There's a prominent school of thought out there this morning that both praises Obama's speech of yesterday for what it said, but also wonders about its effectiveness for achieving the desired political means.
Glenn Greenwald does a fine job in giving voice to this argument on Salon.com:
The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the opposite assumption -- that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse...
Will George Bush's ranch hats and Willie Horton's scary face and Al Gore's earth tones and John Kerry's windsurfing tights inevitably overwhelm sober, substantive discussions of the fundamental political crises plaguing the country? Obama's insistence that Americans are hungry for that sort of elevated debate and are able to engage it -- and his willingness to stake his campaign on his being right about that -- has been, in my view, one of the most admirable aspects of his candidacy.
I would argue there is a key distinction to be made here, and it has to do with timing.
(More below)
Obama's high-road campaign strategy is at its most stressed-out point right now because of the phase we are at in our political process. His argument that he can win with a new kind of politics is at its most vulnerable point because it wasn't designed for this phase of the campaign.
The Democratic primary season is presumed to be friendly ground for the candidates. Obama's ideas and tone ought to be his strength right now, but they are actually a vulnerability. He's getting hit with these negative factors right now, but because he's campaigning against a strong fellow Democrat and is largely unwilling to practice the politics of personal destruction, he's in a difficult spot. (That added level of difficulty, IMO, only adds to the brilliance of yesterday's performance).
There's the key difference, though, that commentators seem to be missing in wondering about how this issue will play out farther down the road in the campaign.
Once Obama (presumably) attains status as the nominee, he can rightfully be much more assertive in defending himself against attacks like these. John McCain or the Swiftboaters of 2008 may try to raise the issue of Rev. Wright again, but then the battle isn't between candidate vs. candidate on a personal level, it will be between the two parties and their views on race. This limits the damage that can be done to Obama personally, while at the same time, giving him much more room to go on the offensive by pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standards that have defined the Republican approach to issues of racial differences in our country. Frankly, I like Obama's chances to make significant headway with voters in that battle.
Even beyond that, Obama has already shown a willingness to aggressively engage McCain and Republicans generally in a battle of ideas. That is where the battle will be fought during the fall campaign -- Obama aggressively (but factually and politely) deconstructing the damage done by Republican "leadership" in this country over the last eight years, and how much of that McCain embraces. That's a winning proposition, and one where this whole dustup over Rev. Wright will fall against an entirely different backdrop.
I think that point is being lost in today's considerations. The race we have today will not be the same race Obama is involved in come summer or fall.