For months now Senator Obama has been following a traditional leftist argument against Senator Clinton, that of guilt by association. Effectively the Senator along with Mr. Edwards charged that Senator Clinton’s acceptance of lobbyist and PAC money was a sign that she is somehow owned or can be greatly influenced by interests. Being a friend of these interests and having them be a friend to her has been made evidence that they somehow own her.

The inconsistency with this logic begins when questions arise about Senator Obama’s relationship with his spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as the outspoken Rev. Louis Farrakhan. Wright has been a major influence in Senator Obama’s life and is now an organizer for Obama’s campaign. He married the Senator, was the inspiration for the title and some of the thought in his bestselling book and the Obama’s attend his church in Chicago Illinois.

Wright is an outspoken critic of the United States, has made anti-Semitic and anti-white remarks, put blame on the nation for 9/11 and has other controversial ideas about christianity and culture. The Senator maintains that these thoughts do not influence his own decision making or values, that even though he belongs to the church and is advised by the leader, we the voters and the media should not probe the relationship or assume that he shares the worldview espoused by his spiritual guide.

So how is it that we can assume Clinton is unduly influenced by lobbyists and corporations that individually hand her a few thousand dollars for a campaign, yet we cannot assume the same is true for a man and an organization whom Obama credits with changing his life? There is also a similar question to be had of Tony Rezko, the indicted fundraiser who backed and in many ways began Obama’s political career. If it is true that funding and support is a sign of influence, why can we not use this logic for a criminal who had a very long relationship and history with the Senator?

There is a breakdown in logic here, especially when one consider that Obama and Clinton share an almost identical voting record and an almost identical presidential platform. If Clinton is so extremely influenced by these groups, where is the evidence? If Obama does not share the same values and thoughts as his spiritual guide, why can we not probe him on it, go line-by-line and see where he agrees and disagrees, what his thought process is.

An issue does exist here if Ms. Clinton wants it, she should take it soon because it will come up against him in a general election campaign.