Some media pundits are not buying into the notion that the Reverend Wright affair is behind us, or more importantly, behind Barack Obama. Richard Cohen wants another speech. Stuart Taylor just wants some answers.

This is the danger with not getting all the answers out the first time around. It’s always tempting for politicians to skate by, saying as little as possible, especially if they’re uncertain what additional incriminating material might be out there. That natural inclination must have been particularly strong here, where Obama could bank on the media’s ludicrous resistance to probing the particulars of his association with Wright.

So the underlying issue–his relationship with Wright and toleration of Wright’s vitriol–is now compounded with the nagging sense that Obama has “ducked” a central problem with his candidacy. For those playing armchair psychologist (or just practicing standard punditry), the questions remain: Why not go before the media and answer all questions? Why not tell us why he sought out Wright to begin with? Why keep going to Wright’s church, with his kids no less?

Those inclined toward skepticism about Obama’s messianic grace or simply searching for a key to his personality may wonder, as Taylor does, whether this demonstrates a lack of courage and the ability to say “no” to friends and supporters–traits any president needs. Others will wonder if this is evidence of a deep form of political cynicism, the notion that you can play on white guilt (Give ’em a nice speech on reconciliation) to avoid answering tough questions.

Regardless of the merits of the pundits’ concerns, it’s highly unlikely Obama will give another speech on the topic. Going back now would signal recognition of a huge strategic misstep. Whatever bed he’s made he will now have to lie in and whatever voters really think of him will not be known until they step into the booths in November. Because that is where irked or worried or angry voters have their final say.