The late winter outbreak of Rev. Wright, IMHO, inoculates Sen. Obama from it being an issue of significance in the fall. Those who dislike him will still be cramping up over it, but face it, our culture,s gnat-like attention span will have many other things to play with by then.

And Hillary is helping the right wingnuts in every possible way as they attempt to destroy Obama. If I wanted a sleazy, war mongering, negative campaigning candidate, I would go for McCain. Why would I choose a softer version in Hillary when I can get the real deal in McCain?

Good job Hillary. Your ambition to win the nomination at any cost, even if you never had a lead in the delegate count (except in opinion polls before Iowa), is screwing up the leading candidate's chances in the general.

I don't buy it. The Wright controversy is still around, endlessly so on Talk Radio. Meanwhile today's Gallup poll shows Obama up by 10 points over Clinton: 52 to 42 percent.

Meanwhile Jeremiah Wright receives a rousing welcome at a Catholic Church and is defended by numerous thoelogians.

Even after the Wright stuff was played over and over again, in one poll 60% felt Obama was a uniter, 60% thought of him as honest and less than 40% thought the same of Hillary. Call him a Teflon President if you will, but I think Wright is working to Obama's advantage. The more the Right obsesses about this, the less seriously the public takes them.

And Hillary is helping the right wingnuts in every possible way
And Talkleft, myDD, BansheeMarsh all point approving to crap written by Hanson, Istapundit and others at the Corner. What is wrong with these people?

Oprah needs to have Wright on her show for the whole hour sometime in September. Show him for what he is rather than let the right wingers define him as they want him to be.

I have talked to a number of friends who believe that Obama cannot win. We live in a racist country period, and to believe anything else in fantasy. The Jeremiah Wright issue showed that. I used to believe that as well. Although I would say that the media is far more racist than the country at large (look at the way the media reacted as compared to the way the country as a whole reacted). At the same time we cannot continuously bow to the howlings of racists, we cannot fear them, we cannot fear the media. We have possibly a once in a generation perfect storm to change the narrative in this country (a weak Republican candidate, a devastated Republican party). We must ask ourselves if not now, when. I told my students we will face six of the ugliest months we ever have as Americans, we will be forced to look ourselves in the mirror and face our demons. But if we come out the other end whole the change for better will be incalculable. I am not saying we will come out the other end, but if we can't take this chance now we can never take it.

It hall hinges on the main stream media. Are they going to amplify the right wing's nuttiness, or will they lose interest?

The right is going to scream about something, because they get paid damn good money to do that. Its when CNN and CBS start airing vacuous pieces on the right's talking points that damage can be done.

Hopefully, the MSM will have lost interest in Wright by the fall, and it will find some new, more innocuous and insubstantial thing to cover by then. Like what Chelsea is wearing after her mom lost the primary.

If it wasn't Pastor Wright, it would be something else. Of course the right wing sites have grabbed on to a controversy and won't let it go, that's how they work. They'd do the same to any other Democratic candidate who they saw as having any chance of winning.

If your standard for backing a Democrat is whether or not he or she will be relentlessly attacked by the right, then there is no Democrat who you will ever feel comfortable supporting. What we need to do is pick the candidate whose policies and style we can support, and then stand up for them as strongly as we can, and quit worrying about how the conservative bloggers react. They're going to attack no matter what. And if that makes you feel uncomfortable, then you lose.

but I'm not sure I think they're delusional any more.

Delusional would be too kind. Sociopathic may be a bit closer. They want what they want and seem to disregard mitigating notions as well as the impacts of their actions on others.

Yeah, a bit of an overstatement. A bit.

So a few months of frothing at the mouth from right-wing weirdos is going to do more damage to Obama than more than a decade's worth of frothing about anything Clinton-related? Not likely. If Obama is "doomed" by Wright, Clinton is three times as doomed just because she's Hilary Clinton.

Here is an option that I think has at least as much, if not more, probability of being correct than Hilliary has "lost her mind" etc.

She`s running to be St McCain`s VP. Once spurned by the "evil" anti-Hillary forces she can then become part of a cross party ticket (the "serious side of the threshold" ticket ?) and punch her CinC cred.

Makes for great media drama & free campaign PR.

"The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of "justice", but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenter" - Rosa Luxemburg

They might not be delusional in their concern for Obama's chances, but I think they are delusional that they can win.

Great post, Kevin.

The polls taken after Obama's race speech showed, gratifyingly, no reduction in his support, suggesting that a sleaze campaign will have a harder time working against Obama than it did against John Kerry. Still, it's out there, and it's pretty clearly part of the game plan for the fall campaign. I think Hillary's folks are wrong to believe that Obama is doomed, but I'm not sure I think they're delusional any more.

Not delusional? Kevin, didn't you say you would stop defending Hillary but now you're doing exactly that? I guess a leopard can't change his spot no matter what!
Anyway, I think you're absolutely right that no sleaze campaign against Barack would work but for one caveat. If Hillary works with Mccain against Barack, then there's a very good chance the sleaze campaign would work. So if Barack loses in November, there's only one person to blame and that is Hillary because Hillary is the only one who can beat Barack.

I'm beginning to think that the country is ungovernable. For too long our people have decided that the invisible hand of Capitalism governs them. Acting on one's own self-interest will provide for the common good, so sayeth Adam Smith, Alan Greenspan and Al Maliki.

The people who are running for President--Obama, McCain, Clinton, know that they are irrelevant--except in foreign policy where they must do what Wall Street and the Pentagon want. We have seen what these two power centers want in the foreign policies of George Bush. I expect the winning presidential candidate to follow suit.

Wall Street/Pentagon decision-making will probably lead to disaster one of these fine days. At which point, we should all consider our options.

As far as domestic issues are concerned, it is probably better to have a president with youngish, good-looks. Staring at Clinton or McCain on the TV set can bring on catatonia. On that score, Obama gets my vote.

Moral choices don't get any cleaner than this: Slavery and racism are, as Obama says, America's "original sins." Now the country is in deep trouble, mired in a disastrous war, with an economy possibly on the verge of collapse. The Republican candidate is firmly mired in the past; he has no real solutions and he seems fine with racist smear tactics of his party. The Democratic candidate is smart, creative and inspirational. He also has some fine ideas about how to fix the damage of the past eight years. But he happens to be black and vulnerable to right wing racist smears. Can America grow beyond its original sin and elect him, thereby saving itself? Or will our sometimes childish country opt for the "safe," white past, wrap itself yet again in bigotry and ignorance -- and let itself be destroyed?

There's every sign that we have an ugly campaign ahead of us.

We knew that the moment we decided to run a candidate against the Republicans.

If we ran Hillary we'd have endless rehashes of whatever Billary pseudo-scandals that GOP oppo research can think of. If we'd run Edwards there'd be endless talk of the haircut and of trial lawyers. Since we'll be running Obama it'll be a symphony of dog-whistles.

The reason Scaife et al are palling up with Hillary is that she's a convenient tool for attacking the real nominee, Obama.

Stop thinking about what they'll do to us and start thinking about what we're going to do to them.

And remember, Reagan polled under Carter all the way up to the 1980 election. Polls don't mean anything, especially at this point in the cycle.

What gets ignored by Hillary's camp and the media/blogs as a whole I think is that Hillary (1) won't have a get out of jail free card that Obama could use with Wright and (2) has a hella lotta stuff that will be pulled out come the general and used to kill her in swing states.

And she doesn't have the high favorables and good will to withstand that kind of an attack.

Look at the Wright issue: Obama is new to the scene and he got something of a pass by the public IMO b/c (1) it wasn't OBAMA directly saying this ish and (2) he has a huge resovior of good will across the electrolate. He handled this quickly and faced it head on and it didn't kill him at all. Now look at Clinton: the Bosnia thing didn't last as long on cable and came out just as quick but she took a definite hit on something that hasn't been as sustained by the cable news networks.

So HRC can delude herself all she wants; but they're both flawed candidates. And they've lost the polling edge a drawn out primary has cost them both. But Obama has a resovior of support and good will that will help him withstand a lot.

There are votes he will never get, yeah, as a black guy. But by virtue of being a Clinton, there are just as many votes HRC has written off too.

And I don't believe either of them will carry Florida with Crist supporting McCain and McCain as popular as he is.

JMHO

Obama still has the better chance in my view, it's a narrowed one clearly after the Wright affair. But it's a better chance than Clinton.

I am a little surprised that so many have been reporting Sen. Clinton's reported belief in her own superiority as a candidate as news. Doubtless each candidate believes that they are uniquely qualified to be the party's nominee and eventually to serve as president. If a democrat is eventually elected POTUS (as I am pretty confident one will be) no doubt Mitt Romney and his sons will privately bemoan the fact they *THEY* would have beaten Obama (Clinton) as well. Does Clinton have a good argument for why she would make a good nominee or POTUS? Of course she does or millions of people would not have cast their votes for her. Having said this, there is nothing new or surprising in that fact and I am dismayed that the media (Halperin, I am looking at you) is so quick to report these exciting new developments....

I think both Dems are damaged now, but Obama is far less damaged by Wright (for all the reasons noted above) than Hillary is by the Bosnia sniper episode. She made herself ridiculous, and a million ads and essays and videos will amplify it and all the things it tells you about her.

Obama rose above Wright's rhetoric by giving a courageous and exhilarating speech that seeks to redefine how we deal with race. And even how many initially shocked people see Reverend Wright as a more well rounded picture has emerged.

Hillary was caught in a bald-faced lie and spent days trying to defend it before she lamely said she made a mistake.

The GOP is chortling because the Wright matter gives them a clear line of attack on Obama, something they had lacked up until then.

They'll run the same kind of patriotism campaign they've run before, except, this time, with actual, and fairly stunning, evidence.

It's not the inflammatory language that bothers me about Wright. Indeed, there is much to like about the man. But that business about the government deliberately spreading HIV in the black community is paranoid pandering at its worst.

An ugly campaign? The Corner in a lather? Ooh, can't have that...better faint in fear of right-wing talking points right now and placate like crazy. That's been the Democrats role; go pee in the corner when the mean man raises his hand.

The nutballs are always right, aren't they? And they always get to set the agenda, correct? I'm disappointed in this post. Are you really afraid of the likes of big, bad Victor Davis Hanson?

The nutballs will obviously smear whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination. Get used to it and prepare to fight back, but don't cower in the corner before things even get started.

Conservative's need the Wright controversy to become something, but remember if they caught Obama coughing they would try and brand that as unpatriotic. Obama handled this very well, or at least as well as one could, and the polls have shown that it has not hurt him so far.

The Republicans will have to own up to the fact that they will be facing a candidate that they cannot effectively criticize without risking being thought of as bigoted. But they sort of painted themselves into the corner, given their history, so the hell I care with their quandary. With Latinos not going to support the Republicans substantially, with the Iraq war hanging over the minds of every American, with the economy going through it's rough stages, and with the general Bush fatigue in the country, the GOP has put forth a man who is old politics personified. This will be starkly demonstrated during the debates, no less.

Don't give an inch, or be too complacent, but given the operational professionalism of Obama's campaign, is it wrong for me to want to put myself on auto-pilot? He simply has too much going for him for McCain to effectively counter, and these mini-controversies along the way won't effectively catch fire, in my opinion. Hillary Clinton is just delaying the inevitable, and should effectively face reality. Go ahead, win Pennsylvania, it won't matter because those gains will be wiped out subsequently. Hopefully, by then she will stop trying to ruin the Democratic Party's chances and exit the stage, so McCain can be attacked full-force.

Wright is just a convienent excuse for people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. What Democrats need to worry about is the number of Hillary voters who might sit out November after months of Hillary whinning "Caucases don't count! I won bigger states!" She needs to can that stuff now.

Hillary was caught in a bald-faced lie and spent days trying to defend it....

Amen, amen, and amen.

If the media was truly as anti HRC as some claim, I would have expected the language in the above quote to be firmly used. AFAIK, this was not the case. Typical weasel words like mistake and mix up were generously used.

I found it amusing, yet really sad that no one asked her why she felt the need to lie about this.

There's every sign that we have an ugly campaign ahead of us.

This was always going to be an ugly campaign, Kevin, no matter who our candidate turned out to be...

They'll run the same kind of patriotism campaign they've run before, except, this time, with actual, and fairly stunning, evidence.

Isn't Wright a former marine? And what does Wright's supposed lack of patriotism have to do with Obama? I just don't think the Obama as sleeper Black Nationalist is going to stick.

Well, of course, we have an ugly campaign in front of us.

Democrats could run the smartest, best informed, most skillful, noble-hearted, most experienced, most loving of country, and popular candidate that could ever exist--and the GOP attack machine would go right after him/her with lies so outrageous that many voters would think they surely must be true.

It is not about reality with them--and certainly it is not about what is right or best. It is about their winning.

Anyone that thought this wouldn't be an ugly campaign in the fall, no matter who the democratic nominee is, simply hasn't been paying attention for the last twenty or so years....

as much as they're devoted to their boss, they want nothing to do with a black-bag operation designed to destroy her rival, no matter what the cost.

I think those words are too strong-- unfair, really.

How would anybody know that we're really going to lose the general election if we go to the convention to decide who the nominee is, and the Republicans don't have to?

I'm not saying Hillary should necessarily do it, or that I can't see how it could hurt us in the general. But I think the words Heilemann used were too strong, and they at this point basically still amount to pro-Obama advocacy-- not advocacy for the general welfare of Democrats.

The McCain bid is going to come apart like cheap suit once the real campaigning begins. If the Clinton cadres don't feel this in their bones, then they have no business running a campaign. If they want to go the whole way, fine. Hil can run as long as she wants. But for her team to say they are convinced Obama can't win only makes one further question their already doubtful judgement. One more dumb comment from Camp Clinton.

We'll always have a pretty reliable group of what I call "fearful haters" (or just the fearful) who need an excuse not to vote for an engaging biracial Democrat. Wright provides them with the excuse. Another issue would have worked just as handily, but I see Obama as fully innoculated now on race-baiting issues.

Similarly, among punch-drunk Dems--averse to conflict and uncertainty--we'll always have the handwringers, fearful of the Right's legendary race-baiting tactics and uncomfortable in the face of Clinton's unnerving death-grip on unreality.

Rich explains: "But politically and culturally, we're not in the 1980s--or pre-YouTube 2004--anymore. An unending war abroad is upstaging the old domestic racist ghosts. A new bottom-up media culture is challenging any candidate's control of a message."

Obama is helped in this racially tolerant, bottom-up media environment. McCain and Clinton are hurt by it. Why? Age and generational change in large part. The timid elderly voter and the dog-in-the-manger Republican (unwilling to vote for the better candidate) are outnumbered by the young, the independents, and the bulk of the boomers.

To the fearful haters I can't say anything that would change their vote in Pennsylvania on April 22, or in November.

But to the handwringers among the Dems, I say "relax." The Wright controversy not only failed to hurt Obama but also caused his support to rise slightly among white voters, according to Peter Hart, commenting on the WSJ/NBC poll.

"If your standard for backing a Democrat is whether or not he or she will be relentlessly attacked by the right, then there is no Democrat who you will ever feel comfortable supporting. "

Absolutely.

The Wright meme has been simmering on low boil for over a year now. The Right has had every intention of going all-out on this issue if Obama became the front-runner. Much better now than two weeks before the general election.

It is worrisome, though, that Obama has to fight off both the Right and the Clintons on this. Hillary cozzying up to Richard Scaife is particularly loathsome.

Poor Hillary. Forced on principle to have a scorched earth campaign against her primary opponent to save the nation for herself. What sophisticated political discourse.

Poor Kevin. Once again a weather vane ever sensitive to a hem hawwing breeze. Maybe we should revisit the Iraq invasion. For there are still tendentious arguments to be made about conquering Iraq that still work on those whose panties are still in a bunch over Wright. Have at them hem hawwer. Take comfort in the delusion of reason in such endless regresses.

The New York Magazine article is interesting. I see the whole thing as a galactic three way battle of egos. Obama's conceit has gotten remarkably little press.

Kevin wrote:

Can't vote for a guy who doesn't have the balls to disown an outraged black guy in a dashiki, after all. Ditto for a lot of political moderates who have fallen under the Obama spell but are really more anti-Hillary than they ever were pro-Obama.

I think these characterizations are a little weird, and I think you're not giving likely reasons why people who voted for Obama in the primary would turn to McCain in the general.

Unrelatedly: I think it's a shame that Obama has to denounce or reject Wright at all. I really didn't like what Obama said about switching churches recently. That response might have been appropriate to the flap about the church newsletter that praised Farrakhan. Wright is not Farrakhan- not by a longshot, and not only are all the remarks he's been criticized not close enough to being truly offensive to merit the criticism, but those remarks were also arguably an entirely appropriate degree of passion to use to criticize flaws with America.

Liberals in general and black people in particular shouldn't be led to believe that the things Wright said were inappropriate criticism.

I'm curious to hear more about the Obama/JRE meeting. I can see the obvious problems BO would have squaring his health care policy with the Edwardses, but we keep hearing about aloof and all. Maybe it is true, but we don't know what reception BO got either.

I was for JRE up until he dropped, but it looked to me that he didn't have THAT much bargaining power, so maybe BO didn't want to sell JRE a line of goods just to get his nod.

OTOH, look at HRC. If she could eat the shame and grin for Scaife, sure she could shine on JRE and Elizabeth.

Not sure what to think of the Edwardses or Obama until I hear more.

I'm not worried about this. Yeah, the Cornerites and Limbaugh and all will froth about Wright between now and election day, but they'll overwhelmingly be preaching to the converted.

And how, exactly, are they going to get this back out into the mainstream again, and how are they going to get people on the fence to listen? Unless there's something new and different that hasn't come out, the MSM won't have a hook to hang it on. And even if they revisit the story without a reason, everybody's gonna yawn and say, "we've heard this before."

So relax. Everything's copacetic.

My reference to "Rich" neglected both his full name (Frank Rich in today's Sunday NYT) and a proper link. Here it is: Clinton's Bosnia Fairy Tale.

So what if there's a long campaign, what difference will that make as far as the general is concerned? McCain will be tarred with GwB no matter what and how can any independent not be swayed by the record of the last 8 years?
Is the threat of a Clinton voter not voting for Obama or vice-versa a serious position? The country is polarized enough without Democrats assailing each other. In November, the question comes down to whether anyone, anyone sane that is, would cross over as an anti-vote.

"I think Hillary's folks are wrong to believe that Obama is doomed, but I'm not sure I think they're delusional any more."
Oh come on, Hillary's spinners never believed any such thing. It's just campaign BS. Don't get wrapped up in ascribing rational causes to Hillary's egomania. She's just suffering the effects of never learning how to lose. She can't last longer than the money does, and there's not much more of that.

So Hillary supporters might not be delusional to think that Obama is doomed in the GE? How about Hillary supporters being delusional to think that Hillary wouldn't be absolutely doomed in the GE?

I mean really which belief is more delusional- that Obama would be able to beat McCain or that Hillary would be able to??? After Bosnia Gate, Nafta Gate, her ruinous campaign against caucus voters and African Americans and anyone else who thought little things like Party rules should be followed in determining the nominee, who has spent her time sidelling up to the likes of Scaife - not to mention the yet to be revealed earmarks, tax returns, library funding and sex scandals -

Yeah, sure she has a real chance to bring the Party together and win over independents and take McCain - now whose delusional?

Jeez this thread is one-sided. Don't you people know that Clinton supporters work double shifts, and have to get a babysitter, and are elderly, and have a hard time getting to the computer when it is cold outside? This thread totally doesn't count!

The question isn't whether the GOP will continue to depict Jeremiah Wright as a Scary Black Man, and then try to taint Obama by association: There's no doubt the GOP will do exactly that. The question is whether the GOP will employ these tactics against any Democratic nominee, regardless of skin color, and about whether Obama is uniquely positioned to make one of the oldest saws in the GOP playbook backfire.

The GOP was running against the Scary Black Man when the Democratic nominee was Michael Dukakis. They've been playing a tune on that particular dog whistle for decades, from Willie Horton to "Welfare Queens" to Jesse Helms' infamous "Hands" ad. It's the GOP equivalent of running the ball up the middle. They've spent half this election cycle trying to run against Scary Brown People instead (Mexicans or Muslims, take your pick), but the wingnuts are far more comfortable with their old, familiar trope: The Scary Black Man is coming - vote for us or he'll getcha!

But Barack Obama actually is black, and he's about as terrifying as Mister Rogers - and that may be causing the GOP's attack machine to misfire. You can't portray him as a Scary Black Man, because he isn't scary; you can't pigeonhole him as "the black candidate" because he's running a post-racial campaign. Hillary and Bill attempted both these lines of attack, and both times came away badly scarred: Hillary's efforts to continue the Wright flap appear to be dragging her numbers down, and Bill's suggestion that Obama and Jesse Jackson were birds of a feather also backfired.

So if the GOP's attack dogs think they've found their line of attack against Obama, and plan to spend the summer tarring Obama with a Jeremiah Wright brush, I'm all for it: The 29% who think Bush is doing a swell job may be won over by those tactics, but outside the echo chamber I think they'll find little traction. Obama is a uniquely poor fit to the GOP's "Scary Black Man" frame... and Obama just might be able to break that frame once and for all.

It's pretty interesting when Al is no longer considered the Political Animal's extreme bizarro world conservative but is now just considered an Obama supporter and thank god not a Vince Foster's murderer supporter.

Remember, in climbing into Al's bed, you're climbing into the bed of all his partners....

"How about Hillary supporters being delusional to think that Hillary wouldn't be absolutely doomed in the GE?"

Yeah, that pretty much covers it. Hillary's campaign has been an unmitigated disaster -- so loudly unaware of its own ineptitude that it would have lost to ANY of the GOPukes in November (possible exception of Duncan Hunter).

In other highly disconcerting news, the Doughy Pantload set is upset with Obama. Kevin, please.

Mark Steyn? You mean Conrad Black's personal bidet? What's that giant sucking sound I hear?

Here's the thing the "Obama is doomed" crowd doesn't get....the right will be just as vicious, if not more so, against Hillary.

Wasn't it they who were complaining about how unfair the press treats Hillary?? Is that unfairness going to magically go away if she's the nominee? Look at the self-inflicted Bosnia flap, will the right-wing attack machine give her a pass on that? Many of the right's popular talking heads made their careers on effectively attacking the Clintons, so the idea that she would withstand their attacks better than Obama is laughable.

I'm sure her supporters have many reasons to want her to be the nominee, but that shouldn't be one of them.

I know that somebody has to do it, but what sane person would want to be the next President of the US?

Not to change the subject, but--

What about Michigan Senator Carl Levin as a running mate?

He's from a big, mildly blue state that the Democrats have to carry this fall.

He's intelligent and articulate.

He voted against the Iraq war.

I believe he's chair of the armed services committee--lots of familiarity with defense and security issues.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone knock his integrity.

And for some reason, no one seems to have mentioned him as a running mate.

Scott Forbes analysis makes perfect sense. And it also may explain why Obama's numbers are rising, contrary to the immediate gleeful expectations of the Cornerites and such stately scholars as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Look, everyone expected Obama's numbers to drop dramatically with the selective excerpts from Jeremiah Wright's sermons. They dimmed a bit perhaps but they are clearly rising again.

Scary black man stuff simply won't work with Obama. Even when it's pushed by the Clintons right through to the convention. And McCain will tank when people are exposed to his parties policies rather than the fictional McCain hype.

We (the Democrats, progressives, independents, moderates, and fed-up Republicans--you know, 70% of the country) will set the agenda, we will decide the talking points, we will set the terms of the debate. There are two issues:

1. A failing economy caused by conservative Republican Bush economic policies, policies endorsed by McCain.

2. A failing war and a general foreign policy disaster, policies McCain enthusiastically supports.

If we've got the courage and the determination, all the right-wing distractions will be swept away like the frivolous garbage they are.

BTW, I'm the Joe at 4:27 pm.

To Arthur's question above, about Sen. Levin: Levin will turn 74 later this month, making him too old to be considered for the national ticket in a year when the Republican candidate's age will be a major issue.

I can well believe Sen. Clinton and many of her associates are convinced Sen. Obama would be doomed against McCain. If Romney had emerged on the Republican side, they'd have been convinced Obama had no chance against Romney. If Edwards or Biden were still in the race, they'd be convinced either man would be doomed against McCain.

It is Hillary Clinton or nothing for these people. Obama does have weaknesses as a candidate, his fairly thin record in government being the most serious. In another election cycle those weaknesses might be disqualifying, but in 2008 the Democrats will be campaigning against a Republican attempting to succeed a Republican President who by November will have been more unpopular for longer than any President since modern polling was invented.

Under these circumstances, the Democrats could nominate me and still win this fall. With their history of nominating candidates who were not well liked (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) or were widely distrusted (Bill Clinton), I can understand that some Democrats would not know what to do with a nominee who is well-liked and is not widely distrusted. They should relax; if Obama is the nominee, he'll be fine this fall. Whether he'd be any good in the White House is of course another question.

After reading the Heilemann gossip piece I wonder

Why did Edwards blow the deal with Obama? A chance to shore up progressive politics in the post racial divide era, and Edwards blows the opportunity? Enquiring minds want to know. Surely there is some gossip on the subject put out by trained professionals. Maybe Edwards demanded royal flush value for a busted flush hand. The gossip related by Heilemann suggests that was the case. More proof that Edwards did not have the diplomatic skills to be president.

See how easy it is to spin? Suckers.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Obama winning against McCain. Granted, people don't like the Iraq War, but that does not necessarily mean that they want a strong anti-war position in a presidential candidate. When pollsters ask about various future courses in Iraq, public opinion is all over the place.

Meanwhile, McCain will be talking "victory"--simplistic, and wrong, but an electoral winner.

The people "in an absolute lather over Wright" were never going to vote for Obama, and that includes the "crossover Republicans" and people like Mickey Kaus who were mostly intrigued with Obama only to the extent he could damage Clinton. Who the hell cares what they think?

The Clintonites have to come up with some way to argue that while Obama beat our candidate, he can't possibly beat McCain. Good luck with that.

Isn't it the wingnuts' job over at "The Weekly Standard" to get in a lather about stuff Democrats do? And isn't it HRC's job to think she's a better choice for victory in the fall than her opponent? Who cares? The wingnuts are going to start a culture war no matter who we nominate. What else are they going talk about? The economy? So this hand-wringing post is really disappointing, it embodies all of the timidness that leads to repeated Democratic defeats in Presidential elections.

So, instead of hiding under the covers because of what the Repubs. might do, we need to end this energy vamping primary fight and get to the business of winning the general. The sooner Hillary does the inevitable and drops out, the better off the Democratic Party will be.

It's unclear to me why Hillary staffers are so convinced Obama can't win against McCain, other than the obvious facts that they're in the midst of a long, hard-fought campaign, they have to believe that, and they have no doubt believed it for a very long time.

I mean, look at what this "young upstart" has done going up against the much vaunted Clinton machine, which gave Clinton the position of presumptive nominee for at least a year before the primaries even began. Who's broke and in debt now, and who's got a pledged delegate lead that the other can't catch?

Unless Hillary's staffers are saying in effect that she ran such a screwed-up campaign McCain's could only be better, I'm not sure where their belief in Obama's unelectability is coming from.

What worries me is that while Clinton is worried about the right-wing attack machine going after Obama, she's a much more vulnerable target.

If she believes she's seen the worst the right can throw at her, she's delusional. There will be new attacks -- like the Bosnia stuff -- and new spin on old attacks.

And sorry, but I have a lot more confidence in Obama's ability to deal with this stuff than I do in Clinton's... just look at his response to Wright and her response to Bosnia. He's tougher, smarter, and a lot more credible.

I can well believe Sen. Clinton and many of her associates are convinced Sen. Obama would be doomed against McCain.

These are the very same stupid, arrogant assholes who thought Obama didn't have a chance against HRC.

It's very simple. Democrats don't listen to their pastors. Republicans invite their pastors to the White House and let them set middle east policy based on biblical prophecy. Just another case of the Republicans blaming the Democrats for something that the Republicans do. Now, how can you fight this stuff?

Look, if the voters would rather be led by a white fool than a black man, there's nothing anyone can do about it. At some point, you have to say the hell with them. This guy's our candidate, deal with it.

Obama is unqualified. That is the bottom line---his true Achilles heel. "Low-information" voters will look at a man with only 3 years in the Senate and think there's no way he should be President.
Those who know more understand that Obama's vaunted successes in the IL legislature were not his own work, but part of a package of bills given to him to introduce in order to pad his resume. His record in the Senate is thin, and he won't even show up to work or do his committee job.

Wow, this site has turned into an Obama-love echo chamber. How pathetic. Why bother even posting to people who all agree with you?

Maybe, just maybe, Clinton supporters feel Obama can't win the general because he lost: CA, OH, MA, TX, NY, NJ, FL and will lose PA too. How does a candidate who lose these states become the nominee of our party? Furthermore, how do you think Obama can win the swing states in the general election, when he can't even win these same states in his own party's primary?

The only people here thinking that Obama is somehow a shoe-in come November, are truly the delusional.

Kevin,

You're sounding suspiciously like a concern troll with this one.

As popomo pointed out, if you're gold-standard for a Dem candidate is an imperviousness against right-wing attempts to dig up dirt and build false scandals, then you might as well never expect an election to occur. Also, how is it that you were backing Clinton in the first place if this was a concern of yours? Jezzus.

The right wing in this country controls the media and false scandal and manufactured drama is what the media does. Trying to avoid it is pointless. Killing it is paramount.

With all the worry about Obama's race being a handicap, why aren't people even more worried about Hillary's gender? It seems to me that's something to worry about.

Especially in these times of fear and terra.

Don't you people know that Clinton supporters work double shifts, and have to get a babysitter, and are elderly, and have a hard time getting to the computer when it is cold outside? This thread totally doesn't count!

Hilarious!

Jonathan on March 30, 2008 at 5:18 PM:

Maybe, just maybe, Clinton supporters feel Obama can't win the general because he lost: CA, OH, MA, TX, NY, NJ, FL...

I keep hearing this multi-level fallacy, and I don't understand why Clinton supporters keep repeating it...

One: Who won more delegates in Texas?
Two: No campaigning occurred in Florida, and the large turnout was due in part to other ballot initiatives being voted on.
Three: Winning a state in a party primary does not automatically translate into winning a state in the general, no matter who the candidate is...and vice versa - you can lose a state in a party primary and still win it in the general.

It's a bad argument supported by wishful thinking.

Wow, this site has turned into an Obama-love echo chamber.

Well, a few of the Clinton supporters chose to take their ball and go home when everyone didn't agree with them.

And for some reason, no one seems to have mentioned [Carl Levin] as a running mate.

Besides his being over 70, it could be because his lips are firmly attached to Clinton's butt. After leading the charge to push Michigan's primary outside the DNC rules regardless of the consequences, he's now one of the biggest whiners about that sham election not counting. A lot of us have lost a lot of respect for him.

It's interesting, because as much as the Republicans are trying to brand Obama the un-American or anti-American candidate, his candidacy very clearly rests on the assumption that the American people are much smarter and much more decent and much less fearful than conventional political wisdom dictates.

His response to the Wright issue was really part and parcel of this overall bet on the American people. He made the most profound speech on race in America in the past 40 years. He didn't duck the issue, and he basically said that not only racists say racist things--decent people can say horribly racist things. And that our response to these people's anger should not be to denounce them as closed-minded and beyond hope. We should instead look for the legitimate problem that may underly their anger--lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, wounds from their personal history--and focus on fixing that, rather than on excluding them from society for their misdirected anger. It's an extremely powerful statement, and a very brave one for him to make.

His campaign is a stark contrast to McCain, whose success rests almost entirely on his personal appeal to a shallow coterie of media insiders, and whose campaign is trying to pick up votes with increasingly sleazy appeals to fear and tribalism.

Obama's popularity didn't come because he charmed the media--the media showed up AFTER thousands of people came to hear him and walked away transfixed. Obama's candidacy fundamentally rests on a bet that the American people are smarter than Washington insiders think, and that campaigns aren't about charming the press as you slime your opponent to the rubes. He's betting that the American people are listening and that if you find a way to talk directly to them, they will vote their hopes and aspirations and not their hates and fears.

Years ago, I'd have disagreed with him. But you know, the American people turned on this war with no help whatsoever from any leader. Washington is still more than a year behind where a supermajority of people are on that issue and a lot of others. I think politically, if you consistently bet on the American people, they notice it. They respond to it, and they raise their game to meet your level of seriousness. Not only are you more likely to win, you are more likely to win in a way that makes good government more possible.

It's a much better bet than Clintonism, and much more likely to beat McCain.

Anonymous, spare me the swill.
I will agree that Obama's speech on race was his best yet; however, it was not a great speech.
In addition, equating Wright with Ferraro and his own GRANDMOTHER was horribly offensive.
The other problem is that the issue with Wright was NOT race. What Obama did was to talk about something people find uncomfortable---race---to deflect attention from the real issue, which was his lies.

Interesting juxtaposition of two posts @ 6:11 and 6:17.

What Obama said: he basically said that not only racists say racist things--decent people can say horribly racist things. And that our response to these people's anger should not be to denounce them as closed-minded and beyond hope. We should instead look for the legitimate problem that may underly their anger--lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, wounds from their personal history--and focus on fixing that, rather than on excluding them from society for their misdirected anger.

What dim bulbs heard: In addition, equating Wright with Ferraro and his own GRANDMOTHER was horribly offensive.

Commenters, keep in mind that Kevin has actually finished Obama's 1995 memoir, while 90% of you have not. The self-portrait in that book is of somebody sensitive, artistic, self-absorbed, intelligent, but now what you'd normally think of as Presidential timber.

Any generic Democratic candidate should win 55-45 this year. Obama might win 60-40, or he might blow it entirely. His problem is that his whole campaign as the post-racial bipartisan reconciler etc etc is terribly disingenuous. As the subtitle of his autobiography points out ("A Story of Race and Inheritance"), he's always been obsessed with race and his politics have, at least until quite recently, been far to the left of the American mainstream. Rev. Wright is just one symptom of this. If McCain chooses to go to the mat with Obama on this and portray Obama as the BS artist he's been for the last few years, he might win.

If you believe that all the offensive tapes of Reverend Wright have been made public you are sadly mistaken. There has to be a reason for McCain taking a page from Reagan and starting his campaign in Mississippi. It's also a big mistake to block the Florida and Michigan revotes. Its just going to leave tick off a lot of people.

There has to be a reason for McCain taking a page from Reagan and starting his campaign in Mississippi.

Pandering to white racism needs a reason? Other than it's one of the cornerstones of Republicanism?

You know, with all this "will america turn out to hate Obama after Hillary beats up on him? Maybe? Okay, then lets nominate Hillary instead, everyone loves her!"

Umm, don't you guys remember the 90's? Where even if Bill slept with a member of his staff, america still felt sorry he was married to her!

I realize that a lot of people are worried that "the wrong people" might not "like" Obama because he is "black". Don't let the nervous nellies in the pundocracy (both media and blog based) allow you forget just what a wide swath of america cannot stand HRC. And with every passing day where it becomes more obvious that she would rather destroy her party to fufill her own power trip, she makes that swath of people who despise her wider and deeper. Every comment of "sleep depravation", "sniper fire" and "little blue dress" will be repeated ad nauseum. Its pretty apparent that she cannot respond to attacks by neutralizing them, but rather by trying to spin rovian lies (I'm sorry, that's misunderstandings brought on by sleep deprevations) which a lot of people are wisng up to and Obama deflects much better, still.

It is my opinion that the greatest thing standing in the way of a woman becoming president of the united states is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The reason it won't work...

THE SWIFTBOAT LIARS....

How many Moderate were kowtowed into voting for Bush in 2004 because of John Kerry's 30 year old war stories...well they see where that got them, the biggest case of buyer's remorse in the history of man...

I suspect they will think twice before letting there issues with a pastor in Chicago send them into 100 more years of war....

I suspect you can't run the same distraction playbook in back to back elections...

Will the American people be distracted again?

I think Kevin's post is silly. The right wing noise machine was just waiting for something to latch onto to start their typical propaganda war. If it hadn't been Wright it would have been something else -- invented, if necessary. As someone pointed out above, if we're supposed to be picking candidates who won't be vulnerable to their filth, we might as well pack up and concede the election right now.

And anyone who thinks Hillary won't be pilloried by the right, notwithstanding her cuddling with Murdoch and Scaife, is delusional. If they can successfully re-raise the doubts they fostered in the 90's about corruption and integrity (e.g., Whitewater, the "lucky" investment opportunity handed to her by a crony, the "lost" files in the White House), I think they will have a more effective weapon against Hillary than anything they can raise against Obama. Combined with the puncturing of the Bosnia "combat veteran" charade recently, I would say that Clinton is far more vulnerable as a candidate than Obama.

Hmm...

I suppose I could have consulted wikipedia before suggesting Sen. Levin. Yep, 74 is getting up there. But Obama should not pick somebody based purely on electoral calculations--otherwise the candidate will be regarded as a Dan Quayle type addition.

I just think that Obama is much more effective a candidate (and much more effective as a leader) than Hillary. Yes, he's got some baggage from Wright, but I think he'll do well.

No Kevin, Hilary is delusional. Of course Republicans will use Wright against Obama, but, unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama has the chops to take something like that down. Hilary, on the other hand, is virtually hopeless as a candidate. She is a pathological liar. The whole Bosnian thing is but the latest example of that. She is nothing but an ugly mix of obsessive compulsive wonkishness, her best trait, dishonesty, megologmania, poor speaking skills, and lust for power. At one point in her life, I believe she was much better than this, but this is where she is now. Obama over McCain is not a slam dunk, but a much better bet than Hilary. time for the Clintons to gracefully exist the running for President business. Ah, but graciousness is not there style. Everybody knows that. That is why she is the much weaker candidate. Eventually, character does mean something.

RP is definately a GOP troll. He gave himself away. They are the ones always obssessing over character, unless of course its their candidate. Then they can lie, bankrupt the country, start illegal wars, spy on their enemies, sleep with hookers. But why so concerned about Hillary leaving gracefully?

If Obama loses, it won't be due to the unremediable racism bred in the bone of white America, it will be due to his own failures of judgment. The Obama that was running last month would have beaten McCain easily, the Obama running now is losing in the polls among independents and in the general match-ups. If the 527s working for McCain can't hit the floaters that Wright has tossed their way they are stupider than we have a right to expect. My prescription: if Hillary's backers are so sure Obama is unelectable, do the noble thing and throw your support to a Gore-Obama ticket now. Otherwise plan for one term of McCain and wait for the more seasoned, rehabilitated Obama win in 2012.

The Hillary folks are delusional; it's just that they're delusional about what they've always been deluded about, in my view: that Hillary can win the general election.

Look, just consider:

• Hillary's negatives are remarkably consistent, between 45-55%.


• A Hillary candidacy will bring out the wing-nuts in droves. Right now they're apathetic. (Do the Hillary people want to wake that slumbering giant?)


• Hillary's current option--a scorched-Earth campaign followed by an overturn of the "regular" delegates by the "super" delegates--is almost guaranteed to alienate a lot of the new people who voted in the primary. How many will stay home? (In my view: a lot.)


• With the Clinton's there's always something for opponents to shoot at. Her Bosnia thing. Her "peace in Northern Ireland" thing. Bill's stupid statements.
  Something. And that's without the Right rehashing all the past stuff to invoke Clinton fatigue.

So now we're going to suffer through many more weeks (or months!) of nonsense because of her and their collective delusion? Lord, save me.

Sorry I dont buy the Hillary is unelectable story especially against McCain, who is a very weak candidate. George W. Bush was reelected with negatives at 49%. She has the right to run to the end just like Reagan did against Ford, just like Kennedy did against Carter. Thats politics. Obama is still the odds on favorite to be the nominee but the lady and her supporters who have been in the party and fought the good fight a lot longer than some of Obama's new voters have earned the right to determine when they will leave.

Ford and Carter both lost those respective elections, aline.

Josh Marshall wrote a good post about Hillary's 'taking it to the convention' last night at 11:50 PM. The convention doesn't start until Aug 25! That leaves the eventual Dem nominee approximately 9 weeks to campaign exclusively against McCain. Not good tactics no matter who you support. Josh's contention is that Hillary's sole reason for taking it to the convention is trying to get the credentials committee to seat FL and MI as is. But, as he explains, the credentials committee is partially composed of people who are nominated by the winning primary candidate in each state. Obama's representation will therefore be larger than Hillary's, although the DNC itself will hold the balance of power. Josh has all the nitty gritty on the credentials committee. What a mess!

And kudos to Swan for this:

" Wright is not Farrakhan- not by a longshot, and not only are all the remarks he's been criticized not close enough to being truly offensive to merit the criticism, but those remarks were also arguably an entirely appropriate degree of passion to use to criticize flaws with America."

i have noice cnn dont show hillary on tv like they do oboma's but i guss they caint she owe so much money

the lady and her supporters who have been in the party and fought the good fight
When it mattered most she did not fight the good fight, she acquiesced.
Imagine what might have happened if she had been this tenacious when it really mattered.

the lady and her supporters who have been in the party and fought the good fight a lot longer than some of Obama's new voters have earned the right to determine when they will leave.

Well, no. The superdelegates will determine when she leaves--or, more accurately, when everybody stops pretending she's still in it and puts all our attention and party resources on Obama vs. McCain. My prediction is that this will happen by the middle of June.

First: Why should Hilary not fight?

Why should she give in to all those scared males who simply cannot imagine the horrors of a female in the White House?

Why would any sane person chose a airbag whose only accomplishment is self promotion instead of a person who tries and did achieve some positive changes?

And who is naive enough to think that a lot of talk will beat John McCain?

I do not want him to win, but I can see the difference between a man who had tired and not given in and a man who did nothing for anyone but himself.

Defending Wright to help Obama is sheer lunacy.
You want to make Democrats lose Congress as well as the White House? Then please, identity the Dem. interests with saving racist showboat Wright's reputation.

The next ten -- probably the next fifteen -- Presidents of the United States will be white men. That is doubtless a shameful fact, but it is even more shameful to pretend that it is not a fact.

Senator Clinton leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because she is a woman. Senator Obama leaves tens of millions of votes on the table because he is black. There is nothing to choose between them. Neither one can win, or even make a respectable showing in, a general election.

There are no sufficient words to condemn the pure, vicious self-indulgence, the irresponsible and heedless posturing, of the Democratic Party for putting forward minority or female candidates at this critical time.

People are going to die because of this. The next Don Siegelman will be executed. The next hundred thousand Don Siegelmans will be executed.

Dear L's

Its not that the people aren't going to vote for a woman to become president, its just that they aren't going to vote for this woman to become president.

And Frank, I think you're wrong. If we wanted to not do something because that's the way it always was and so that's the way it always should be, we'd all be back in Europe/Asia/Africa now because who would ever want to try for a better life somewhere else.

why are people hell bent on blaming hillary why do people not see that obama is a muslim these people made a mess out the usa on 9/11 he is also a liar, no different than any political candidate. if obama gets the nomination. i am a democrat. but i will vote for mccain.which is exactly what i think is supposed to happen and the republicans knew this.

JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW I THINK OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST.

My confidence is a bit more shaken than Kevin's, and I'll admit the substance of the thing has me almost as worried as the stupid handling. Repubs are going to say how can we elect a man who doesn't think this church is particularly controvercial, yet voted against calling the Iranian Guards a terror group? voted against Roberts and Alito as too radical? supports stripping workers of the secret ballot in union elections?
I said almost as worrisome as the stupid handling, but the way he has handled this rivals Gary Hart. Hart said if you think something's going on, follow me around; Obama version is how would you like the five stupidest things you've ever said put in a 30 second loop. The Repubs are going to respond, OK, those were the five stupidest things? How about these five - how do they stack up, or these, then these, all the way to the election.
I still support Obama, I want him to achieve what I think is a great potential, but this Wright thing - not the racism of the unwashed masses - is kryptonite unless he gets it off his neck soon.

There are no sufficient words to condemn the pure, vicious self-indulgence, the irresponsible and heedless posturing, of the Democratic Party for putting forward minority or female candidates at this critical time.

This may be the stupidest thing ever said on this blog. From working to abolish slavery to pushing through civil rights legislation to integrating the military to embracing women's suffrage, anyone moving to recognize and establish gender and racial equality (or even a more balanced representation) has been warned that, er, eh, this is much too critical a time to take those kinds of risks, and, er, uh, I have nothing against girls and Negroes and gays and all those other people, you see, but now is not really the best time, is it?

Your contention that we will lose this election because of the race and gender of our leading candidates profoundly misreads the current political situation, in particular the extreme disarray and unpopularity of the GOP and the nearly historical strength of the Democratic Party. Far from being shoved down the public's throats by some faceless party machination, these two candidates have emerged from a larger pack to inspire record numbers of primary voters and far more enthusiasm and interest in the democratic process than most of us have seen in our lifetimes.

Even if you weren't so mistaken about the current political realities, waiting for full consensus on the perfect time--as though such a definition were possible--to alter the demographic status quo, including the demographics of who leads us, means that these changes simply will never happen. And any Democrat worth his salt damned well ought to know that much history.

What you in your unconsciously insular and selfish perspective call "self-indulgence" and "posturing"--terms that reveal far more about your own attitudinal shortcomings than about the Democratic Party's--are what most of us recognize as the natural next step. What in the world do you think makes us liberals and separates us from the GOP, if it's not a core respect for justice and parity?

I love that Obama's campaign is forcing Americans to look at racism. It is about time to get all the hidden crap out in the open and shine some light on it. This is the only way forward.

Wright is nothing, a Willie Horton. Because the right-wing can't attack Obama's race directly, they are attacking a surrogate. As others have pointed out, right-wing religious leaders have said stuff that is more outrageous, more offensive, more objectionable, but the right-wing can attack Wright because he is a black preacher. We, liberals, should be responding with fury, exposing this hard-core 25% as the racists they are. We can and should isolate them as remnants of a destructive worldview. Instead, because we have Hillary Clinton attacking Obama from within the heart of the Democratic party, we are disturbed. We worry that Obama might lose. We worry that there might be something in the Wright story. Obama is doing his part to expose the slander (unlike John Kerry with the swiftboat attacks.) It is up to us to do the rest.

Hillary Clinton could have won some respect from me if she, as a leading Democrat, had defended Obama from the start, if she had used her credibility to frame this is a Willie Horton attack. But instead, she and her supporters are feeding it in a vain attempt to help themselves. No good will come of this. It is a lose-lose for the entire nation and another example of HRC's poor judgment.

True enough, but for Hillary to act like they aren't going to go after the exact same way is just as delusional.

Trust me, if she was leading, their fangs would be aimed at her. She is getting a bit of a pass being second.

More importantly, who cares ? The pols show that for all the outrage the right is feeling, Obama's number didn't change. The only people who care are the same people making a big deal about it.

We live in the blogoshere, but I bet if asked your average American voting what a blog is, the would shrug their shoulders.

I have several close friends that have no idea what a blog is and we are talking about 30 somethings working in corporate America with average computer skills.

My point is that Wright controversy went right over most people's heads or they simply did not care. Either way, Obama lost no voter ground because of it.

Threre are still a lot of people sending the Sen. Clinton campaign lots of money. Without their support, Hillary could not continue. She is serving her constituency.

You've got to be kidding.

I would argue that the consensus among average citizens is that the Wright matter destroyed Obama's chances of becoming president.

Wel, we aren't going to find a smear-proof candidate, given the standard modus operandi of today's Republican Party. If the candidate s Obama, we'll hear all about Rev. Wright. If we nominate Hillary--well, we all know what we'll hear about. If we nominate George Washington, we'll hear all about military blundering at the Battle of Long I