Questions About Obama

The Clinton campaign being what it is, the silence on Wright won't last. After all Wright fits in perfectly with their only theme which is that Obama isn't ready to be President.

Posted by Ron | March 19, 2008 9:00 AM

The problem is that the legislation has to get out of the Michigan state legislature with a super majority vote, right? Even if Obama's supporters voted in favor of a new primary, how would Republicans vote? Could they get to a super majority even without the Republicans on their side? What are the numbers?

Posted by Rob | March 19, 2008 9:03 AM

Marc,

Seems like thin gruel here. Your basic point--that a rethinking of the race helps Clinton--is correct. On the other hand, you cite the Clinton campaign's ability to have some sort of discipline as evidence of what, exactly? It seems like you have the jitters, and Obama has the jitters, but it would take a pretty catastrophic meltdown at this point to shake up the mathematics.

Fundamentally, here's how I see the state of the race: an unquestionably superior politician who is ahead along all axes just gave one of the bravest political speeches in recent American history. Obama spoke in a way that breaks all of the boundaries of political speech, and now Clinton has to do something at least comparably impressive AND still close the gap mathematically if she wants to win the nomination.

Seems like Obama's sitting pretty, regardless of whether he thinks so.

Posted by Statler | March 19, 2008 9:04 AM

The one thing working in their favour is uncertainity. If the smoke/mirrors evaporate then their hand is forced. The SD's will walk out on them to Obama. This Wright bouhou will be forgotten in a week. It won't have any impact.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 19, 2008 9:07 AM

hey Marc, i think you goofed. you meant to post this on April 1st, right? cause this can't seriously be commentary.

Posted by rob! | March 19, 2008 9:12 AM

Marc -- chill!

Here is a post from Kos to put some comforting reality on this:

Clinton is losing
by kos
Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

Let's count the ways that Obama is winning:

1.) Pledged Delegates: (Using AP's numbers, with Obama's count in parenthesis)

Obama: 1,390 (1,411)
Clinton: 1,248 (1,250)

2.) Popular vote: I updated this post with results from Mississippi. I took out the Texas caucuses just to give this the best pro-Clinton spin possible, though I still think the caucuses are a separate contest and need to be accounted for. (Obama ended up winning Mississippi by over 100,000 votes.)

Obama: 13,614,204
Clinton: 12,801,153

3.) Primaries Won: There are 37 total primary contests. All Obama has to do is win three more and he notches the lead in these contests. He can do that easily with just three out of Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina.

Obama: 16
Clinton: 12

4.) Caucuses Won

Obama: 14
Clinton: 3

5.) Overall contests Won: It's a 2-1 Obama advantage (includes territories and Democrats Abroad).

Obama: 30
Clinton: 15

6.) Red and Blue States Won (including DC, not including territories or Democrats Abroad):

Obama: 16 Red, 11 Blue
Clinton: 8 Red, 6 Blue

8.) Money Raised (through February)

Obama: $168 million
Clinton: $140 million

---- my comment would be, will the SuperD's throw the election to Clinton in the face of these facts....nope.
PS and we did not even consider that many of them come from States Obama has already won by large margins....

Posted by LM | March 19, 2008 9:13 AM

I agree it's been a weird, weird week. Don't follow on Michigan, though. Of course it's politics, it's all politics. That's why HRC wants to seat Michigan, that's why Mich lost it's standing to seat them in the first place, that's why Obama is objecting to rules that make it tougher for him to win, that's why Soros wouldn't fund it. Not clear why this would disadvantage Obama with the supers and cause them to rethink.

Posted by Christine | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM

I think I echo Statler. The Clinton campaign is showing more discipline than they normally manage--I've got to hand it to Williams. And they just took on a second pollster. If this was SC, those things might help. So, while super rethinking does help Clinton more than Obama, it doesn't help the way it would with a 5-vote gap.

We didn't really have signs the race would end before PA. So, this doesn't change much.

Watching from outside (Boston) I'm perplexed by the blame being apportioned to Obama on the revotes the past couple of days: in both cases it seems a Republican legislature isn't cooperating, Clinton supporters are saying that this isn't going to happen and can't work (not enough voting machines, for example), and then everyone turns around and shakes their heads at Obama for not fixing it all. Remember: he actually isn't the messiah. Maybe it looks different inside those states--from here, it looks like he'd go along with something the DNC and M/FDC could pull together.

Posted by Deborah | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM

Some of the issues in Michigan are far more than political. I voted independent (npa to be precise) in Florida and my wife voted Republican. Our primary is closed, so I couldn't vote for a candidate and she could only vote republican so she did. Neither of us registered as a Democrat precisely because the Florida primary didn't count. We had no incentive. If Florida held a revote I'm not positive either of us would be allowed to vote, and if we were in Michigan then surely she wouldn't be able to.
But in November my wife and I are likely the sort of voters in states across the country that would determine the winner.
Selectively disenfranchising voters - especially those most likely to help carry the possible swing states in November - just to benefit a candidate that doesn't seem mathematically capable of winning is nothing short of sheer folly and worse politics that what got us here in the first place.

Posted by Nathan Clark | March 19, 2008 9:20 AM

Not to be overly rude and sophomoric, but um...

No duh.

Is there a single person paying attention who isn't aware that this has been a difficult period for Obama?

But, it doesn't change the math. And the affect of yesterday's speech on the attitudes of the SDs will probably never be fully understood.

Posted by Vermonter | March 19, 2008 9:22 AM

I think that at this momment the Obama camp did a huge thing by going big with the speech yesterday, I think that bought them a lot of good will. Coupled with MI and FL, they need a coherent push back and I think they need to let MI revote if it's probable.

But I think it's getting more obvious that the Wright issue isn't enough to give cover to supers handing HRC the election.

But if she can get big wins from the rest of the calendar and the Wright stuff cripples Obama, then she has more of a shot today to be the nominee than she did last Wensday before the Wright story broke.

Posted by Rhoda | March 19, 2008 9:23 AM

If Obama heads to the convention with the pledged delegate lead, there is no way the supers would abandon the first viable black candidate ever. It would be political suicide in the long and short term.

So, Hillary has to hope the Obama is so damaged the nobody will vote him in overwhelming margins.

I do, however, think her Michigan gambit is a good way to score some points politically, even though the idea of a revote is not something Obama can do much about.

Posted by Grover M | March 19, 2008 9:25 AM

I agree - let's all chill.

Obama is going to weather all of this. But it will take some time. In the meantime, Hillary is going to come once again under scrutiny. We need to get through this time, for the media to be perceived to have done its "duty" in vetting Obama.

No candidate or President for that matter hasn't had difficult periods. They come through and they are stronger. So supers for the moment think Hillary seems less negative than Obama - wait. There are many high shoes left for her to drop.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 19, 2008 9:26 AM

For the first time in two months, Democrats who had concluded that Barack Obama had sewn up the nomination, Democrats who support Barack Obama, Democrats who had concluded, as I had, that the mathematics work against Hillary Clinton, are filling my inbox and voice mail with versions of the same question: is his campaign in serious trouble?

Marc's version of "some people say." The weakest trick in the journalistic playbook.

I call bullshit. Obama's grip on the nomination has only grown more secure with each week that passes. Clinton was finished by the end of February, and nothing has happened that comes even remotely close to changing that. No serious political analyst thinks she has a prayer.

If Marc wants to be a pathetic concern troll, that's his business. As a subscriber and long-time fan of the Atlantic, however, it irritates me to see their reputation tarnished with his bullshit.

Posted by J.B. | March 19, 2008 9:27 AM

Barack Obama wears well. Hillary Clinton doesn't.

Posted by southernoregon | March 19, 2008 9:31 AM

The Obama campaign's reasons for throwing up obstacles in Michigan are mostly political.
And Clinton's are altruistic?

Posted by bjd | March 19, 2008 9:32 AM

Wishful thinking there, buddy.

You know darn well that a superdelegate coup by Hillary would do exponentially more harm to the dems 08 chances than any baggage that Wright brings to the equation.

But I will say this, Marc. Your loyalty to HIllary in these times is admirable in a perverse sort of way...

Posted by RKA | March 19, 2008 9:34 AM

Obama's problem in the past three weeks is that there are so many people questioning/doubting him and so few standing up to actively support him. You can only be beaten down so much and from so many angles before it starts looking like you are being beaten down. If the party leaders, the superdelegates, the Clintons, the crowds, etc. all start speaking out, supporting him, and echoing a positive message instead of following the current doubting/cynical/self-destructive course, then he and the Democrats would look a lot stronger. (It also wouldn't help to put the negative energy and questioning currently directed at Obama and Clinton towards McCain, who between Shia/Sunni gaffes and lack of leadership on the economy hasn't been running a perfect campaign in the past few days.)

I thought keeping the Democratic race going would be OK, but I'm beginning to see it as destructive for all involved.

Posted by sally | March 19, 2008 9:35 AM

I am a fervent Obama supporter but for the life of me I can't understand why he doesn't agree to a revote in Michigan. Is it just the issue of allowing those Independent/Republican voters who skipped the original primary to revote? That seems like something that can be easily worked out.

Posted by ProGolfer | March 19, 2008 9:36 AM

The math hasn't changed, and the math dictates who wins the nomination.

Now if Clinton suddenly regained a triple-digit superdelegate lead, then things would get interesting. But there is no sign of something like that happening.

Posted by DTM | March 19, 2008 9:39 AM

OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect”
Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential. IT’S WAY TOO LATE OBAMA, NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR LIES AND EXCUSES OR A SPEECH SOMEONE WROTE OR STOLE FOR YOU! YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO BE A MEMBER FOR 20 YEARS, YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THIS RACIST ANTI-AMERICAN PREACHES EACH WEEK, YOU CAN BUY THE DVDS ON THE WEBSITE, and THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU’RE RASING YOUR YOUNG DAUGHTERS? YOU ARE MOST CERTINALLY NOT THE LEADER FOR THIS GREAT COUNTRY! No one says Obama can’t attend any church he wants, or practice Muslim religion, he can be as racist as his “not proud of America" wife Michelle, or even the anti- American as Wright and his churches “man of the year award" Farrakhan! The problems he is running to be President for ALL people of the U.S. not just white American haters! He is not fit to be in public service! He should have disowned Wright & Farrakhan before this week or left that church years ago if he didn’t agree with his anti-American, anti white preaching. He is teaching his daughters the same type of anti American racism by attending that church and continuing to support and follow his spiritual advisor Rev Wright! Obama can’t persuade his way out of this one with that extremely lame speech!
IT’S TIME OBAMA GET OUT OF THE RACE!!! WE ALL KNOW MORE AND MORE VIDEOS OF WRIGHTS HATE SERMONS ARE COMING OUT WHICH HAS MADE OBAMA UNELECTABLE SINCE HE REFUSED TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE RACIST WRIGHT AND FARRAKAN …DROP OUT! WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT YOUR CHANGE BACK THE RACIAL DIVIDE OF THE 60'S...SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!

Posted by unelectable obama | March 19, 2008 9:45 AM

It seems as tho Hilary Clinton's constant smearing tactics are eventually starting to pay off.

If Obama doesn't win the election and either Clinton or McCain win, it is very bad news for the US (either a scheming hypocritical backstabber or a warmongering hothead in charge). It feels like Hobson's choice.

Posted by jegmeister | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM

Has anyone in here ever been to a black church? I'm guessing not.

Posted by Blake | March 19, 2008 9:50 AM

"IT's the Economy!"

OBammBamm and Hillbilly have both lost focus on the No. 1, 2, 3, and so on issue in this election.

What OBammBamm need to do now that he got rid of the race / religion issue is to do a knock out speech on what ails the economy, what an administration can do to fix the problems, and what the Bush / McCain administration will not do that he will do to fix the problems.

The immediate problem is not Healthcare --- that is pretty low down the list when people are losing jobs, cars, homes.

He has to come up with a vision as to how to re-energize growth, how to rebuild American infrastructure and educational systems in the face of intense foreign competition.

Come on, get back to the issues that matter!!!!!

Posted by D | March 19, 2008 9:51 AM

How's this for an endgame:

Superdelegates: "Sorry Obama, we know you're the most qualified candidate for the job, but we're giving it to a white woman."

"We hope you and your supporters understand."

Posted by lampwick | March 19, 2008 9:54 AM

I think the "Wright" test is one that Obama needed. He is a relative newcomer to the national scene and needed to show how he can respond to a crisis. I think that the net result will be positive. His speech will have long lasting impact, and it has reassured his base. Hopefully the use of the Wright videos in the general will create the deserved blowback. If Bill Clinton could get elected with all of his baggage, I don't see Wright as a show stopper. I also see the opportunity for Wright to come out and say Obama was right, I do need to rethink things and see the situation as dynamic and Obama is proof of that. PA and NC will be good indicators of how much damage has been done and how well Obama has responded. I am sure the superdelegates will break for Obama in mass if he beats expectations in these primaries.

Posted by JCP | March 19, 2008 9:55 AM

Marc -

You strike me as a very fair and reasonable person but this post just seems like you are trying to level the playing field a bit after yesterday's tremendous playing field tilting speech by Obama. I have been reading newspaper articles from around the country and superdelegate after superdelegate (many of them still uncommitted like Joe Biden) are praising Obama for having the courage of his conviction to speak out on this issue. It will resonate around the democratic party and I expect by this time next week you will see a superdelegate avalanche toward Obama.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 19, 2008 9:56 AM

Obama has passed his test and has set out a vision for America that must not be denied, or should not be denied. Now it is up to Party leaders to be Leaders and end this divisive quest for power of the Clintons and bring unity to the Democratic Party and possibly a greater union to this country. If we really love America we must come together, our problems are too great.

Due to the divisions Camp Clinton initiated into the political society at this time, Obama had to address Race, which turned out to be a good thing and hopefully will begin to heal the division instituted by the Clintons. Obama has shown through this contoversy that he is a true leader. Obama wants a force for good, for groping and solving our problems which effect us today and have not really been addressed or solved. We have to do something new for the old ways have not worked. He has shown by his willingness not to go negative, not to get angry, not to be critical, that he indeed, represents something new and a leader for our times who can work with both Democrats and Republicans.

Unfotunately, there are some who want to continue the Rev. Wright controversy for their own selfish ends. Rev. Wright did not preach hate every day like some want to suggest, and seem so shocked that he, and he alone, only preached this way, not unlike some Right-Wing preachers who sit with presidents today. Pundits like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and others who want to continue to sow division, represent the very things they say about Rev. Wright -- hatefulness divisiveness, extremists, and all the ugly things that go along with that type of personality and are a part of the old ways that we want to move away from as we are trying to build a more sane, untified, holistic society, filled with goodwill instead of hate. As long as we have pundits and media who prefer to concentrate on our differences and expoit them, they constitute an impediment, a wall to the very kind of unity we are trying to build. These pundits should not be allowed to make big salaries while they continue to tear America down and apart. They are no friend to America. These pundits like to talk about white, blue collar workers, and what they really want, as if they really represent them with their cushy salaries. However, I am part of the average joes who grew up in up-state New York, and Joe, Pat, and other divisive media personalities, average working people are willing to hear what Obama has to say, white and black, men and women, because they are more concerned about their pocketbooks than continuing a race/gender divide. They don't want to see this Unity, because with unity there is power, a force, either for good or bad but it is a powerful force.

Barack Obama is asking America to put anger aside, to heal, to walk over that bridge in reconcilliation. That is why he, uniquely, can work with Republicans while being a Democrat. America we must demand better of our leaders, politicians and media if we are to survive the herculean problems facing us today. We cannot continue to let the forces of separatism tear us apart, the stakes are way too high. We can demand better and we can do better. It is in us to overcome if we do not let these forces continue to fan the flames of hatred and fear.

It is time for Party Leaders to step in and end Hillary's destructive quest to gain the White House. that She cannot win and only further tears apart not just the Democratic Party apart but also the United States in this quest for power. If she was running for office in a more unifying and ethical way, then I would say more power to her, but she is not. She has run amuck and against Democratic core principles and seems more Republican like than Democratic. As for the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton has no credibility. She can do all the speeches on Iraq that she chooses but no one really believes her. She represents the past ways of doing things which are negative and impediments to the qualities of goodwill and unity which we are trying to implement in a more holistic society. America is embracing her Soul!

Posted by Angellight | March 19, 2008 9:58 AM

Too bad that Easter is a few days away! If today were Ash Wednesday, I would decide to GIVE UP reading Marc for Lent!
I don't know why I return to this page. His desire to carry water for the Clintons completely blurs his ability to think cogently and critically.
The nonsense he posted today is some of his worst thinking so far!!

Maybe I'll pretend that Lent is running longer and stay away!

Posted by Thomas DC | March 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Too bad that Easter is a few days away! If today were Ash Wednesday, I would decide to GIVE UP reading Marc for Lent!
I don't know why I return to this page. His desire to carry water for the Clintons completely blurs his ability to think cogently and critically.
The nonsense he posted today is some of his worst thinking so far!!

Maybe I'll pretend that Lent is running longer and stay away!

Posted by Thomas DC | March 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Let's remember the next primary vote is over a month away. How potent will this Wright controversy be in late April? If Obama had five primaries next week, then I'd be worried for him. But with over a month away, other events will come up and the Wright thing will slowly fade away.

Posted by mike | March 19, 2008 10:03 AM

I trust Marc. I'm an Obama supporter, and I think Marc is fair-minded. I believe he's getting doubting emails from people. I do think people are pausing to think more deeply about Obama, which is understandable and necessary and good. This is a complicated moment in the process, a moment which Obama himself addressed with beautiful complexity yesterday. I hope party leaders will help us to go forward, as Obama asked us to do.

Posted by Kristen | March 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Marc,
Your sense of a "tremble" seems appropriate--but your conclusions, I think, are not. This is like when the polls before NH had Obama up by 10 (when he was actually just on the rise, but not yet ahead): you can't take the temperature of the pot when it's still heating up and expect to know the final answer. This is a fluid campaign--Obama dodged a huge bullet in the Dem primary with his brilliant speech yesterday. He won't allay all concerns about Wright but he showed presidential poise and character--even if there weren't enough soundbites for the MSM. He didn't put Clinton away in Texas and Ohio and there were bound to be doubts over the 2 month (?!?) gap before Pennsylvania. So, tremble...yes. Weird...no.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has shown that he can steady a trembling ship and I hope the voters agree.

Posted by Kishore | March 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Andrew, where was Obama's courage over the last 20 years to walk away from Wright and this church as ANY man of character who really cared about race in this country would have done. I hold him to the same standard I hold myself to. He wasn't courageous in giving a speech--not in 2002 and not yesterday. The time for courage has passed. And yes, his candidacy is in trouble. If he muscles past Clinton, he won't win in November. He is wounded and weak and unelectable after supporting, through words and actions and donations, this man who spewed such hate at America and whites. Wright is entitled to speak freely. Obama had a choice to not listen and to signal that he wasn't. He needed to try harder to influence his mentor on this subject. He has no standing to lecture America on race now.

Posted by Sheila | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM

Anyone who thinks Obama is electable now is fooling himself. He just betrayed the woman who raised him in a pathetic attempt to save his career. He's done. Not just in this campaign but as a player in national politics. He should go take his racist America-hating to some other country. It won't play here.

Posted by Tom | March 19, 2008 10:12 AM

And this Wright matter won't be forgotten in a week as predicted here. It has sunken in with Americans in a way Obama can't change. His core supporters won't desert him, but those swing voters and republicans will decrease. The upcoming votes will show him to be bleeding and SDs will pay attention. Obama as the nominee puts the general in play and that is shame and they will be nervous. You talk about math--he will have a slight delegate lead but he won't have 2025. Contray to what the Obama wants you to believe. There is no nomination without SDs and they are watching.

Posted by shelia | March 19, 2008 10:15 AM

Blake says it is because some of us haven't been to a black church. That is ridiculas. Obama explained nothing to me yesterday. He didn't really explain why he stayed with the church for 20 years. He didn't explain to me why its my problem and not his.
Is he really trying to turn the election into a referendum on whether the voters are racist or not? That if we don't vote for him, we will never get over race in America? That's a great speech?
The speech didn't solve the problem. Maybe the news networks have been challenged by the pretend moral authority in the speech not to show the clips as much but the 'context' of what goes on in black churches and the 'context' of obama's fatherless childhood or his white grandmather doesn't resolve the bizarre and reactionary hate message we see on the clips.
I don't have to have gone to black church's to vote in the election now do I?
Obama is still a guy who has a twenty year deep and abiding relationship with a guy who gives Louis F. medals and says America is to blame for AIDS.
How can I vote for him?
I can't.
My inability now to vote for him means that obama's chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by simple | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Another factor to thrown in the mix -- the missing tax returns.As pressure grows on the Clinton to release their financial records, it could raise negatives for HRC. My guess is that the negative speculation will be more damaging than the reports themselves, but then I may be wrong -- why else the delay in delivering them? I think the Wright controversy did give Obama a chance to take the high road and address the 300 pound elephant in the room (race), but it has also served as a distraction from ongoing questions about the funding of the Clinton library, etc. I agree that Obama himself shouldn't keep the pressure on, but surrogates should. And the way that the Clinton administration continues to spin the MI vote situation is beyond belief. The Florida vote has more legitimacy, as far as I'm concerned -- Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

Posted by erin | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM

On rethinking: I believe there was a poll that showed a significant number of Dems will sit it out if the supers give it to the person who has less pledged delegates.

Since the Dems are political losers it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

After the attack on Wright (which was effectively an attack on black churches) the Dems are already coming close to losing significant African-American support as we saw that no one rose to the occasion to defend some of the more accurate comments.

Heck I heard Huckabee defended Wright better than any Democrat did (if any did at all).

The Huckster understands church and apparently understands that oppressed people can get kind of angry about oppression.

Sad that the Dems couldn't rise to the level of a Mike Huckabee.

Posted by Jay | March 19, 2008 10:19 AM

With all due respect to the concerns expressed by your readers, I think that yesterday's speech on race and Friday's interview on Rezko with the Chicago paper have done a great deal to tilt things back in Obama's favor. I agree that he's coming off the most difficult two or three week period of his campaign, but I believe he's dealt with all of these challenges in a serious, transformative way and has already changed the campaign narrative.

Last night and this morning the pundits seemed to be talking less about Wright and much more about the role of race in society and why Obama is the perfect messenger.

I really do believe that by the week's end, this will be a net positive week for Obama. (And that's not just wishful thinking.)

Posted by Howard B. | March 19, 2008 10:20 AM

Lamb--imagine Clinton supporters hearing "We're sorry, your candidate is more qualified, not racist, and will win the general, but we're giving it to the MAN who is all talk and no action". You think we'll take it any better? You think the women of this country can't stage their own walk out, their own riot as blacks are threatening? Obama has gotten a pass and he's finally been revealed to not be what he said he was --the great hope for unity. Obama and his people have divided us, not Clinton.

I'm in Florida and his lack of support for a revote here and in MI. also speaks volumes about him. If he doesn't want our vote he won't get it.

Posted by Rebecca | March 19, 2008 10:21 AM

For all of those who continue to argue that Obama threw his grandmother under the bus -- you are missing the point entirely. He's saying that human relationships are complex. You can love people, share your life with them, even if sometimes their views make you cringe...my right to live mother and pro-military father are case in point. But their views are only a tiny part of who they are, of all the good they do in the world, and to understand their views, you have to look at them in the context of the time and place and circumstances in which they grew up. That's what Obama is asking us to do - to listen to people and hear them out and stop blaming and hating and throwing dirt at one another. That goes for the angry and bitter proponents of all three candidates. We can either be grown ups and discuss issues, or we can continue slinging mud at each other.

Posted by kw | March 19, 2008 10:23 AM

One neutral long-time Obama observer writes that Obama has been "whipsawed" by Wrigbt and Michigan/Florida, two external events over which he has no control.

I disagree with that statement. He is very much in control of the situation concerning the revotes. It isn't in his best interest at this point in the primary to agree to anything, therefore he is being perceived as allowing the clock to run out..On Rev Wright? Yes, again, that was under his control..he invited the man to sit on his election staff knowing full well that those tapes would be bought from the Church website and listened to..Not very sound judgement..

Posted by Pam | March 19, 2008 10:29 AM

shelia, Tom and simple - I hope you will consult your pastors and priests about what the real Christian response is to the person who lead you to Christ, before you decide how vote.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 19, 2008 10:30 AM

just betrayed the woman who raised him in a pathetic attempt to save his career. He's done.

He addressed the same subject about his grandmother in his book, which she knew about. So he wasn't using the topic to "save his career."

Also, let me point out that Obama did not sell out his preacher for political gain. He condemed his words, but not the man. This was a difficult thing to do.

is wounded and weak and unelectable after supporting, through words and actions and donations, this man who spewed such hate at America and whites.

Wounded, yes. Unelectable, if you feel this way. But weak, no, no. A weak man would have thrown the preacher under the bus to save his political career.

Obama said if all he had known about Wright was the ugliness shown in the clips now airing, he would not have associated with the man. Have you read some of Wright's other sermons? Some of them are quite beautiful, so much so it's difficult to imagine they came from the same man. The truth is, the man that Obama knows is quite different from the one you see on TV.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 10:31 AM

There are those who would not vote for Obama if their life depended on it. We all know that. Sheila and Tom appear to be perfect examples. What they are taking out of Barack's association with Reverend Wright is that he (Obama) is a closet racist and despite all the evidence to the contrary including yesterday's speech, they have put their blinders on because they want and need an excuse to stay away from Obama so they will feel better about themselves for not trying to help heal the racial divisions in this country. It is a shame but it is the truth.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 19, 2008 10:36 AM

Yeah, I have 'done the math'--Obama has not clinched the nomination yet. Even if he does, all of you know in your heart of hearts that he cannot win the presidency. Neither can Hillary. It's still not too late to nominate Gore or Edwards. It's high time for an adult to chaperone this party.

Posted by Hope Muntz | March 19, 2008 10:39 AM

Philly Dog - You got it. People are looking for an excuse to stay in the comfortable ideas about racial divisions and not have to step up themselves and examine their own hearts.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 19, 2008 10:39 AM

I really get a kick out of people who keep saying, ala Marc, that Obama has been putting obstacles in the way of revotes. He has never rejected the ideas of revotes. In fact, could someone tell me when Clinton has called for revotes?

In fact, both Wolfson and Penn have stated they didn't want revotes, they wanted the delegations seated as is. Revotes would really hurt Clinton more than Obama.

But the Clinton campaign has put out the idea that Obama is against revotes, which is a typical lie form that camp.

Obama has consistently said that he will go along with whatever the DNC decides. It is not his decision as to what form revotes should take or if there would be a revote.

If Clinton really wanted to make sure the voters in MI and FL were not disenfranchised, why didn't she push for a revote from the beginning? My only assumption is that she knew it would hurt more than help.

Posted by john m | March 19, 2008 10:40 AM

The possibility that the Wright issue could torpedo Obama's candidacy at this point (especially after yesterday's speech) is too awful to contemplate. The superdelegates would have to override the will of the people as expressed in the process thus far in order to hand the nomination to Clinton. Such a move could only be read as saying that the country is too racist and too low-minded to be able to elect a candidate like Obama. I don't see how that wouldn't create big trouble with important parts of the democratic base.

I'd also like to say that Clinton's silence on this subject actually does NOT serve her. If she were a true stateswoman, she would have stood up to clearly denounce the smears coming at Obama from the Wright issue. Because this *is* a smear. True, Obama had to deal with the issue of his ties to Wright. But that video was edited to paint Wright as far more militant than he really is (by any account I've heard). You now have legions of people asking the bogus question of how Obama could have gone to listen to that for 20 years. And the answer is that obviously he wasn't listening to 20 years of that. He was listening to 20 years of other stuff that had occasional moves in the direction of the material that got cherry-picked for that tape. The video tape was meant to stir up racial animosity. That's it's whole point. Clinton's silence on that (so she could sit on the sidelines and benefit from the stirring up of racial passions) is one more piece of evidence that she's pure politician.

And, btw, the fact that the democrats are still divided on the nominee at this point is part of what allowed the democrat party to stand on the sidelines while this swiftboating occured and not offer a unified rejoinder to it. And the only reason we are still divided is because Clinton was hoping that something like this was happening -- because that's the only thing that could have possibly given her a shot at the nomination.

I have thought since the end of February that the superdelegates were making a big mistake by not coalescing behind Obama and making clear that Clinton had lost the race. Not doing so left the door open to the kitchen sink strategy, increasing divisions within the party, and squandered opportunities vis a vis the Republicans.

Maybe they want to lose this election. Economy is bad. Getting out of Iraq will be tricky. Or maybe the democrats really just are this stupid.

Posted by Maggie | March 19, 2008 10:42 AM

More thoughts on Wright:

I think that it is fair to say that we all associate with and have friends who make racist comments and disparaging remarks about others but we do not disown those people – you know why? Because they are our friends and family and despite our differences which we may acknowledge are vast as Obama did yesterday, we still love them because we know them and understand that people are complex beings with lots of nuances about who and what they are and what they believe.

Now, I have no idea who Jeremiah Wright is or if these comments he made are the norm or out of character outbursts but either way I know I have people like him in my life. We all do. Obama should not be held to some higher standard than the rest of us.

Posted by Phhilly Dog | March 19, 2008 10:45 AM

Posted by kw | March 19, 2008 10:23 AM

I don't think we are missing the point. I didn't hear him discuss his paternal grandfather's reaction to the marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_Dunham#_note-3:

Both Dunhams were upset when their daughter Ann married Barack Obama Senior, partcularly after receiving a long, angry letter from the graduate student’s father in Kenya who “didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman.”

Posted by Pam | March 19, 2008 10:46 AM

Obama's speech on race was eloquent as well as manipulative.

Wright was his pastor for 20 yrs. Obama said Wright was like an uncle; He was his mentor; He is his spiritual guide, and campaign adviser. Those have much to say about the degree of influence Wright must have on him and the extent that Obama must have assimilated Wright. 20 yrs is a long time of moulding. This makes me recall and wonder also on Michelle's candid statement "... for the first time in my life I am proud of America." She must be having the Wright sentiment prior to Obama’s candidacy.

It is convenient to be proud of America when your husband's candidacy is at stake. It is convenient to disown Wright's words and behavior when Obama's candidacy is threatened. For all we know, the speech was more tactical than genuine and even guided by Wright himself.

Everything in the speech was good for the hearing but it was suspect nonetheless because Obama went into the campaign knowing Wright full well - Wright's bitterness and hurt. Yet he took him with him as guide and adviser in a campaign that was suppose to be about unity. It would be impossible not to know the passion and sentiments of the one who moulded you and has been a close friend to you for so long. Wright was his teacher about life and about morality and choices. Obama was his flock and student.

Obama's words simply do not match his judgment and his behavior. If there is one thing I give Obama credit for – it is his ability to be alternatively savy and savage in attacking his rival one moment and then at the next moment lecture on America to “change and to hope and to unite” after he has stirred or at least allowed a negative word to be spun or a negative behaviour to be exhibited from within his own.

Posted by MG1220 | March 19, 2008 10:51 AM

Maggie, the rules state that the superdelegates are not bound by the will of the people..if they were, there would be no reason for them.

Posted by Pam | March 19, 2008 10:52 AM

Pam - The point is that he could have discussed that as easily as he did his grandmother's reaction to black men she passed on the street. It is the same fear. he DID deal with this issue quite eloquently and very directly yesterday.

Yes, they were upset with her but you know what? They still loved Barack and raised him into a fine young man that any grandparents would be proud of. Is that any different than any other mixed marriage story you can think of or for that matter any marriage where the parents did not approve of their child's choice of spouse?

Posted by bandito | March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

Finally!! People are beginning to see what a phony Obamarosa is.

Posted by mark | March 19, 2008 11:01 AM

Someone is using a spambot... anyone wanna guess who?

Posted by Daniel | March 19, 2008 11:02 AM

"The Obama campaign's reasons for throwing up obstacles in Michigan are mostly political."

HAHAHA...and the Clinton campaign's reasons aren't political? HAHAHAHA! It is politics Marc! Why else would we being trying to throw together a last minute primary that no one is going to be satisfied with?

Posted by More Axe | March 19, 2008 11:07 AM

I think its healthy for people to take a second look at Obama, and to be critical of him. Its also important to gauge his handling of events that are outside of his control. Keep in mind that these are comments from his minister, and he can't control everything that everyone says. Given such an unwelcome situation, he didn't whine that the media was being unfair - even after a week of the same clip being looped nearly 24/7. He stood up strongly and gave an historic speech that will be remembered long after Wright has been forgotten. He turned a negative into an opportunity and will come out stronger because of it. That's what we need in a president.

Posted by mike | March 19, 2008 11:11 AM

I think its healthy for people to take a second look at Obama, and to be critical of him. Its also important to gauge his handling of events that are outside of his control. Keep in mind that these are comments from his minister, and he can't control everything that everyone says. Given such an unwelcome situation, he didn't whine that the media was being unfair - even after a week of the same clip being looped nearly 24/7. He stood up strongly and gave an historic speech that will be remembered long after Wright has been forgotten. He turned a negative into an opportunity and will come out stronger because of it. That's what we need in a president.

Posted by mike | March 19, 2008 11:12 AM

Are we going to hear an analogous speech from Clinton on gender? Of course not. Clinton opposes the use of speeches. What will Clinton's response to the Wright matter be? Clinton must continue to be opaque. The last candidate standing wins. Her task right now is to stay on her yawning mantra of experience, experience, experience, ... zzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by Linda Holmes | March 19, 2008 11:13 AM

I agree that it was a HUGE and possibly fatal mistake for the supers and the Party Elders to allow Hillary to divide the party and open the way for Obama to be Swiftboated. If they do not coalece around him soon, the Blacks, progressives and young voters are never going to forgive the mistake. Hillary will never be able to unit the Party, much less the country. She has demonstrated her shortcomings through out this campaign in spades.

These are turbulent times. The Country is very likely going to go with the tried and true McCain in the end because of it. It's only four more years after all.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 19, 2008 11:23 AM

Posted by bandito | March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

The point is that he should have discussed both. If the goal was to calm the racial divide, he should have brought balance to the table. He is trying to stop the "snapshot" quotes generating bad press, but in his speech talks about the inequity in education. I missed the portion of the speech where he discussed the teen pregnancy rates in the black community, percentage of unmarried mothers, percentage of single parents raising kids and not getting involved in the child's education.. Maybe you can get me some quotes of where he addressed that.

That quote about his grandmother's reaction to the marriage was based on Barack's paternal grandfather's reaction to mixing his blood with a white person.

No one is questioning the pride his grandmother feels. No one is questioning her love for him.

Posted by Pam | March 19, 2008 11:49 AM

Hello:

Please (per Chuck Todd's honest assessment of the media/pundit "bias" (his word, not mine) towards Clinton:

Please, please, please - will you please get the clinton campaign off the life support of "uncertainty?" Please. "Man up" and speak what is clear (and would have been really clear if Clinton's last name were not Clinton): She is losing/has lost?? the only non-backroom route to the nomination.

This painting of what is really a last-ditch effort to get back the election narrative as some sort of savvy campaign ploy to put obama on the defensive is just plain silly. But I got to this site through a link from another one. So this silliness is being repeated throughout the web.

Please: How is it possible that this site and others know more than the Republican and Democratic legislators and other interested parties in MI about what the legislature will do?? Have they not said already that this thing is DOA??? Have they actually not being saying this for at least a couple of weeks, no matter how many bold headlines printed on the HuffPost?? My god...

The only encouraging thing I've encountered in comments across websites is an increasing impatience with these sorts of posts; i.e., the breathless, "oh my?? what's next?" continuation of a non-story.

Also: It would be useful to actually do an investigative story about the genesis of this Fla/Mi story - going back to the summer when both states were warned not to move their primaries, and were given time to change their minds. Actually interesting questions could be asked: For example, what were the internal/state dynamics pushing the state parties to move their primaries?? I mean, repeating the Clinton narrative (i.e., this now is Obama's fault/the state Republicans made us do it, etc., etc) is just old right now. It all takes me back to the Clinton years: Everything is ALWAYS someone else's fault.

M.T. Phillips

And yes: I am pro-Obama, and was pro-Clinton(s) in the 90s and up until this election. Seeing the Clintons in the hard, cold light of this day (a new century/political moment is...revealing.

Posted by M.T. Phillips | March 19, 2008 11:51 AM

"Something is trembling beneath the surface"?!!

Why don't you write about the Obama legal memo on Michigan, rather than using your blog to unscramble your brain, before coffee?

Posted by horizonr | March 19, 2008 11:52 AM

"Did Obama's speech work?"

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I can tell you that in my little corner of the world, it did not fly.

The ordinary people around me heard a pretty speech by a liar who was disloyal to his family.

And many of them had been Obama suporters until yesterday. Many of them do not like Hillary, either.

Now they say they will vote McCain or leave the ballot blank.

Posted by vanessa | March 19, 2008 11:52 AM

Pam, Of coure the superdelegates aren't bound by the will of the people. But they have to have a good reason for overriding it. And in this case, that reason would have to be due to the idea that Obama is unelectable because of the Wright smears. My point was that tossing off the will of the people on those grounds will antagonize good chunks of the base. I'm not black, but I would be antagonized because I would have much preferred to see the democrats, who are supposed to be on the side of the angels when it comes to racial matters, not acquiesce to the standards and practices of the far right.

I don't see how it can add up in any good way for Clinton. She couldn't make a positive case for her candidacy. So now all that's left is the negative case. Why the SD's left the door open to that is beyond me.

Posted by Maggie | March 19, 2008 12:09 PM

What Maggie said at 10:42 a.m.

Word!

Posted by nepat | March 19, 2008 12:30 PM

I thought that yesterday was a microcosm of the entire race for the nomination. On the one side we have Obama, who is talking honestly and powerfully about race in America, and challenging all of us to transcend identity politics.

On the other side, we have Hillary Clinton, who immediately responded that it is an important topic and difficult to talk about, and the Democratic party will do something historic regardless of which of them is the nominee.

Throughout this, Obama has attempted to go beyond race. Clinton has never tried to go beyond gender. It is the old versus the new. There are other reasons to choose one against the other, but their policy positions are similar. For me, it does come down to whether we want to try the same stuff that hasn't worked for a long time, or try something different.

Posted by Curtis | March 19, 2008 12:43 PM

Marc,
What’s the difference in your loyalty to Hillary to Obama’s loyalty to Wright? I actually find it all refreshing in this time of throwaway everything, including loyalty.

Posted by Susan | March 19, 2008 12:47 PM

Regarding Obama's speech, three words: grace under pressure.

Tells you something about how he'll respond to the 3 a.m. phone call. By being true, to himself and to us.

Posted by TedL | March 19, 2008 1:02 PM

“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect” This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential. In a major speech Tuesday, Obama condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S. dating back to 2001. but in April of last year, Obama was quick to demand Imus' ouster for making a racially insensitive remark.

Posted by tex | March 19, 2008 1:12 PM

“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect” This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential. In a major speech Tuesday, Obama condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S. dating back to 2001. but in April of last year, Obama was quick to demand Imus' ouster for making a racially insensitive remark.

Posted by tex | March 19, 2008 1:12 PM

“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect” This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential. In a major speech Tuesday, Obama condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S. dating back to 2001. but in April of last year, Obama was quick to demand Imus' ouster for making a racially insensitive remark.

Posted by tex | March 19, 2008 1:12 PM

For those with questions on Wright, I strongly recommend this article in today's Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obama-trinity-think-story,0,5578033.story - written by a black member who attends with her white husband and biracial son.

Posted by Judy | March 19, 2008 1:21 PM

The speech proves his thinking and his insights are clearer than anyone out there. What he said about America and race matters and should be discussed. He's proven that he has what it takes and can take that stand on his own.

How much of the Wright hooha has anything to do with Obama's ability to be a good president anyway? Do people fear that Wright is going to be in the cabinet or a primary adviser or something? Relax!

Obama '08!

Posted by millie jones | March 19, 2008 1:30 PM

Posted by Maggie | March 19, 2008 12:09 PM

Maggie, the superdelegates left nothing up to Hillary. And no, the superdelegates do not have to have a good reason for overriding the will of the people. That is precisously why there are superdelegates..they were put in place by the DNC as an insurance policy against what the DNC saw as the ignorance of the voter..Here is Lanny Davis' understanding of the rules that he helped to create http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-superdelegates-alw_b_86567.html

Both Democratic candidates are vying for the sd's and with good reason..that is how the nomination will be decided, and it is within the rules of the DNC. I am curious to know why there isn't a movement to get rid of sd's. Both sides can make arguements for and against them. I am not so sure that Obama's case is really that strong though..Take a look at Texas. Voters in that state got to vote twice. Once in a primary and once in a caucus..Is that truely reflective of the "popular" vote?

You and other Democratic voter should be angered if the will of the people is not reflected on the ticket in November, but it isn't the candidate that should receive the wrath, it is the DNC.

Posted by Pam | March 19, 2008 1:55 PM

As an Obama supporter I have always wanted him to press for a re-vote. Particularly in Michigan. It's right next to Illinois, not as traditional (i.e. conservative) thinking as many other Midwestern states and if he would campaign there he could win. The time to do this would have been after he had won 8 in a row. Or 11.

Having said that I do think you're taking this a bit far. The superdelegeates are not re-thinking things, look at Pelosi, look at Dean, look at Richardson, look at Gore. They all still hate Clinton and would never vote for her. Two of them have all but endorsed him already.

After the whole brohuahua she picked up all of . . . 2 superdelegates yesterday. One was John Murtha, whom I have tremendous respect for, but is old as dirt and let's face it was going to endorse her anyway.

Obama should spend more time in PA, lower the margin of Clinton's victory, and finish this thing out. The superdelegates are not abandoning him and ultimately will not do so.

Posted by John | March 19, 2008 2:23 PM

How is Wright an "external event over which [Obama] has no control"? He decides with whom he associates, just like the rest of us.

Posted by oklanga | March 19, 2008 2:54 PM

The speech proves his thinking and his insights are clearer than anyone out there. What he said about America and race matters and should be discussed. He's proven that he has what it takes and can take that stand on his own.

How much of the Wright hooha has anything to do with Obama's ability to be a good president anyway? Do people fear that Wright is going to be in the cabinet or a primary adviser or something? Relax!

Obama '08!

Posted by millie jones | March 19, 2008 3:09 PM

We all need to take a deep breath. Obama is not
Wright! Nobody is dogging John McCain about the two right winged divisive ministers he shared the stage with. Nobody is questioning why McCain's voter base is likely close to 100% white, and doesn't reflect the makeup, fabric and idealism of the United States of America. Nobody is questioning why Clinton stooped to gutter 'kitchen sink' politics to sink Obama's chances of getting the nomination. And we know the Clintons have a lot more negatives than Obama. As a matter of fact, people looking for dirt on the senator from Illinois had to stoop to guilt by association to cast disparaging eyes on him. That, in my mind, is reason enough for the superdelegates to go with the delegates! This is not the time or the year to tell the people who voted according to the rules of the DNC and Constitution, no you can't!

Posted by wanakee | March 19, 2008 3:35 PM

Obama enjoys a triple digit delegate lead with time running out. The party bosses are not about to steal an election from an African American. It would set the party back not only in this election but in others to come. It just ain't about to happen. (I won't even go into what effect it would have on all those enthusiastic new young voters.)

Obama vs. McSame in November.

Posted by Truesdell | March 19, 2008 3:40 PM

Good afternoon,

A true historian would not immediately proclaim Obama’s speech as “one of the greatest.”.

With all due respect, I have been listening to “frank” discussions and speeches for 20 years about race in America and around the world (from Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, etc…..) and this was far from one of the greatest. This was of zero substance.

Obama had the stage to himself and he could not even explain how he was planning on bringing us together.

Thank you.

Posted by Lauren | March 19, 2008 3:59 PM

Clinton will never give up this fight, it will go to the convention and there will be a negotiated deal. As I recall, black men were given the right to vote in this country long before white women, so it will fall along those lines with Obama on the top of the ticket. Clinton's prize is any slot she chooses from veep to the next SCOTUS vacancy.

Posted by Matt | March 19, 2008 4:07 PM

What is Obama scared of in facing the voters of Michigan and Florida ? I believe that Michigan should have a re-vote as he was not on the ballot in the first round. As for Florida, Hillary won fair and square- she did not campaign per the rules and ALL of her opponents including Obama was on the ballot- Hillary won FL by over 300,000 vote margin. FL delegates should be awarded per the results of the original vote. If Edwards delegates choose to align with HC or BO, then that this their prerogative.

Posted by American Voter | March 19, 2008 4:20 PM

What is Obama scared of in facing the voters of Michigan and Florida ? I believe that Michigan should have a re-vote as he was not on the ballot in the first round. As for Florida, Hillary won fair and square- she did not campaign per the rules and ALL of her opponents including Obama was on the ballot- Hillary won FL by over 300,000 vote margin. FL delegates should be awarded per the results of the original vote. If Edwards delegates choose to align with HC or BO, then that this their prerogative.

Posted by American Voter | March 19, 2008 4:20 PM

Refresh my memory please. After being told the election wouldn't count, did Obama campaign in Florida?

Posted by Truesdell | March 19, 2008 4:30 PM

People need to put aside their emotions for a moment and think. First, a little disclosure. I like Obama. I'm proud of Obama. I'd be very happy to vote for Obama and see him as President. However, I'm supporting Clinton. I'm supporting Clinton because I just see her as a "better" candidate with the best chance to win in a general election against McCain. I just can't wrap my head around how the Democrats can nominate someone who lost Ohio by 10%, is going to lose PA by 10+%, has no chance in FL, etc., etc. What are people thinking? I just don't get it. Those facts were true even before the whole Wright issue arose. They're more true now. As for Clinton only being able to win the nomination with the help of superdelegates, well, so be it. I wish it were otherwise but it's not. If it happens that way, no one will have stolen anything from Obama. He hasn't gotten enough delegates to win the nomination. The superdelagates were created to resolve situations just like that. If a majority of the superdelagates decide, like me, that Clinton is a better general election candidate, then OK. That is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Go back and read the history of why superdelagates were created. It's not a great system, but it's the one we have at the moment (just like all those caucuses). I love America. I think it's vitally important that a Democrat is in the White House in January 2009. Given how the campaign has played out thus far, I just have serious doubts that Obama is the one that can get us there. That's why I'm supporting Clinton.

Posted by tmon | March 19, 2008 4:35 PM

A technical, but possibly significant, point. I believe a lot of Obama’s caucus delegates are not really locked in until various Democratic Pary state conventions are completed in April, May, and June. This is why some media, like the New York Times, have not been crediting Obama with these delegates yet. And many of these delegates are from conservateve states where this Wright stuff will particularly resonate. Hillary may end up with a lot more caucus delegates than is expected.

Posted by SR | March 19, 2008 4:47 PM

Rev. Wright is a political liability that Obama cannot put behind him. If the Clinton campaign and the media let it fade away now, it will resurface with a vengeance in the fall. The GOP will stoke that fire relentlessly.

Waiting in the wings are more revelations about Obama's troubling realtionship with Tony Rezco. The trial, which is just beginning, will beam a searchlight on Obama/Rezco that will probably yield more fodder for the GOP.

Rev. Wright especially is a fatal flaw in Obama's campaign. He ried mightily to enlarge the subject by morphing it into a discussion of race relations, but he didn't answer sufficiently how he allowed himself and his children to sit through hate-filled attacks on the United States from the pulpit of Trinity UCC. No historical reference can really explain away the tone and the words spewed by Wright. There are other black churches that preach God's love and compassion, not hatred and recrimination. The choice was Obama's and he has to take responsibility for it.
If the Democrats don't find some way to avoid giving him the nomination, he will lose to John McCain, and the Democratic Party might not be able to survive yet another presidential loss.

Posted by myskylark | March 19, 2008 4:48 PM

everyone keeps saying obama has this wrapped up that the more delegates he has they can't overrule the will of the people. news flash, Hillary is winning the popular vote. More americans have voted for her and not for Obama...his supporters were just denser in states to give him more delegates

Hillary is the will of the people...sorry. His racial speech was left to black and white...why not latinos, muslims, mixed races...it's political cause he has the blacks on his side and he is loosing whites. He doesnt want all the blacks cause then it looks bad for him cause it seems it will reflect that they only qualify him based on color.

Obama did nothing more with that speech but show his true political nature. He wants to win and he'll manipulate the hell out of you people to get what he wants.

Posted by priestley.sm | March 19, 2008 4:50 PM

Howard Dean should facilitate a solution to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida. Clinton has agreed to a plan but Obama rejected it. How can Obama talk about bringing us together when he is tearing the Party apart by not seating Michigan and Florida. Obama doesn't want a revote because he doesn't think that he will do well in these two states. Great judgment- just ignore those voters. Is that how he will run the country just be in denial?

Email Howard Dean and let him know that we expect a fair solution, otherwise us democracts will just sit home in November.

Anne in PA

Posted by ANNEMC | March 19, 2008 5:02 PM

Are you kdding me? Media bias TOWARD Clinton? Chuck Todd is one of the worst offenders of media bias AGAINST Clinton. He and all the rest of the boys at MSNBC--2 of whom had to apology to her. And for the record, if she passes him in the popular vote, that's called even. Then they each have a small lead in one of the categories that matter. He can't get to 2025 delegates anymore than she can without the superdelegtes. For some reaon, you Clinton haters think the rules say he who has the most delegates wins. That is factually inaccurate.

Posted by Roberto | March 19, 2008 5:04 PM

As I noted a couple of posts above, THE MATH MAY CHANGE. I've added a link to the NY Times article.

A technical, but possibly significant, point. I believe a lot of Obama’s caucus delegates are not really locked in until various Democratic Pary state conventions are completed in April, May, and June. This is why some media, like the New York Times, have not been crediting Obama with these delegates yet. And many of these delegates are from conservative states where this Wright stuff will particularly resonate. Hillary may end up with a lot more caucus delegates than is expected.

Here is a discussion of the issue (especially from paragraph 6 onward)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09delegates.html?scp=2&sq=state+convention+caucus+delegate&st=nyt

Posted by SR | March 19, 2008 5:06 PM

No, Obama is not Wright, but he didn't have the courage to step away from the man or his church in over 20 years. I don't need to take a breath. I'm clear and so are many other Americans who are democrats. AS a white american I would be expected to walk out of a church spewing such hate at blacks, yet Obama got that 3:00 am call for 20 years, he had a chance to act courageously, to help heal the racial divide by not supporting such a person and his views, and he let the phone ring. His is not a profile in courage. His whole career has been a profile in what is best for Obama. I am incensed at the idea that he can bring us together. Bringing us together means stopping the hate--against America, whites and jews. It's indefensible to have sat there for 20 years and remained silent. Obama is weak.

Posted by Mark | March 19, 2008 5:11 PM

popular vote leader?

"Obama has a popular-vote lead of about 700,000 over Clinton."

-- today's National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88562516

Posted by Truesdell | March 19, 2008 5:11 PM

Everyone posting here seems to think Obama gave a great speech. I bet 95% of those people were already leaning towards Obama, including those in the media that have praised the speech.

When you step back from the speech, you are still left with the facts:
- Did Obama apologize for his relationship with his controversial church and pastor? No
- Did he take back his relationship with his church? No
- Did he try to equate the racist comments and sermons of Pastor Wright over a 20 year period with one sentence from Geraldine Ferraro? Yes
- Did he try to equate the controversial Pastor Wright with his own Grandmother? Yes
- Did he try to lecture us about the history of race in this country, which was more or less already well-known to the well-educated? Yes

Given that his lecture about the history of race and racism was good. Given that his speech was flowery and made us all feel good.

The bottom line is - the speech did not change the basic facts - which are that Obama exercised horrible judgement by being involved with this pastor and this church for 20 years.

Posted by Mike | March 19, 2008 5:13 PM

which Democrat will have the nerve to campaign for Obama now? Because if he does, when he/she is running for reelection, the republicans are going to play the Wrght videos.

Posted by Bob | March 19, 2008 5:14 PM

Actually, you're wrong. I am not someone who wasn't voting Obama if my life depended on it. Before Wright if it was Obama and Mccain I would have voted Obama. I'm not sure why any democrat would support Obama now. The christian and BRAVE thing for him to do was to leave the church. My grandfather marched in Selma. It's just a shame for a black man to be condoning such hatred and to be allowed to get away with it because he's black. I'm standing up and being counted and Obama should have done the same. Enough is enough! STOP THE HATE!!

Posted by Sheila | March 19, 2008 5:16 PM

Last night I went to a public talk given by someone closely involved in the Michigan/Florida negotiations. He never once indicated that the Obama campaign is getting in the way of those re-votes. He was pretty clear that state politics in those two states are getting in the way of those re-votes. Some residents of Michigan and Florida can blame Obama if they wish, but they're the ones who wouldn't vote for him anyway. The truth will ultimately prevail - it usually does.

Posted by ewetopia | March 19, 2008 5:17 PM

The Obamites on this blog are silly but perhap correct about the nomination. SD's don't have the balls to take it away from Obama. This just means that Obama takes the Democrats chances at the White House down with him. Obama suffered the worse kind of political damage. The kind that does not kill you right away. The kind his disciples can look way from. It's like a shot in the gut rather than a shot in the head. It's going to fester and he likely will limp through the primary because Clinton can't exploit the wound. But, he's done. The repubs will finish the job in the general. Sad really. It's why the Democrats are such losers. Thier love affair with Obama is stronger than their will for the White House. Sadder yet I keep hanging with these clowns.

Posted by AJ | March 19, 2008 5:29 PM

Some commenters continue to mention Rezco. Rezco is a complete non issue in an election against one of the Keating 5. McCain has no interest in an open discussion about financial corruption.

Rezco pales in comparison with Keating and Obama's involvement with Rezco was nothing at all like McCains support of Keating.

Posted by Wayzom | March 19, 2008 5:40 PM

Yes, how can Obama hope to compete against McSame's 100 year surge?

Posted by Truesdell | March 19, 2008 5:52 PM

I think it's fair to say that many people moved toward Obama, a relatively unknown, because they didn't want the Clinton's back. He turned out to be an accomplished orator and people gravitated toward the new guy.
Months went by and I was waiting for a picture of his general character and direction. The press neglected to do it's duty and never bothered to vet him. Now it's getting late and his vetting is just starting and Hillary has very little chance of beating him in delegates. It will be close. What if the vetting continues and Hillary loses. Just wondering.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who is rational and not just in the tank for their guy.
I haven't heard a word about actual issues in days. Yay, "whose going to get out of Iraq" but that not a foreign policy debate. Mostly it's horserace. Michigan, Florida, Florida, Michigan.
It's insipid.

Posted by linda | March 19, 2008 11:48 PM

Although I am currently a Hillary supporter, she was my 5th choice after Gore (who didn't run,) Edwards, Dodd and Biden.

I never understood the fascination with Obama. I see him as smart and skilled politician with a gift of oratory, but relatively inexperienced.

It always appeared to me that his most ardent fans were projecting onto him a number of mutually exclusive or imaginary qualities. He was seen as a politician who had transcended politics. He was a black man who was "post-racial."

Much like George W. Bush in 2000, it was a media and electoral infatuation. Obama is not like Bush, it's the way the candidates have been viewed and treated that is similar.

Both of them became very popular virtually overnight even though they had very little on their records and they were vague as to their positions.

That didn't work out so well the last time.

Posted by myiq2xu | March 20, 2008 7:01 AM

Believe me that its not just the Clinton organization pushing for delegate representation in Florida. We are all writing our Rep.s and the DNC. We were disenfranchised in 2000 and that ended up putting George Bush in the White House. Do they really want this to happen again? As a Florida voter, we were told by our legislators to go vote, don't worry, our delegates will be seated. So we did. In fact, we voted in record numbers. Obama DID run TV commercials here in Florida. I didn't think much about it at the time. We were totally aware of the candidates narratives, after all the debates, Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, we knew the issues. Clinton won here big. SEAT OUR DELEGATES! The rules being pointed to say that our penalty should be to lose half of our delegates. Thats all it says. Read them.

Posted by Glennmcgahee | March 20, 2008 7:07 AM

A woman president will be AWESOME.
FINALLY, after many thousands of years, a woman as the most powerful person on earth!!

Those who support Obama so blindly and fervently, ask yourself why.
Really, if he was a white guy with the exact same personality and background, would you support him so extremely?
If you dont have any black friends, and feel guilty about being raised in priviledge, then go out and meet some black folks, DONT USE YOUR VOTE TO MAKE YOU FEEL LESS GUILT.
He is caught associating with a racist, so he lectures us on race?? WHAT??
He is wiser on race because he is half black?? What??

Posted by jjl | March 20, 2008 10:13 AM

Dear all,
One, in order to win the general election, Michigan and Florida voters must have a voice at the convention. That's reality. Anybody who does not care to have John McCain as the next president of the country must recognize this.

Two, there are well over 100 delegates at stake in the remaining state contests, far more than Senator Clinton needs to overtake Senator Obama in the DELEGATE count. Even assuming Senator Obama continues to pick up delegates and that Michigan and Florida Democrats are disenfranchised by their own party, it is not even mathematically impossible for Senator Clinton to overtake Senator Obama in DELEGATES, let alone the popular vote.

Posted by HLF in DC | March 20, 2008 10:15 AM

All of the obamabushies are missing the most clear, succinct point that:

He will not survive the GOP gauntlet to win the General Election.

Do Democrats want to win the Presidency, or the Primary?

WAKE UP

Americans will simply not have a President who is so closely acquainted with a guy who makes comments such as calling whites "cigar chomping crackers."

There is NO GETTING AROUND IT.

Good luck with the spin though, Obamabushies.

Posted by Josh | March 20, 2008 10:23 AM

Being ahead in delegates means nothing, if you do not hit the 2025 number necessary for a win on the first ballot. All delegates are released from their commitments and can vote any way on the second ballot.
The use of "mathematical" as if being ahead in pledged delegates is the final reality, is WRONG.
Both candidates need superdelegates to win on the first ballot.
Spinning a pledged delegate lead as the only criteria is more BS by Obama followers.

Posted by jjl | March 20, 2008 10:26 AM

It's easy to spout rants against either candidate, using their political baggage of angry pastors and kitchen sinks, inexperience and poor judgment, disenfranchised voters and the power of super delegates, questionable associations both Obama and Clinton can be tagged with, race and gender, etc. But for me, given that I have a choice between two strong, historic candidates, I have one dog in this fight and that's the election of a Democratic President come November. I think that is what's at stake here, and I think we lose ground with each passing day with this bitter rivalry which will haunt the party for decades if it doesn't come to a quick and sensible conclusion.

What's at stake is more than black or white, man or woman, red or blue or even history. What's at stake is the future of potential Supreme Court nominees, a failing economy, a losing war, the world's view of America, and a continuation of the past eight years, to name but a few.

If the Democratic Party doesn't come together soon, it will allow conservative media, conservative Political Action Committees and a weary electorate to open the door to the Oval Office for a Republican with a wink and a smile.

By continuing this battle between the two Democratic candidates, we further divide the party and run the risk of having huge blocks of voters either stay home or pull the lever for what I think is the worst candidate of the remaining three.

Considering the math and unlikely re-votes in Florida and Michigan, isn't it time we considered the larger wisdom of the opportunity we have given the power of money and numbers the Democratic party has before we squander it?

I think it is.

Posted by JDV | March 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Read it, it's on the wall: BARRY IS TOAST.
The cult is still alive and well, judging by blogs, but: how many average Americans go to the blogs?
And, to the followers of His Hopeness: will you be content with just winning the primary? That's nice, but there's a general election after that.
You can always say, like Bush, that you don't pay attention to polls....

Posted by cigarchompingcracker | March 20, 2008 11:32 AM

The amount of excuses made for Obama every time I check blogs such as this one are astounding. One person here even says that if we don't nominate Obama that we have proven that we haven't gotten beyond race as a country. That's the message Obama wanted to get across in his speech this week, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Some of us, however, noticed that the speech failed to answer some essential questions about Obama and his judgment. It is those questions that will ultimately doom his candidacy, no doubt about it. That, and the idea that every time one disagrees with or finds something to dislike about a President Obama, someone will scream "racism!" Give me a break--this is political correctness spun out of control and manipulated masterfully by Obama, but if it gets him to the nomination, it will be exactly what keeps him from the White House. Some of us aren't so enslaved by our idealism that we can't see the reality of a situation.

Posted by JT | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM

Obama's maneuvering with respect to the Florida and Michigan delegations makes him look like an old-fashioned ward-heeler from the days of the (elder) Richard Daley--dirty politics at its most blatant. It may shut the door on Clinton, but, like the whole Rev. Wright imbroglio, it will come back to bite him in the ass next fall. It's certainly going to disabuse lots of independent voters who were prepared to believe that Obama is a high-minded idealist. The best hope for the Democrats is for Dean & Co. to swallow hard and seat the delegation chosen in the "premature" primary. It might revivify Clinton's bid, but if Obama prevails nonetheless, he'll be a lot better off than if he succeeds by dint of disenfranchising 3,000,000 voters.

Posted by Fossil | March 20, 2008 2:54 PM

All this talk about "ignoring the will of the people" conveniently overlooks the fact that a great deal of Obama's wins were caucuses -- hardly, nearly everyone can agree, a true barometer of the "will of the people." Caucuses allow only those who can show up in a specified time period (many can't, except the politically active) to vote for their candidate. We all know Obama has the fervent ground support, but does he have the statewide support? Impossible to say. Look at TX-- Hillary won the primary; Obama won the caucus. If all those other caucuses were primaries -- thus, TRUE representations of the popular vote -- Hillary would have had this sewn up ages ago.

Posted by NDE hjhjh | March 20, 2008 3:06 PM

All this talk about "ignoring the will of the people" conveniently overlooks the fact that a great deal of Obama's wins were caucuses -- hardly, nearly everyone can agree, a true barometer of the "will of the people." Caucuses allow only those who can show up in a specified time period (many can't, except the politically active) to vote for their candidate. We all know Obama has the fervent ground support, but does he have the statewide support? Impossible to say. Look at TX-- Hillary won the primary; Obama won the caucus. If all those other caucuses were primaries -- thus, TRUE representations of the popular vote -- Hillary would have had this sewn up ages ago.

Posted by NDE hjhjh | March 20, 2008 3:06 PM

REALLY?? Thursday March 20 2008- Go look on the "Huffington Post" right now and YOU WILL SEE Good ol boy BILL & HILLARY know the REVEREND WRIGHT also?!? Pictures don't lie! According to the Hillary Calendar, she was there too! THEY BOTH KNOW HIM!
He was there to "repent" for screwing Monica and HILLARY was there too!! THAT'S the reason the Clintons gave standing orders to staff to shut up about the Obama flap!! They didn't want THIS to come out. Hey GUESS WHAT? IT'S OUT!!

Posted by Robin Dicken | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM

REALLY?? Thursday March 20 2008- Go look on the "Huffington Post" right now and YOU WILL SEE Good ol boy BILL & HILLARY know the REVEREND WRIGHT also?!? Pictures don't lie! According to the Hillary Calendar, she was there too! THEY BOTH KNOW HIM!
He was there to "repent" for screwing Monica and HILLARY was there too!! THAT'S the reason the Clintons gave standing orders to staff to shut up about the Obama flap!! They didn't want THIS to come out. Hey GUESS WHAT? IT'S OUT!!

Posted by Robin Dicken | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM

I felt sorry for the black voters that were taken off the rolls by Gov. Jeb Bush and Kathleen Harris preparing for G.W.'s 2000 run.
The election 2000 fiasco has brought home to me the importance of a vote and what you can tell about someone who doesn't want yours to count.
G.W. Bush claiming to be so high minded and patriotic calling on the shyster lawyers to make sure Florida wasn't recounted is the perfect example of what is wrong in american politics.
By not opposing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan Obama is telling us he's the same kind of ambitious politician who has led us through 7 1/4 years of hell.

Posted by Eddie Bryan | March 21, 2008 1:17 AM

I guess 'edicts' only last for a week in the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Scientific | March 25, 2008 4:57 PM

Comments (120)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives