The National Review just published an article claiming that the controversy about Rev. Wright could be Hillary's "Sista Souljah"
moment (in reference to Bill Clinton's 1992 criticism of Sista Souljah's lyrics that sanctioned the killing of cops). They suggest that this would be the case only if she attacks Wright.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Q0YjU0NWIxZDNjZjhjM2Q3N2Q1N2NhMWY1MTE2MmY=But I believe they got this wrong and that it is probably Barack Obama's "Sista Souljah" moment. Reasonable people hold potential leaders responsible for their own thoughts, opinions and deeds. However, they are interested in how they deal with crises and problematic associates. By criticizing Obama's association with his pastor, Obama's opponents gave him a wonderful opportunity to symbolically define what he believes about the racial divide and unity. He came down firmly on the side of unity. In this case, he denounced the statements, removed the pastor from any connection with his campaign, while at the same standing up for the American values of unity that he and the Democratic party represent.
This will likely be a classic example of attacks helping a candidate.
See this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5078728&mesg_id=5078728The basic topic of that post is that:
Each time a candidate successfully fends off an attack, it builds confidence in that candidate in the eyes of the electorate.
The biggest irony here is that the attackers in the media and on the net, actually do a candidate a big favor when they attack on these type of indirect grounds, as opposed to more insidious attacks like the swiftboaters who lied about what happened in the past to score political points.