I can only think that every time a pundit comments on Wright, particularly Republicans, they feel somehow they are creating history. Those in the media seem to think the Wright controversy will be looked back on in political history as the moment that ruined Obama’s chance at winning the White House. The way the pundits look at each other with those smiles and eyes gleaming as they discuss Wright conveys a sense of “look at us! We’re doing it right now…WE are changing History! I feel so alive for the first time in my life!”

I think the pundits and political strategists are hoping that Wright will enter the long term U.S. political memory such as the ‘Sister Souljah Moment’, Dukakis’s Tank moment, or ‘you sir are no Jack Kennedy’, and ‘there you go again…’. That some how after all is said and done, after the election is over, many years from now all these same pundits will look back and say “yep, Wright sunk Obama. Not only did we predict it would happen but we also helped it happen thereby making history.”

The latest Republican talking point being parroted by the media goes something like Obama’s association with Wright shows a lack a judgment. The extension from that is if Obama cannot handle his pastor how can he stand up to the evil doers in the world? If he can’t make a sound judgment about his church then how can he make sound judgments as Commander In Chief? Forget for a moment that Hillary and McCain both used their judgment when voting FOR the invasion of Iraq.

This talking point is of course based in fantasy. Since when have religious judgments and affiliations been used to judge how capable a President would be? And if this is the new test, that we decide who should be President based on who they associate with religiously then shouldn’t McCain be equally judged for being happy to have Hagee’s endorsement? Shouldn’t McCain be equally judged for his associations with Reverend Parsley? Shouldn’t Hillary have to answer for her association with Reverend Billy Graham? Shouldn’t President Bush be called out for his weekly prayer breakfasts and his associations with Reverend Ted Haggard?

The Wright issue is an issue because the media made it an issue. They could have made Haggard an issue for Bush but they didn’t. They could have easily made Hagee or Graham an issue for McCain and Hillary respectively and chose not to. Instead they treat Obama like Mr. Bojangles making him dance at their command for their amusement and pleasure. And after Obama obliges them with a dance they applaud but whisper to themselves “…not quite good enough Mr. Obama…Dance again for us like Mr. Bojangles once did!”

This has all become somewhat of a media self fulfilling prophecy. Obama was down 20 points in Pennsylvania. He ended up losing by 9.2 points (or 10 points if you are in the media). His loss is falsely attributed to Wright by the media. If Wright really had an effect in Pennsylvania Obama would have lost by more than 20 points. Instead Obama improved in Pennsylvania by 10.8 points.

After Wright’s various TV appearances this weekend the media predicted this would hurt Obama in Indiana and North Carolina. The media said Wright would hurt Obama. What was this assertion based on? It was based on the media’s conflation of Wright’s views with Obama’s views. Chris Matthews went as far as to say that Obama and Wright are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The implication of course being that Obama and Wright are one in the same person with Wright being the evil Mr. Hyde to Obama’s Dr. Jekyll. That somehow behind closed doors and in secret Obama really agrees with Wright.

This is the talking point being pushed by the media and it’s categorically wrong. Unless you also believe Obama is a liar and not telling the truth when he denounces, renounces, rejects, and divorces himself from his pastor.

The other pernicious Republican talking point that has flooded the airwaves goes something like “how could Obama sit in the pews for 20 years and not have heard the horrible disgusting words coming from Wright’s mouth?”

This has become the pivot point which Republicans use to parry attacks on McCain with regard to Hagee. Hillary has never been attacked over Billy Graham and thus hasn’t had to pivot and parry. McCain didn’t spend 20 years in Hagee’s pews. Even though McCain accepted the endorsement of someone who thinks Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for the gay lifestyle and is someone who wants to attack Iran to bring back Jesus, it’s all ok ‘cause McCain doesn’t go to that church.

That is the kool aid the Republicans and media are pushing. They are force feeding it down the public’s throat. Wright is an issue because the media continues to push the issue. If the media wasn’t pushing Wright he would be relegated to the fringe groups of politics and Swift Boat style 527 groups.

All of this leads me to ask what happened to the separation of Church and State? Since when has there been a religious test to hold office? Since when did we delve into the religious and spiritual lives of politicians to determine their competency to hold office?

What’s even more insidious to me is that since this is now the new standard (who one’s pastor is, what that pastor says, and how long they went to that church) how come Obama is the only one being held to this new standard? Shouldn’t this standard also be applied to McCain and Hillary? Why aren’t McCain and Hillary being scrutinized for their religious associations? Since their spiritual ties are not as strong as Obama’s doesn’t that raise questions about their fitness for office? Have McCain and Hillary actually accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior the way Obama has?

In this hyper-Christian country I would think Obama’s obvious faith and devotion to Jesus Christ would be getting him more support from other persons of faith.

On a side note, MSNBC runs these promos with Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, or Brian Williams that discuss the importance of this election. They are dramatic and discuss how this election will determine what direction our country goes in. I have to laugh every time after the promo ends and the MSNBC news anchor says “and we’re back…now for the latest on the Jeremiah Wright controversy let’s turn to Republican strategist…”

Newsflash: If you ask a Republican strategist or a Hillary partisan if Wright will hurt Obama’s chances in North Carolina and Indiana they will say yes every single time. Is that rocket science? Is it too big of mystery to understand?