Obama's fate might be sealed by words — but not his own

I think it would be bad for America if voters elect Barack Obama as president.

But it would be immeasurably worse for the country if Obama gets left off the November ballot solely because the preacher at the church he attended said some stupid things.

It's quite possible, though, that this is precisely Obama's fate.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, at how quickly Obama's campaign was sapped of its momentum after excerpts from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s sermons infested media reports.

A passel of screenwriters could not have created a more ideal villain for our sound-bite-obsessed society than Wright.

The reverend, among other distasteful drivel, has preached that God should damn the United States for its institutional racism rather than bless the country. Wright implied in his sermon of Sept. 16, 2001, that the terrorist attacks five days earlier were the inevitable, and justifiable, result of America's past brutality in places such as Hiroshima, the Middle East and South Africa.

That snippet of video in which Wright bellows "God damn America" must alone be worth 10 percentage points to Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

And yet, though I'm appalled by Wright's illogical rantings, I can't make the monumental leap to the notion that Obama, because he sat in a pew while Wright pontificated, has forfeited his claim to represent the Democratic Party.

I understand that Obama's 20-year relationship with Wright is not the passive one that most churchgoers have with their pastor.

Wright presided at Obama's wedding. He baptized Obama's children. Obama borrowed the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," from one of Wright's sermons.

Nonetheless, it seems to me grossly unfair, based on those facts, to shove Wright and Obama onto one narrow philosophical shelf, to conclude that Obama concurs with every opinion Wright expressed during thousands of sermons.

Yet some pundits detect just such a lockstep mentality. They suggest that Obama, had he disagreed with any of Wright's especially egregious slurs, would have, out of sheer decency, picked a different church rather than remain in Wright's congregation.

That's a pretty shaky assumption.

What if we find out next week that Obama once watched an R-rated movie, and further, that he stayed in his seat during the sex scene?

Must we then conclude that Obama is a pervert because he didn't storm out of the theater, and on the way berate the manager for showing such sleaze?

I won't vote for Obama because I disagree with him on many issues, including the Iraq war and health care policy.

But I think he's a good man, and an honest one.

Obama said earlier this week that he neither agrees with nor condones Wright's well-publicized statements.

I believe Obama.

Politics is a nasty business, of course, and no contest is nastier than the one that ends at the White House.

I think it's appropriate that voters scrutinize not only the present statements, but also the past actions, of people, like Obama, who come so close to that great prize.

But if we deny a candidate the chance to compete for the prize because of words someone else spoke, words which the candidate disavows, then we have crossed the line that separates reasonable skepticism from hysteria.

We seem to be straddling that line with Barack Obama.

I hope we stay on the right side.

Jayson Jacoby is editor of the Baker City Herald.