When there is so much unknown story (as is the case with Obama) it's easy to fill in the blanks in an attempt to construct a composite based on suppositions. Even before the Wright flap, the fabric of his story felt a little thin and dangled too many loose ends. So much about him remains undefined, therefore, any and every association will be called into consideration as a means of defining a man whose slight political record cannot.

This fiasco will force him to make statements that are far more definitive. It could actually work in his favor if he handles it with an in your face approach. But at this juncture, his approach and presenation will have to be as strong as his words because he's laid low for so long. Proving he can take heat, respond decisively, and clear the field to command focous on the real issues we want a President to address would establish who he is and would, I believe, turn the tide. We'll see. He doesn't have my vote, but he does have my attention.

I'm not an Obama supporter but there's been a certain amount of interest on my part as to how his candidacy would unfold.

I think in his efforts to define and brand himself he has underestimated the threats presented by the opposition.  He attempted to be conciliatory to Wright in making his first major response in Philadelphia.  Apparently he did so without speaking heart to heart with Wright to see if Wright was going to remain quietly underground and not seek to promote himself at the expense of Obama's campaign.  That was a lapse of judgement that doesn't reflect well on a candidate seeking to be the chief negotiator for the US.

Assessing threats, preparing for them in advance with contingencies and then living in a manner that is transparent and consistent with one's stated values may be branding, but in the end it's just good old fashioned honesty and living with a clear conscience and good reputation.

"The key to effective branding is that a successful brand isn't what you say it is: it's what they it is. For instance, it doesn't matter if the local food bank is the best in the nation if word leaks out that it's giving away tainted produce. It won't matter that you're a brilliant pastor if your congregation thinks you're a hack. And it certainly won't matter that a humanitarian organization is global if nobody's ever heard of it. In other words, it's about perception.

Phil Cooke, Branding Faith

Sadly, Obama has been fighting negative perceptions for several weeks now.  I would say Obama's already lost his story because much of the current perception of him is negative and for many like me, beyond repair.

It's much harder to undo a negative perception than build a good one.

I love this: "It’s not about manipulation – actually the opposite – it’s about integrity, transparency, and authenticity. After all, do YOU want to tell your story, or would you prefer leaving it to your critics, the press, or chance?"

So true in this web 2.0 world we live in today. It's why I think guys like Kevin Rose (digg) and Gary Vaynerchuk (WLTV) GET IT… it's all about the radical transparency with them, not spinning some story or pushing or selling a product. But the reality is we're AT LEAST 10-15 years away from seeing that kind of transparency with political officials. Unfortunately.

If it hadn't been Wright, Obama would still have parts of "his story" he couldn't control or spin. 

You can write your story, spin your story and tell your story any way you want to.  In the information age, you’ve got less control of “your story” than ever before.   Ask the unfortunate Howard Dean.  One day he was the darling of pop media, the next day he became a laughing stock.  Why?  Just because he became less than elegant at an enthusiastic political rally?  The “Dean Scream” wasn’t a moral failure, nor was it a platform item.  He was simply a bit gauche – ONCE.  

Consistently telling your own story is a pipe dream.