I agree.  While Hillary has, in some sense, no other chance, as soon as it becomes apparent that she is dragging down the whole party, including any theoretical chances of her own, this will be brought to a swift conclusion.  My own guess, just a guess, is that the party leadership has been discouraging the supers from declaring en masse in order not to create the feeling that the voters in the remaining primaries have been steamrollered with some backlash the possible result.  But if it becomes clear that this very reasonable strategy is causing worse problems, then I think they will start encouraging the supers to declare.  The Tims Op-ed yesterday calling for a super-delegate primary was the announcement that this is not going to go to the convention (although the specific mechanism of a super-delegate primary is highly unlikely).

The bottom line is that Hillary has no chance.  She cannot overcome Obama's lead.  She cannot corral the supers without trashing Obama.  She cannot trash Obama without trashing the party.  As soon as that goes too far (we may be there), the curtain comes down on her show.

It is a sad legacy for the Clintons.  While Hillary has the right to keep going, if she really did care about the Democratic party, she would find a gracious way to bring her campaign to an end.  But I don't believe that she does.

Why is this beginning to seem like 1972? Then as now, the problem is not the happenstance of a long primary or a contested nomination. I am afraid that the problem is the fundamental construction of the democratic party's electorate and electoral model.

Clinton (wisely, in my view) started her campaign by tilting a bit toward the center. That got her in trouble in the primaries and with THE BASE. So, now we all find ourselves clustered and playing in left field, whcih leaves McCain with a lot of empty, unmanned space to hit into.

The polls are already starting to turn "blue" again, and toward Obama.  I would say that this is the highwater  mark for Hillary.  The Wright "crisis" has been navigated successfully and will start to ebb as attention moves elsewhere.  I don't know that I quite buy the theory that Obama orchestrated the timing of this -- knowing it was inevitable -- at a sweetspot for him.  But, damn, if he did he really is a political genius.  

I believe that the Hillary and McCain supporters are going to end up sorely disappointed at how unimportant this becomes.  

McCain's boost in the polls is temporary - he sewed up the nomination, is on his foreign policy  tour,  and got a bump.

And please, stop with this "tiresome primary" theme.  It is only March.  Republicans wrapped up their primary quickly because they had such uninspiring choices. America's Mayor.  Fred Thompson.   Romney dropped out  because Tagg, Skip, and Biff told him to stop blowing their inheritance.  Huckabee finally realized that the snake handler vote wasn't going to get him over the top.  Is Ron Paul still around?  

The Democrats have two exciting and historical candidates.  Second tier candidates like  Edwards and Biden were better than any of the GOP cnotenders.  So it's taking a while - after the convention, after the bump, after a summer of $4.00 a gallon gasoline and 1 in ten homes foreclosed, the Democratic nominee will lead McCain by 20 points.

What a mess. Following is a link to an article on Politico about recent polls in Pennsylvania:

www.politico.com/.../9135.html

One of the most striking findings in the post-Wright poll from Franklin and Marshall is that Clinton appears to be gaining among African-American voters (up to 27%). This suggests, obviously, that the Wright fiasco has hurt Obama and helped Clinton with African-Americans.

This actually makes sense. By ambiguously embracing Wright, Obama has resurrected and re-immersed us in the harsh, angry racial politics of the 1960s and the 1970s, whcih no one misses and no one wants to return to. But watch the comentators on television fight and get angry at each other over Wright and Obama's speech. Look at the rawness of people's feelings. It is likely that this return to the 1960s and 1970s is not any more appealing to African-Americans than it is to non-black Americans. And Clinton is someone who has a 35 year record of strong and mutual support with African-Americans. That is longer than Obama has been in his relationship with Wright. Clinton is actually a candidate whom African-Americans could embrace.

The Democrats would probably be in a lot better position if they'd demonstrated an ability to lead these last two years since they won the mid-terms. Unfortunately, their performance has been highly ineffectual, to say the least.

But then what can you say about a party that refuses to kick the Clintons and their desperate, discredited monarchy to the curb?

I think that the Democratic process has actually worked very well.  The candidates had to campaign for real.  No coronation.  No inevitable nominee.  There was time for a variety of primaries and caucuses in different regions before the trends really began to emerge.  The only fly in the ointment is the whole super-delegate thing.  It appears that when this was invented, it never occurred to anyone that the super-delegates might have to weigh in on a two-person race.  The primary/caucus system has succeeded in vetting the campaign skills and electoral appeal of the candidates.   For that reason, the ultimate nominee will be in a very strong position at the start of the general election campaign (which is coming any minute now).

The party should consider changing this so that the supers cannot vote on the first ballot.  That way, if a candidate can achieve a majority of pledged delegates, chosen by the party membership, the nomination is finished.  If not, then the professional pols get the participate to sort out what, by definition, must be at least a 3-way race.  Some consideration should also be given to the balance between elected officials and "party activists."  I have a bias toward elected officials because I think that actually knowing what it means to stand before the public asking for votes is what gives them a peculiar and valuable insight that can strengthen the choice.  But one also has to be careful about a system that overweights prior associations such as those that the Clinton's enjoy.

The Hillaristas will be gnashing their teeth, but the party needs a candidate who knows how to run a campaign and knows how to move the public.  We have one, thanks to this process.

Folks, as has been apparent for a long time to any observer who was not of the Left, you have two very weak candidates in Hillary and Obama.

Hillary, because she is an unpleasant, unattractive person.

Obama, because has been starkly revealed these last few days doesn't have a race problem so much as an "exoticness" problem.  

It is just too easy to wonder, for all the man's magnificent intelligence and talent, is he an unambiguous patriot?  

The Rev Wright thing has brought back-- in a somewhat unexpected way-- the specter of the "neo-Manchurian" candidate.  The scary thought of someone getting into the Oval Office who is not truly on our side.

The Left will always deride such fears, and such "unsophisticated" ideas of patriotism.  But for ordinary people, loving their country in an ordinary, unambivalent way, this is disquieting stuff.

Much as I unabashedly admired his speech, and I made that abundantly clear here, even his stirring reference to "a more perfect union" did not allay this problem.

Put it this way, Obama explained very well why certain blacks can easily be understood to not see our country as sanguinely as the average, non-Leftist white person does.

But, even understanding that, doesn't mean you want someone who is the leader of your country, to harbor resentments and hatred for that country.  Or, in Obama's case, be willing to tolerate such hatred and listen to its fulminations for twenty years.

Sophisticates are never going to get this.  But, that's the fundamental problem for Obama.

BHLnyc,

The party is in the process of kicking the Clintons to the curb.  It is not an easy thing to kill the king, but it will be done.

I don't think the judgment of the public on the Democratic Congress will be harsh.  People, at least many of them, understand that the Democrats did not have the votes to overcome Republican filibusters and Bush vetoes.  I think there is a chance that the Republican refusal to acknowledge that the 2006 election called for a change of direction might just result in a filibuster-proof majority, especially if we are in a recession by September as now seems highly likely. The new Senate may then want to consider modifying the rules on cloture somewhat as to type and circumstance.  I would be more inclined to leave it alone on nominations than on policy legislation.  

Yes, please, please end this endless visit to the dentist's office. Talk to your non-political-junkie friends. They're not just bored with this race; they find it genuinely annoying and petty.

These absurd numbers will come back to reality as soon as we refocus our fire on the GOP.

Actually McCain's lead would increase if Hillary withdrew.

The ongoing campaign is helping to split attention among voters between candidates and stopping it would concentrate the attacks on Obama even more intensely leaving him even more vulnerable.

roid, your writing that, "...The Wright "crisis" has been navigated successfully and will start to ebb as attention moves elsewhere." is wishful thinking of a high order.

Even Obama has raised doubts about whether that is true.  His speech was brilliant, and very important.

But, it was more important for its effect on the chattering classes, the media, and the task of influencing the influencers.

It may, perhaps, have a trickle down effect over time as it percolates through the MSM propaganda system.

But, the core problem is, Obama's measured and nuanced words are easily subsumed by Wright's rants.

The Wright clips, however, will lose their power to outrage if they are repeatedly constantly between now and November.  Anyone who wishes to use them as agit-prop against Obama, would best ladle them out in small doses.

roid, I agree with your summation that the democratic process has worked well in the primaries.

Yes, it is tedious.  But, the presidency of the United States is too important to hand to somebody after a 90-day wonder tour.

Problem is, our candidate pool sucks.  This is clearly not 1776 in terms of quality.

Our education system and our media have somehow contrived to make people better "educated" but less wise.  

The politico story is complete nuts.  I don't believe those numbers for a minute.  I'm an active African American Dem who grew up in Michigan, lived in GA, and now is on the east coast.  No one I have talked to who is black in my family, at work, or friends is breaking toward Hillary.  NONE of them.  As a matter of fact, I truly believe Obama has grabbed ahold of an even greater (and there aren't many left) percentage of the African American vote because of the Wright issue.  

Mark my words.  Even in PA, the exit polls will show a 90+ split with African Americans for Obama.  I'd bet on it any day.

Chan,

Your analysis is ever perverse.  Your "exoticness" notion is so you.  Do you look at poll results at all?  Granted they are imperfect and at times volatile, but in election campaigns, as in so many things, it is important from time to time to check one's ideas against reality.  It is admirable that you have ideas, some quite original, but we do not live in ChanRobt world.

As noted above, the opinion polls are already heading back toward Obama, but for those who oppose him, polls are only meaningful when they move against him, never meaningful when they move toward him.  This is but a variant of the Hillary spin (now shown by events to have been ridiculous) that only her victories "count" on some ever-changing metric of her own invention.  His never counted by her lights.  Except that, in the end, his have counted more than hers because he knew how to count -- delegates and votes -- and she didn't.  She apparently believed that certain delegates and votes were imbued with much greater significance than others.  Live and learn.

Personally, I look forward to watching McCain barely able to stand up during the general election and making one gaffe after another.  

roi,

I wish I had your confidence. I'm still disturbed that so many party leaders are sitting on the sidelines, hands in their pockets, too afraid of the Clintons to step up and deliver the death blow to Hillary's ambitions. I seriously don't think I could ever vote Democratic again if the party opts to reinstall this pathetic, desperate monarchy over making a fresh start with such a gifted, transcendent candidate.

jacksondyer

Going to have to disagree for a couple of simple reasons. Ending the primary will free the rest of the party to weigh in. Right now its McCain, the Republican Party and Clinton vs. Obama. Once its Republicans vs. Democrats the fight will have a different cast to it.[the same is true of liberal media outlets -- once Salon and Kos stop fighting each other they'll be free to fire at McCain]  

Also, in terms of winning news cycle options, Obama's are just better than McCain's, especially in that his VP short list and Cabinet to be will earn more magazine covers and better coverage overall. I mean, the press may love McCain, but Haley Barbour would get pasted.

Chan,

It's not wishful thinking.  There is already poll evidence that this is happening.  

I have not found the process at all tedious.  It has been so exciting that I have found it very hard to stick to my studying.

I think that the candidate pool was actually pretty good.  In my opinion, Biden, Edwards, and Obama could all have been effective presidents, albeit for different reasons.  I think any one of them would have a good shot at defeating McCain, again all for different reasons, although Biden would have been the most challenged.  I still very much hope to see him on the ticket as Obama's VP choice.  I think it would be a very strong ticket without an easy counter from McCain.  We get experience and we get rhetorical brilliance.  Assuming arguendo that McCain has experience covered (something that will be challenged by the election campaign), he still cannot pick someone of similar brilliance (if there were someone on the Republican side) because he will make himself look like a stick of wood.  I am still betting for him to make one of two conventional choices, Romney (to pacify the kleptocrat wing of the Republican party) or Crist (to take Florida off the table and leave himself free to devote all his resources elsewhere).

Also, it isn't just a 90-day wonder tour.  It is not as if anyone gets a ticket to enter.  The possible candidates have already been highly culled by the political system before the "test" of the 90-day tour begins.  Indeed, generally the Democrats have done better electorally when the candidate has emerged from this system (Carter, Clinton) than when there has been an aura of inevitability that carried someone to the nomination (Mondale, Gore) without fully having to demonstrate high skill at electoral politics.  (I don't know quite where to place Kerry, but getting elected to the Senate as a Democrat from Massachusetts sure as hell didn't teach him how to campaign.  To easy.)

Obama will either be defeated by all of this, or emerge stronger.

Personally, I think this testing of him is necessary to see what he's made of.

And I hope Ferraro and Limbaugh and the demagogues on FOX and Talk Radio keep it up, to see what America is made of.

This is all starting to feel like real politics, not just a bunch of shills exchanging talking points.

Maybe we'll see some real change. It's hard to imagine Obama leaving the scene and everything going back to "normal".

If he goes, Hillary would be defeated in a landslide. And McCain will have a very alienated, very vocal anti-war contingent to deal with, as well as a first-class economic mess on his hands.

We'll never see "normal" again.

BHLnyc,

I think there is A LOT going on behind the scenes.  The Clintons have a lot of friends and donors whom the party does not want to alienate.  There is always the fear factor that comes with daring to kill the reigning monarch.  

At the end, politics is profoundly human.  It is not just a series of rational choices.  You have to allow for the human dynamics to play themselves out.  If they don't, then the frustration people feel that the drama was somehow cut short, that some hidden hand determined the outcome, can be fatal.  People need to contest before they can accept the result.

"The Left will always deride such fears, and such "unsophisticated" ideas of patriotism.  But for ordinary people, loving their country in an ordinary, unambivalent way, this is disquieting stuff."

A great post Chan - you're the resident political psychologist.

But this piece was the only part I partly disagreed with.  I think you're underestimating people. Obama's willingness to both address identity and ask us to find a way to transcend it - *was* his actual appeal to "ordinary people."

I think most of us want that whether we are "elite" or "ordinary."  We do phrase this desire much differently depending on our background, but the zero sum game of identity and labels has exhausted and turned off most people who just cannot relate to being so relentlessly judgemental of our neighbors or being so reduced down to our appearance, our race, our class, our nationality even.  We've finally experienced how dehumanizing that can be when it's done without our permission and we're sick of it. Done.  And that's not just white collar Ivy Leaguers in Manhattan. That's *everyone*.

There's also the basics of the American character, for better or worse, mostly better.  Americans trust their gut and (although that gut has been grievously wrong recently), for the most part when they see a good person, they more often than not know it and that's all that matters to them. And I'm not even refering to Obama or Hillary right now, I'm just referring to Americans. You come across as a good, hard working, honest, caring individual willing to pick up an ax and start chopping wood with the rest of us without complaining, and we'll accept almost anything, despite the media hype.  

That means over the back fence, in the office, at a PTA meeting or watching a speech.    

This Wright mess will make people very uncomfortable for awhile, I agree. But, uness they were not inclined to vote for him anyway, people might just remember what a jackass their brother is when he's unemployed, how mean and hateful their Rabbi can be, especially if he's scared, how stupid they used to be about gay people when they were growing up.  That doesn't mean these people don't have to apologize for their behavior or that we shouldn't stand up to it, but we do forgive and we do accept ambiguity.

Most people live lives of much greater complexity than is presently reflected back to us in our tired, broken down jalopy of a political culture (whose wheels are coming off). And we're at a standstill because of it. This is the basis of Obama's campaign.

And supporting Hillary Clinton certainly does *not* mean you feel any differently about these things!!!

(Yes - there is the titillating element of the bigots and narrow minded fools such as the buffoon quoted in one of those "man on the ground" stories from PA in the NYT this morning saying "I will not vote for the man because his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Case Closed. I consider him a terrorist."  Those people will always be there, like cockroaches and rats - bigots will be here even after we're nuked).  

fougasseu - just brilliant!  You said it much better than I did.

"There is always the fear factor that comes with daring to kill the reigning monarch."

Just as a sidenote Roi - I saw "MacBeth" last night with Patrick Stewart (who strutted around on the stage like they play was written for him, he was amazing) and you're on to something.  We could end up going mad from guilt, Hillary or Obama's ghost chasing us right into losing this election.  

What are we going to do?

....and irrational Obama exuberance continues....

roid, we may be in agreement on polls.  Far as I'm concerned, polls today about the election in November are like those things they do now giving people watching speeches and debates a rheostat to turn up and down to track what they're liking or hating.

But, right now, the snapshot seems to show the Rev Wright thing, even after Obama's extraordinarily eloquent response, going against Obama.

As to my "exoticness" thesis, you keep looking at the world through the prism of the sophisticate, the Left, the liberal, the university educated.  (Whether you actually are these, doesn't matter.  You reflect that p.o.v.)

I'm trying to show you the world through the eyes of the middle.  Intelligent, common-sensical people or ordinary backgrounds.  People, who while well understanding that America falls shorts of its superb ideals, still are unambivalantly and unambiguously patriotic.

Those people would not have been able to comfortably tolerate the rants of Rev Wright.  Certainly not for twenty years.  And those people would never think to utter something that only a graduate of two Ivy League schools could, "This is the first time in my adult life that I have felt proud of my country."

Remove your sophisticate's glasses, roid.  The ordinary voters of the country are not dumb.  But, they don't over-think, either.  

The advantage and disadvantage of being an intellectual, is that you can quite convincingly rationalize away anything.  

We will see in August, and then in November, roid, whose reality turned out to be be real.

fougasseu said:  "Obama will either be defeated by all of this, or emerge stronger."

yes, what doesn't kill me will make me stronger. Know who said that?

Your homespun wisdom (a tautoligcal comment really) depends on the meaning of the word "stronger."

The conundrum of the Democratic Party primary system:

What if the Dems get to Denver in August with Hillary having won every large state except Illinois and Missouri, yet still behind in the delegate count.

Meanwhile, Obama is ahead by a 100 and something, but is slumping in the polls, significant double digits behind McCain with the election just two months away.  The Wright thing still hanging heavily over B.O.

What are the Super Delegates to do?  For that matter, what are the elected delegates, who are actually not bound to cast for their candidate, what are they to do?

It doesn't say much for the adroitness of Democratic management abilities that the Party crafted this ridiculous proportionate plus caucuses sometimes system that makes such an outcome possible.

Come late August, Demcorats are going to be looking at a horrid Hobson's Choice.

roid, if you remember clearly the Edwards-Cheney debate of '04, you would remove Edwards from your panthenon.

Cheney made Edwards look like a kid visiting the Dean of Boys for a paddling.  Which is what he got.  

Edwards is the most overrated candidate of this long season.  Though eventually the voters sent him on his way with little to show for his time and money.  And little is what he deserved.

More of your "conversations about race" LISAH?  That was deep.

roid, you misunderstood me.   I didn't say this was a 90-day wonder tour.  I said it was anything but, and that's a good thing considering the stakes.

People often bemoan the fact that the British elect a PM after a six week (or less?) camaign.

But, first of all, the PM of Britain, much as I love the UK, is not running a superpower.  Second, the PM is always a well known quantity, having always been a MP, and often a member of the cabinet.  Plus, the country is much smaller and the personalities know more intimately to the voters.

In any event, I agree with you.  Personally, since January at least, this has not been tedious.  It's been the most fascinating presidential campaign since 1968.  Probably the most interesting one since WW2.

Simple, and entirely predictable. For ordinary voters who aren't rhetoric junkies, Obama didn't put a stake through the Crazy Preacher monster; he gave it new legs.

Obama campaigned pre-Wright as the post-racial candidate, the one who would move the nation beyond its dreary race-soaked past. But his handling of the Wright affair didn't make a clean break with Wright. When a quick peel of the bandage was needed, Obama gave the public teh longest, slowest possible pull back of the bandage, lingering on every nuance and rhetorical opportunity, and causing great pain to everyone except the elite commentariat.

Ordinary, sensible people don't want History Channel narrations or biblical exegesis or references to Faulkner and grandma and parables about Man of Woman Born.

They want clarity, a simple answer to a simple question: Why did you associate yourself with someone who thinks the government created AIDS and is using it to kill blacks?  

The honest answer to this q can only be the cynical one-- that Obama derived political advantage from the association, and that this guy means nothing to Obama now, that he has no influence over how Obama would govern as president. Mature adults with a common-sense understanding of practical affairs will accept this answer. Afr-amers will be disappointed, sure, but they're not going to sit at home in the fall for the sake of Reverend Goof (we're not talking about souljah'ing Jesse Jackson here).  

This has been a colossal blunder by BHO. He really needs to spend more time talking with the non-Kool-aid drinking voters.

As to what it means for the Dems, it's becoming clearer every day. Be done with it, already. Nominate Al Gore.

foug, you write, "...And McCain will have a very alienated, very vocal anti-war contingent to deal with, as well as a first-class economic mess on his hands."

Truth is foug, whoever wins will have the same thing. Obama, unless he plans to commit national suicide, cannot pull us out of Iraq precipitously.  He will have to stay there a long time, just as any president is going to have to, to avoid international disaster.

If Obama ignores reality and leaves in six months, the disaster will be so immense that he will be dealing that to the exclusion of everything else for his one-term.

If he faces reality, and stays, on the other hand, he'll have to deal with the Kos Krazies.  So what?  They are idiots who only matter to the Democratic Party.  And like McCarthy fifty years ago, will eventually be marginalized, as stupid people always are in America, by and by.

Ok look Mr. Hindsight 20/20 Channy - I don't exactly call what has happened unhelpful, painful yes, but it remains to be seen whether this has been a good civic exercise or not.  

The honest dialouge and bracing politics alone has been terrific - the delicious smashing of Rudy Guiliani alone says volumes about how little the electorate is in the mood to be condescended to, pandered to or underestimated.

I'm very glad a candidate with the most name recognition and money (like our friends on the right most of the time)  can't just march in every four to eight years and be coronated in three months.  Let's just go back to King George if we want that, save the 400 million spent on campaigns.

foug, you write, "...We'll never see "normal" again."

This nation weathered a Depression, WWII, the Cold War and the spectre of atomic annihilation, the 60's, the year 1968, Watergate, the resignation of a president, Stagflation, Jimmy Carter & the hostage crisis.  And even the impeachment of a president.

At least since 1932, we have always had reason for high anxiety.  Yet, here we still are.  Great problems are "normal".

If Churchill could stare down Hitler hulking across the channel, then we can stare down a credit meltdown.  Or whatever.

McCain has had 0 opposition (even in his own race), maybe he'll win, maybe we won't, but these polls have no meaning now, especially if the Dems wrap things up by June.

We don't know how McCain will handle opposition from a very tough and serious opponent, there's a real chance he will fold like a cheap suit (or he may not).

I think even Chan would agree with me on this.

...you're the one who put race into the equation here, WandreyCer1...

"Nominate Al Gore."

I vote for that!

Wandrey, you write, "...I think most of us want that whether we are "elite" or "ordinary."

And, I think we are in agreement, the "elite" themselves are at heart "ordinary".  And every ordinary person is extraordinary by dint of being a human being and an individual with a soul.

"Elite" is always a temporary position derived either through financial advantages or the good luck of being born with an acute intellect.  

Relying excessively on the left brain and ignoring the right brain causes one to slide unnoticed from thinking to rationalizing.  Not to mention, that those living within their borders of intellect, tend to fall inordinately in love with grey areas.  

But, ultimately, life is binary.  In certain critical instances you have to decide.  On/off.  Yes/no.  Attack/flee.  Live/die.  

That's what a vote is, isn't it?

If a candidate makes the choice to ambiguous, too laden with doubts, human beings, elite or not, will, in aggregate, choose the one who doesn't paint in too many shades of grey, or create too many doubts.

kwaller,

politico was just reporting the shift of some black voters to hillary post-wright--the results came from the frankin-marshall poll.

i guess two questions would be whether the poll was accurate; and, whether your experience and personal/professional circle represents the responses of all african-americans. but, we'll see what develops.

Wandrey, you're description of the essential American character is absolutely correct.  And it is our abiding strenght as a nation.

Wandrey, you're description of the essential American character is absolutely correct.  And it is our abiding strenght as a nation.

yeah -- Gore, Biden, Dodd. Edwards, Richardson...anyone but these 2 (well, not Kucinich)....

No I didn't LISAH - I was just rousting you on your shallow contribution to this conversation.  Like your last "I just want to have a *conversation* about *race*" stuff after insulting people and choosing not to accept it - just dropping in and calling people irrational isn't a post that will likely illicit positive, thoughtful responses.  You get back what you put out there.

"If a candidate makes the choice to ambiguous, too laden with doubts, human beings, elite or not, will, in aggregate, choose the one who doesn't paint in too many shades of grey, or create too many doubts."

Well Channy, you may be right.  If so, hello President Johnny Mac.  Can you imagine his mother at the inauguration?  She'd push Johnny aside and take over (I love her, BTW).

CORRECTION:  I ought to have phrased the above as "administration suicide" not "national suicide".

Yes, Obama could leave Iraq quickly and America obviously not going to fall.  But, the Middle East would likely go to hell very fast.  And that would be all the Obama administration could think about for four years.

Wandrey, it's not clear to me from your post what I said (or you believe I said) about the primaries that you are deriding.

Please 'splain more explicitly.

Let's look at the advantages of nominating Gore.

1) fairness: it doesn't privilege either HRC or BHO.

2) unity: both wings of the party can rally behind Gore. (Case in point: he's the ONLY candidate on the planet who would cause roiduboulot and jacksondyer to lay down their daggers and rally behind.)

3) electability: Gore neutralizes every argument McCain has. He's got more executive experience, he's reassuring to most of middle America, and he has national-security cred -- all without pissing off liberals or Kossacks.

With every day that passes, this solution to our mess becomes clearer and more compelling.

GORE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

kwaqller--

one other thing about this issue. apparently clinton won in harlem in the ny primary.

mathog, McCain will not evidence the command of facts in a debate that Mrs. Clinton can.  Nor will he (or any other living American politician) match Obama for adroitness and eloquence.

But, he will hardly "fold like a cheap suit".  He's been through much more harrowing tests, hog, than a CNN debate.

People come away from these debates with a perception of character.  Bush was able to hold his own with both Gore and Kerry because the latter two came off as pompous asses, each in their own way.

Jimmy Carter actually has a super intellect.  But  he didn't win the perceptual debates with Reagan.  And neither did the very capable Mondale.

McCain has great depth of character.  And that's going to be his strong suit.  As opposed to a cheap suit.

Wandrey writes, "Can you imagine his mother at the inauguration?  She'd push Johnny aside and take over (I love her, BTW)."

You're right, Wandrey.  She is a great asset to him.  Talk about a proto-Feminist.  With none of the Feminist pretensions and b.s.

"GORE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008"?

Oh goodness, tep. I hate to break it to you, but there doesn't seem to be any movement on Gore's part to get into the race. And I dare to remind you that Al didn't exactly run a brilliant race in 2000, especially considering that he was going against an opponent with numerous weaknesses _begging_ to be exploited.

One of Josh Marshall's readers must have been reading teplukhin's posts on McCain

-- The guy -- who has been watching and fighting against McCain for years -- basically said that McCain has the personality of a Navy pilot, which is to say he is focused like a laser on tactics and maneuvering and has little grasp of overall strategy, nor does he want it; and that is coupled with a total enthrallment of his own rightness.

-- The guy's point was -- the skills of instant two-step-ahead (but no more) thinking and total faith in one's decision-making are what keep you alive in a cockpit, but it doesn't serve you well in politics (or leadership). It leads to what Josh was noting - an inability to grasp strategy or nuance, and a general lack of self-awareness that comes from self-questioning.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Or does everyone hear the word McCain and think "laser."

Wandrey...in all seriousness now -- I make my points the way I do because it makes it clear -- and it's shown by your reactions, and those of others,  to  me -- that people are too touchy, too sensitive,  maybe too scared, about race, gender, ethnicity, religion,  and nationality. That's what makes it difficult, if not all but impossible, to have a (callout to roi) useful discussion about these characterisitics of the so-called human race in the context of a political contest. Would be even better to be able to ignore them -- but we're clearly a long way from that.

My initial comment, by the way, was simply one on all the in-depth obsession over one day's flaky or not-flaky poll numbers.

Sorry if that's too shallow for you.

LISAH, Wandrey's criticism was that you make touch and go landings here, but never sustain an argument.

This isn't a snowball fight where you run out and throw one, then run back and hide behind the snowbank to quickly roll a new ball of ice.

If you watch for a bit, you'll see that the people who are respected here and who get the compliment of a well crafted response, are those take the time to articulate as well as they are capable of.

You don't have to write eight page essays.  But, some original coherent paragraphs will do.

caagies - I've never been a huge fan of Al Gore, but I think there's a unique set of circumstances shaping up now that may mean his time has arrived.

First, the macroeconomic and f-p climates have become very threatening, in a hurry, and that creates a public hunger for reassurance and stability-- not "change". Gore doesn't have any integrity issues, unlike HRC, and is bulletproof on the executive experience issue, unlike both HRC and BHO.

Second, I think it's become obvious that Obama is not transcending race, as so many expected him to do, but getting dragged deeper into its maw. With his Wright fumble, he has handed the GOP operatives the ball, inside the 20-yard line, and I think this will become increasingly clear in the polls that come out over the next few weeks.

Third, Gore would probably be acceptable to both HRC's and BHO's strongest partisans while having broad appeal to blue-collar and white-collar voters alike.

I just wish the so-called national conversation would quit being about polls - as far as the Wright thing goes - and start being about "Does Obama hate white people and/or America?" Do you believe that? If so, why? If not, why do you care about what Wright says? How does this make Obama a worse president, for going to his Church? If he doesn't share these beliefs, then he sat there for other reasons, because Wright is about more than that, because the TUCC is about more than that, and because he can forgive some bitterness/intolerance in black people - particularly black people of a certain age.

That's it. That's all there is. People want Obama's head on a plate because he didn't want Wright's on a plate. Obama has always been a no-heads-on-plates-please kind of guy. Disagree without being disagreeable. And on this he does not flip-flop. It's because he has integrity. The end.

ChanRobt -- I've sustained arguments on many posts. Sometimes I have time to do it and sometimes not. And sometimes the navel-gazing just inspires me to one-liners.

I really don't get the attention paid to the day-to-day polls -- it's more likely than not unproductive, and has little long-term value. Anything could happen at any moment to capsize the latest numbers. As the last few weeks, if not days, have shown.

And of course the polls, and the navel-gazing from all around all the media, have their own impact on whatever's going to happen next.

And meanwhile the economy's tanking, the world is blowing up from Armenia to the Balkans to Tibet to wherever, and US education is tanking, and medical care is in a crisis and and and and ...

To me, the only important thing at stake in this election is the federal courts. For this part of the landscape,  any  Democrat (gather you might not agree) would be better than any Republican at this point. And the Democrats may once again be managing to lose a sure thing by polarizing over the 2 candidates who shouldn't be in at the finish....(Oh -- and of course Kucinich shouldn't be in at the finish -- but then he wasn't gonna be anyway.)....

And another thing - so many of these people don't really believe Obama hates white people and/or America, they just hope hope hope that other people believe it.

LISAH, you're right, poll watching is only a bit useful.  But, it's akin to taking a patients temperature, and docs still do that.

Certainly a poll on either Hillary or Obma vs McCain now won't tell us a thing about what's going to happen in November.

But, a poll is at least a partial reality check outside of our own opinions.

So, answer is, don't obsess on the polls.  But, at least use them as a research tool to give you some idea of what's happening "out there".

And, LISAH, while I agree the fed courts are very critical, there are also so many other critical events that have to dealt with in realtime, that you ignoring the national interest, and even our survival, if you vote based only on that consideration.

This is not 1925.  Too much can happen too fast not to care about who is at the helm and on watch when events strike.

back to the future (1992). it's the economy, shtoopid

This here is the smartest thing I've read about this whole sorry mess:

obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../double-standard.html

Sorry, ps, but that blogger misses the point, by a mile. His analogy doesn't wash. He says, "if a white candidate is affiliated in some fashion with a white religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons...."

But Obama _sought out_ Wright as his _personal pastor_, friend, guide, _spiritual mentor_. He and his wife and young daughters sit and listen to his spiritual mentor hold forth _every Sunday_.

Obama needed to souljah this guy. He failed, and he's paying for it in the polls.

psantillana, there's an important distinction that your referenced "Double Standard" column does not make.

It's one thing to seek the support of Jerry Falwell and his supporters.  It's pretty clear in that instance that you want the votes, but don't necessarily ascribe to the teachings of the man.

I'll stipulate for certain, if George Bush had been a parishoner of Jerry Falwell, had attended his church for twenty years, and characterized the Rev Falwell as his closest mentor and spiritual advisor, then George Bush would never have become president.

Democrats in the past have been glad to get Al Sharpton's blessing and voters.  But, they sure as hell have not been sitting in his pews.

Tep, do you think Obama's a racist or an America hater? I know, that's not the question you keep harping on, but what other people think. But if not, then Is Obama unfit to be president just because he didn't Souljah the guy? Apart from whatever else makes you think he might be unfit - amputate that for this arg - does that make him unfit? Or is this about what joe lunchpail thinks in the general? If it's about what J. Lunchpail thinks, then I'm confident that Obama will "I don't hate white people" himself enough between now and November. I just do. These are post-freak-out polls. Not even post-speech polls. I think they might improve for Obama as time goes on. I hope so.

Channy:

"What are the Super Delegates to do?  For that matter, what are the elected delegates, who are actually not bound to cast for their candidate, what are they to do?"

I'm an elected delegate [until they vote me off the island] for Obama, and I'll stay for Obama happily. I'm not one bit torn. The next meeting in our state is April 5, and I'll see what my fellows are saying on this topic and report back.

Chan, about the pew-sitting arg, this goes to the [way underdiscussed] issue of exactly how horrible Wright is. Obama made the point [not nearly enough] in his speech that Wright is not all-hate-all-the-time - at all. It's not like he was spouting this every day, and I don't believe that if this is all it was, that Obama WOULD have been sitting in the pews. He makes this point more in the interview that the post links to - here, I'll link to it:

www.abcnews.go.com/.../Story

If you are of the opinion that even if the youtube bits were the tiniest fraction of Wright's preaching, that the fact that he ever said them at all should have been enough to chop his head off, well, that's where we disagree. There is, to me and to Obama, a spectrum. Or, as the Osmonds put it: "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch of girls". Already a mixed metaphor, of course. I just don't think it makes sense to swear off apples [or girls, if you like those] because one of them had a worm in it once. Then I would have to stop reading TNR. And we don't want THAT, right? [insert tongue in cheek emoticon]

Another thing, besides the Wright not being all-anger-all-the-time bit - and here's where people seem to really be digging their heels in - the anger is justified. Wright's response is not the good one, true, but the anger is justified. And because of that, it's a better idea to sit in the pews and listen than march out in a huff and say "F them". And by saying "the anger is justified" I do not mean "all white people suck". That seems to be another wee misunderstanding out there.

ChanRobt...agreed; lots of things are critical...but there's just about no daylight between Clinton and Obama  and the other Dem candidates who washed out on most, if not all, of the current issues(although I'm still not over Clinton supporting the flag-burning crap). Yes, there's daylight with McCain, and so a McCain win might (or might not) make a difference depending part on which party controls Congress...In any case, most problems don't get solved anyway....But the courts and their decisions make a huge difference. Another Republican presidency, plus the Democratic tendency over the past coupla decades to roll over, and the courts are toast for the next few decades.

I'm very concerned when I see the Obama vs. Clinton  polarization here and elsewhere and see people threatening to vote for McCain if their favorite loses...

So, again, far as I'm concerned, the courts are what matters....

Actually, Mike Huckabee says it best:

halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/.../wisdom-ofmike-huckabee.html

The "nominate Al Gore" stuff is starting to turn my stomach. Do you have any fucking idea how disgusting and offensive that would be to African-American voters, and people, like myself, who like to think that they give a damn about racial equality? After pulling off the biggest nominating upset in my lifetime, you would relegate Obama to the margins and replace him with an old white guy who's comfortable to the establishment? This would reaffirm, for all time, that there is absolutely no way that a black guy will ever be allowed to govern.

I know that the people calling for a "compromise nominee" aren't consciously motivated by racism. But . . . Jesus . . .

OBAMA IS WINNING THE GOD DAMNED NOMINATION. The "solution" to this "problem" is not to crookedly maneuver him off the ticket with backroom deals. IT IS TO GIVE THE GOD DAMNED NOMINATION TO THE GUY WHO WON THE GOD DAMNED NOMINATION.

I can't believe I've descended to using the screaming caps. Could it be evidence that this endless primary process has finally caused me to lose my mind?

[Awkward silence.]

psantillana, re your question about whether Obama is an "America hater".

What is lost in this discussion on many threads is that the President of the United States is the head of state as well as the chief executive of the government.

As such, he is, like the king or queen of England, to a great extent a symbol of the nation.  He is supposed to be the president of all the people.  A great deal of national emotion is vested in the person holding this office.

Part of the reason Clinton had trouble as president, is that due to his draft dodging, his "I loathe the military" statement, and other such, he was seen by many to be ambivalent in his love and loyalty of and to the country.

It is very hard for people on the Left to get this.  Ambivalence about the United States is so engrained in their world view that they can't imagine how this would be unsettling to normal people.

But most Americans have an unquestioning love for the country, even if they don't like the actions of a given government.

When you combine the virulent sermons of Rev Wright, with Mrs. Obama's "first time I was proud of America" statement, and Obama's declaration that REv Wright was his closest mentor for 20 years, it creates unsettling feelings in the heart and guts of many people.

You may think of the presidency as just a political office like governor or senator.  But, it has a mystique and a sacredness for Americans that goes beyond any other position in our government.  And, even legally, the president holds a position unique from all others.

We are not just voting in November for the most competent administrator, the most intelligent and articulate politician, or any other collection of resume job attributes.

An American president is vested with a slight bit of divinity for his term in office.  If you think this is overblown, I invite you to view some of the depictions of FDR in 1940s vintage movies, like Yankee Doodle Dandy.  There was practically a halo over him.  Or a glow over the Oval Office in which you heard Roosevelt's voice, but never saw him.

psantillana writes, "...Obama made the point [not nearly enough] in his speech that Wright is not all-hate-all-the-time - at all."

I get it, psan.  But, as I pointed out elsewhere, the reason we have these clips is that Wright himself put out DVDs with these sermons featured as, I guess, his greatest hits.

It is not credible that you could watch Wright sermon's for twenty years, have him as your closest mentor, and not realize that these ideas were among the things he believed and preached.

Maybe it was all a deep secret in the basement of the church.  But, even if you convince me of that, how do you convince millions of regular voters.  It goes against usual experience.  

Most people, if they find their pastor is off the deep end in his ideas, drive across town to another church of the same or similar denomination, to find someone who is not a crackpot.

I, myself, left my neighborhood Episcopal church after the presiding priest gave a sermon bitching about the power of the Catholic Church down the street.  That was way too parochial for my taste.  I changed to another Episcopal church that did not have a loon running it.

psantillana, you write, "...besides the Wright not being all-anger-all-the-time bit...the anger is justified. Wright's response is not the good one, true, but the anger is justified."

Psan, you really seem to be missing the political point.  His anger may well be justified, but

a) Wright was the leader of a large church and not supposed to be spreading lies and hate.  And...

b) Most germane: Obama, who wants to be president of the United States not the president of black people, Obama is perceived to have sat through these kinds of sermons, that he tolerated them and did not rebuke these beliefs until his political future was at stake.

People readily accept that blacks have their reasons for being angry.  But, people do not want an "angry black man" for president.

Obama was the one who implicitly was seen to be transcending that type.  He was not a Jackson or a Sharpton.  He was a New Man.  A prototype for the future.  Black, but not the descendant of slaves.  And, also, equally white, the son of a white woman from the American heartland.

You can't transend and then be seen to descend.

Channy - what the heck? I agree completely. Which is why I would not want Jeremiah Wright to be president. I'm asking you now - do you think Obama is unpatriotic? I don't think he's ambivalent about this country at all. And I get this impression from everything I've ever heard him say or read that he's written, which is a ton of material. Listening to someone who IS ambivalent is not the same as being ambivalent. Maybe that's where we disagree? Where do we disagree? Help me out.

and - holy crap - did Clinton really say he loathed the military? And got elected?

psantillana, in answer to the first, "...and - holy crap - did Clinton really say he loathed the military? And got elected?"  He wrote that phrase in a letter to his draft board.  He was in his late teens or early twenties.  But it was widely quoted in the '92 run.

In answer to your important question, the speech Obama gave Tuesday was one of the most patriotic speeches I have ever heard.  I was very moved by his theme, "a more perfect union".  

You would have to be a brilliant compartmentalizer, indeed, to write that speech and not love your country.

My particular instincts about Obama's beliefs are not the point of these discussions.  The point is what will critical swing voters believe and think about this.

The best answer I can give is this.  Intellectually, I'd be embarrassed to say, "Obama doesn't love his country."  

But, emotionally, there are all these little factoids about his life from his earliest childhood and leading up and through the Ivy League schools he attended that don't allow ROTC on campus, etc.  The statement of his wife "first time I was ever proud" and then the totality of the Wright affair.  

All these things comes together that make me worry about his possible ambivalence.  Which might not matter day to day.  But would matter profoundly in a crisis.

That is honestly how I feel.  And, it is admittedly an emotional thing.  But, in the end, the vast majority of people vote with their gut.  Me included.

tep -- "I've never been a huge fan of Al Gore, but I think there's a unique set of circumstances shaping up now that may mean his time has arrived."

Hmmm...not to conflate the two IN ANY WAY, but wasn't that Nixon's argument in 1968?

I don't take issue with any of the points you made in regards to Gore's electablility. The question I have is whether Gore has done enough to make himself a viable candidate in the eyes of the Demcratic party faithful and the general electorate.

Remember, Nixon set up his nominatioon run in '68 by campaigning for Republican candidates in the 1966 congressional elections, thereby building up a support base for his presidential run. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Gore following that strategy in 2006.

And has he done enough to rid himself of the image of a wonkish stiff? It may not matter much to people like you and me, but to the electorate at large, it does carry weight.

"and - holy crap - did Clinton really say he loathed the military? And got elected?"

Ah, one of the "wonderful" memories of the '92 campaign. The famed letter to Colonel Holmes of the University of Arkansas ROTC program in 1969, the letter that was revealed shortly after the Gennifer Flowers revelation.

To this day, I'm still amazed that Bill survived it all.

Chan

The Democrats won't be looking at any choice in August.  This is over publicly in June, if not before.  It is only the self-deluded who do not know that Obama has already won the Democratic nomination.  It's not a conundrum.  It's finished.  Someone just has to break the news to Hillary and the Hillaristas.

caggies, I think one of the reasons "Bill survived it all" was that in 1992, Baby Boomers wanted their first Boomer question.  Something like blacks and women now anting their firsts.

Then there were the other factors.  Most other Democrats didn't think the nomination was worth a bucket of warm spit against a president who had just won a war and had been very popular.  Then there is Bush 1's peculiar ambivalence.  He didn't seem to want to be re-elected that badly.

And finally, there was Ross Perot.  Some people here claim his votes would have split fifty fifty 'tween Bill and George.  I don't buy it.  Few Perot people could have brought themselves to vote for Clinton.

Roid, if it looked like Obama couldn't lose in November, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But, if things are feeling as doubtful in June as they do now, there will be much mumbling in the cloakrooms and back rooms about what to do to avoid a Nov disaster.

'course, the trouble is, Clinton is looking like she'd be an even bigger disaster.

So, I return to my seasonal theme, the Democrats have managed to go through their entire gene pool, and once again not find a candidate who didn't have some serious liabilities.

Say what you want, of the three now standing, McCain is the only candidate whose honor is not in question.

Our posts keep crossing, Chan. Ok.

I'm still trying to pinpoint where we disagree [it's this goofy compulsion of mine and I appreciate dearly anyone who humors me and accomodates it], and it seems like this - correct if wrong:

1. You are divided between head and heart over whether Obama is unpatriotic

and

2. Regardless of your own opinion, you believe that the rest of the voters believe that he is unpatriotic, because of the Wright thing, and because of the whole angry-black-man trail of tin cans tied to his kite. That whole thing.

Me, I believe he's completely patriotic, and that this is not inconsistent with his view that our union is imperfect [he's goddamn right it is, for one thing, and we don't need another moron in the white house]. It's the fact that he thinks our country is capable of growing more perfect, and that this is in fact our trajectory, that really distinguishes him from the Wrights of this world.

And what's going to get us there? Listening to each other. Even the "crazies". Even the [horrors!] angry black people.

Ok, enough about me. What about the rest of the voters, point #2? Well, it's my/our job to try and convince them not to freak out, to keep fighting the good fight, you know? However big or small that job is, however many people Gallup or Rassmussen say hate him, or whatever, all I/we can do is keep listening to each other and trying to help. What else is there?

PECULIAR TYPO CORRECTED   "...n 1992, Baby Boomers wanted their first Boomer president."

roid--

It is such a nuisance about the voters. They seem to think they should have a say in the election. Obama has figured out how to nullify the voting in Florida and Michigan. The caucuses have been a great way to chalk up delegagte victories in states where the voters oppose him, such as Texas. Now, if he can just figure a path to voter nullification in Pennsylvania...and find a way to discount California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, and New York...then he can really bring all of us Democrats from the key battleground states of Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, Colorado, North Dakota, and Idaho together for a landslide defeat in November.

What a great plan!

Ha! I voted for Perot. And only because I was sure Clinton was not going to need my vote. But hey, you might still be right.

But as for this:

"Say what you want, of the three now standing, McCain is the only candidate whose honor is not in question."

the night is young! Really. Think about what has happened from Iowa [Jan 4] to now, and how far we have to go.

Bela Tarr,

Obama's on his way to winning the nomination, sure. But his incompetent handling of the Wright affair will almost certainly enable McCain to defeat him in the general. He's already tanking in the polls, and we've hardly glimpsed the 24/7 Wright-fest that the GOP operatives will regale the swing voters with. It's only going to get worse for BHO.

All Obama had to do was souljah Wright. He couldn't do it. He simply doesn't have the balls to defeat McCain, or for that matter stand up to AhmadinejadPutinHu and their ilk.