Should a candidate be held responsible for the views of his or her pastor?
If we were all held accountable for the views of our clergymen/women, then no one would ever go to church/synagogue etc. Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for all the words of Jeremiah Wright. It is, however, totally fair to ask Obama what parts of Wright’s ideology he agrees with, and which he disagrees with.
The reality is that Americans deal with this kind of thing all the time in their own lives. They go to a church where the pastor repeatedly says things they disagree with and have to decide at what point it’s too much to stomach. Ironically, Wesley Clark was mocked in 2004 for leaving a church because the minister criticized the war. Howard Dean was criticized for leaving a church over land use or development policies.

Some people stay at such a church because they feel that part of a minister’s job is to challenge the views of his congregants. Some stay because the Sunday school is terrific. More commonly, I hear people say something like, “I don’t like the minister’s sermons, but he was so wonderful when my father died.” We should remember that the main purpose of a minister is spiritual. If he helps someone get closer to God, or find meaning, that matters tremendously.
So, it’s not sufficient for Obama to say Wright is a crazy uncle. He has to say what parts of Wright’s message he shares. More important, Obama needs to explain why he’s stayed at the church. It’s a totally legitimate question. If his answer is that, despite Wright’s views on politics and race, the church brought Obama spiritual meaning, then that needs to count for a lot.