Gotta say, though, that clip of Pastor Jeremiah Wright really has me worrried. "Not God bless America, God damd America?" Could you invent something more politically toxic?

I'm not a concern troll, and I still find Hillary gross (Ferraro sounded like a cracker, and I'll bet the Clintons put her up to it).

But I really don't know if
Obama can survive in the general, with 527's running clips of his "spiritual mentor" day and night. Obama has to deal with this, effectively and right now.

I agree with jbd. Wright could sink this whole thing.

jbd and toaster,

Why Wright and not Hagee? That guy's at least as nutty.

Note that Wright, for all his contemptibly dumb rhetoric, does actually spew hate. McCain favorite spiritual dude does.

Correction to above post:

jbd and toaster,

Why Wright and not Hagee? That guy's at least as nutty.

Note that Wright, for all his contemptibly dumb rhetoric, does NOT actually spew hate. McCain favorite spiritual dude does.

Alex, because wright is black, silly. When black peopel say stupid things, it's unpatriotic. When white people say stupid things, they just got a little worked up.

Never noticed that one before?

alex--
1) Hagee isn't that close to McCain. McCain had to go seeking his endorsement.
2) Hagee is white.
3) The politics of "patriotism" and fear trump that of discrimination.
4) IOKIYAR.

I am certainly not saying that Wright is worse, or even as bad. But he is 100X as toxic for political purposes.

By November, the vast majority of Obama supporters would get over Clinton winning the nomination through negative attacks and superdelegates and would vote for her (although without enthusiasm). She'd still win.

However I hope and expect the remaining undecided superdelegates aren't going to sit around for 3 months letting Clinton slime Obama. If she tries to win the nomination that way, there will be a backlash and the supers will put an end to the contest by endorsing him.

Ron, The convention is in October. There would be less than 1 month to heal the wounds of a stolen presidential primary. I also think you kind of underestimate the degree to which black people take this 'racism' issue a bit more seriously than your average upper-class white commenter.

Indeed, It wouldn't shock me if Clinton has given enough older white people in our party all the 'excuse' they need not to vote for Obama. Now, when pollsters ask why they don't vote for Obama, they can lie and say 'experience' rather than having to admit to themselves the real reason they don't want to vote for Obama.

Hillary Clinton: the Cobra Kai Candidate.

Sweep the leg!

um, the convention is in august. august 25-28 to be specific. take it from a denverite.

bjd and toaster,

I take your points. One of the interesting things about following Obama is how often we worry about what other people think of him and his campaign, rather than what we think of him and his campaign. Personally, I don't hold Wright's words against Obama. But I worry that everyone else will. The question is, how many people are failing to distinguish their concern for appearances from a sincere personal disquiet about Obama's motivations, and thus contributing to a general atmosphere of crisis about Wright that largely surpasses what the reality justifies?

Mark Penn breathes; Ezra Klein clutches pearls; news at 11:00.

when toni morrisson referred to bill clinton as the "first black president, maybe that made white americans feel safe and smiling.
....but that is not the true america.
the true america is that middle class, white girls growing up with intact families, being driven to lovely public schools, with health care and safe neighborhoods, as the families in hillary clinton's childhood neighborhood, are the children of advantage in this society....and the ones in the neighborhood where jeremiah wright has his church and the ones that michelle obama grew up in, are a different world, that white middle class americans dont want to think about.
....it is sad if jeremiah wright's words make us uncomforatble as white americans. the sooner we see the truth in the two americas he speaks about, the sooner we can go about solving our problems.

Alex, is your memory that short? Think about what the swiftboaters did to Kerry--and they had nothing, absolutely nothing genuine to work with. I don't like Kerry, but he went to war and risked his life, while Bush ducked it with family connections--and they somehow turned the war service issue into a negative for Kerry.

Now think of what they can do with the kind of material Pastor Wright is supplying--the guy who presided at Obama's wedding, whom Obama has described as his moral compass.

You're kidding yourself if you don't see this as a big, big problem. And I don't know if there's a solution at this late date. If Obama just renounces him, he'll look insincere and ruthless.

Maybe he could somehow use this as a springboard to talk about his own understanding of patriotism, or the mutual misunderstandings and frustrations of black and white people. I don't know--he's obviously way smarter about this stuff. But he needs to do something. Now.

Sorry I'm commenting so much, but one more thing.

I appreciate Jacqueline's point above. It's useful to remember that there's a good reason to keep religion and politics separate. Church is a place to go to vent, to purge, to say irrational stuff. I suspect that the people who attend Wright's sermons regularly are much LESS likely to cause trouble in our society than people who don't. These are people who feel, rightly or wrongly, like they haven't had a fair shot. Having a place where they can say that unfettered is probably enormously therapeutic. If they don't/can't say this kind of stuff, it festers, and they express it in other ways that don't always turn out to be harmless.

The only person who can fix this is Rev. Wright. HE has to repudiate that sermon.

And boy, do I despise Sen. Clinton and everything her campaign stands for right now. She is displaying negative integrity.

It's only marginally shocking that Clinton would go all Zell Miller in the primary. People have been making that prediction with confidence since Iowa. And her campaign has been criticized for it at least since Super Tuesday if not South Carolina.

It's hardly news that Clinton puts ambition ahead of party.

Zell Miller?

Zell Miller???

Jesus God, people. Get a grip.

I wonder, how is this strategy of casting off non-Clinton states as "boutique" contests going to sit with the remaining 300 or so superdelegates? A lot of these delegates are local politicians and DNC members who presumably want to see the Democrats do better in their respective states. The remaining delegates aren't all from Pennsylvania. So how is casting off the majority of U.S. states as unimportant to the race going to win these people over 2-1, when a lot of them will be coming from these cast-off states?

Zell Miller?

Zell Miller???

Jesus God, people. Get a grip.

How is that not the next best thing to endorsing McCain?

Clinton had to win it early.

She can't win ugly, and the longer she tries to, the more likely it is that years from now, Chelsea's children will be abused for what their grandma did in 2008.

Ezra,

Let me let you in on something, both sides have made this exact same argument.

You are correct Ezra, it's all speculation, but it is supported by real facts...

...both Barak and Hillary suck. The parallels both in personality and policy are eerie.

...next observation please.

"Classy Clintons."

Ezra, you're falling into that misogynist's trap.

fl, you're falling into the pop culturally unaware trap. See Anchor Man, The. And stay classy, San Diego.

sorry if I missed the ref; just so used to seeing "The Clintons" here regarding HRC's campaign. If we can't get that simple single number right, there is no honest discussion.

Clinton's problem is that her only path to the nomination is one that will cost her the election. If she wins dirty, a lot of Obama supporters will simply stay home in November.

fh, one could easily get confused by the number of Clintons running when HRC has tried to elide away the differences between the Senator and the former President. She attempted to use her surname to great effect. And for a time--until it backfired--he gathered more headlines during the primary than she did.

Why don't we just say it: Clinton is running a spoiler campaign at this stage. If Obama wins the nomination and loses the general by a small margin, will Democrats blame Clinton as much as they blamed Nader in 2000?

It would be interesting to estimate how many percentage points her campaign is likely to cost Obama in the general election should he be nominated. Perhaps she should get the blame now before she ruins it for him.

Conversely, it would be interesting to do a poll on how many people who planned to vote Democrat a couple of months ago would not vote for Clinton if she got the nomination. Over on Commondreams.org, the only leftist site I spend much time on, and a fairly intelligent one, there seems to be a consensus that no one would vote for Clinton. In 2004 there was vigorous an intense debate amongst leftists about whether or not to vote Democrat, with most leaning toward that choice. It sure looks like Clinton would lose the Democrats the left.

"It sure looks like Clinton would lose the Democrats the left."

This is not a uniquely Clinton problem, Theo. Or I suppose it depends on what you consider "the left."

"She attempted to use her surname to great effect."

??

For a good part of the race--up until Bill's faux pas in SC--Hilary ran in part on the premise that she would extend or rekindle the Clilnton legacy of the 90s, fh. A big part of her own double-bind was the need to claim credible independence as First Lady, but no to distance herself too far from the positive reputation Bill still enjoyed early in the campaign.

I appreciate your clarification, UA.

I disagree, however, that when people refer to Clinton's candidacy as "The Clintons," they've that subtly nuanced thinking in mind. It always seems to be more of a snarky slam, implying she really couldn't do the job herself.

I think we can credibly assume Ezra to be above such snarky slams, given his willingness to compliment her policies, even if he criticizes her tactics.

I can't believe it's gone so far that people are comparing Clinton to Zell Miller, who distinguished himself by spending his last years in Congress attacking the entire Democratic Party full-time.

Clinton isn't doing anything remotely like that.

Sending out a memo portraying innocent comments as "a pattern of racism" - now that's dirty.

I don't even support Clinton and y'all are makin' me hate knowing I'm still going to have to vote for one of these two characters in November.

Just shut up, will you? The enemy is the actual Republican, John McCain. Hillary made a misstep by over-emphasising McCain's "experience", but all politicians claim experience.

Judgment, on the other hand, would tell you that there is no percentage for anyone in the Democratic Party to stirring up racial divisions. I'm certain the Clintons both know that very well.

If you keep this stuff up, you might manage to convince enough people that the Dem Party is just a bunch of racist old bags that no one will ever vote for a Democrat again. Is that your purpose, here?

Just stop it.

Avedon, I'll repeat: how would you characterize the statement from Clinton that McCain has crossed the commander-in-chief threshold but Obama has not? Would you say that people who hear that claim are meant to conclude that Obama is therefore unqualified to be president? What other Democrat, except for Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, can you recall having said anything similarly positive about a Republican opponent while derogatory towards the Democratic opponent?

Maybe someone should inform Clinton that the real target is the Republican Party.

Andrew, Obama has been saying that Clinton is dishonest, divisive, and destructive since the very beginning of his campaign. He has spoken far more respectfully of McCain than he has of Clinton. Who does that serve?

He insulted Paul Wellstone and progressives early in his campaign - more politely, but no less damagingly, than Zell Miller made his habit. Who does that serve?

Obama supported Joe Lieberman against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, in his last Senate race. Who does that serve?

And then Obama's campaign released a memo falsely tarring the Clintons as racists, lethally damaging her at a point when she still had a very good chance of being the nominee. Who does that serve?

I've been sharply critical of Clinton and her campaign, and I was furious at her remarks pumping up McCain, but Obama pumps him up all the time, too. Obama is not special in this respect; his hands are as dirty as anyone else's.

And now, after all this, the Obama campaign is saying it "has to" go negative? Like they haven't been negative and destructive all along? Please.

And why do they have to go negative? Why, because Obama has been entitled to the nomination ever since he won the first primary, and therefore anything Clinton does to try to stay in the race is by definition "dirty". It's just outrageous that people insist on abiding by the rules and not just prematurely awarding Obama the nomination he has not yet earned.

And why is that? Because Clinton, like most candidates throughout history, is promoting her "experience". I think she's leaned too heavily on it and could have come up with a better campaign theme, but it's not so unusual. Making McCain sound better qualified than Obama was a mistake, but Obama has been encouraging exactly the same feeling about Clinton all along.

If anyone should get the Zell Miller merit badge around here, it's Obama, not Clinton.