I read the words in the article cited from the OP, and agree with her assessment of where racism began and where we are today, I wouldn't expect that anyone could disagree with that. I don't see this diffusing the issue in the democratic presidential race, however. I wonder, now that you know her a little better, what would you expect her to do if she happened into a church and heard a sermon like the one which stirred this up . . . think she'd go back?
From the discussion I listened to on NPR, the answer to that question is not crystal clear. It would depend on many of the circumstances. The author of the biography noted her support of GWB was initially a conundrum to those who thought they knew her. In the end he concluded her support for an individual is quite dependent on the role she gets to play - the closer to the seat of power and the more influence she has the more she is willing to adopt new philosophical outlooks if they are required to get the position of higher influence or more direct contact with the one in the seat of power.
Not entirely a bad approach, as with greater influence on the one in the seat of power the more you get to influence the making of history, but also one that is not likely to resonate well with voters. If Reverend Wright had been perceived as a necessary step in her path to get closer to the seat of power, it seems she might very well have been tolerant of his sermons. In the end though, the likelihood of such a course of action was zero, and today Reverend Wright is so far from her goal of working in close proximity to real power, you will never see her answer your question. So she won't have to act out that hypothetical situation to support either of our speculative answers.
But I got from the author her choices are not based on an internal set of hard, fast and guiding beliefs. She is more ambitious and realistic than that and way too uninterested in becoming a public spectacle to run for elected office. Jim