the odious nature of such teachings as merely the differences in the church going experiences of white and black America.