He might win the nomination, with all the momentum advantages he has built up, but he will be beaten down racially in the general election.  This is the result of Nixon tossing in the race card fifty years ago and what has grown out of it.

I hope McCain selects a vice-president carefully, I fear his health will fail under the pressures that are only beginning to build on the country now.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong sentiment among blacks that Obama threw Wright under the bus and didn't go far enough in denouncing white racism.  Of course, had he been any less clear in repudiating Wright, he would have alienated a whole lot of white voters.  Basically the huge gulf between mainstream white and black opinion on a whole variety of issues related to race (e.g., the AIDS conspiracy) puts Obama in an impossible position whenever he has to discuss race explicitly.

Crowley writes, "...Bizarrely, 56 percent of blacks  said the speech made them less likely to vote for Obama. Not sure what to make of that."

Well, there's a perfect example of condescending Liberal racism, if ever I saw it.    You are surprised, Mr. Crowley, that black people love their country?  That black people would be outraged by Rev Wright?  That black people would wonder why Obama continued to sit through these sermons for 20 years?

The Right has long contended that liberals, in their patronizing, paternalistic attitude towards blacks, were the real racists.  This kind of commentary underlines it.

Chan, I was going to say much the same thing until I considered the "More on AIDS and Race" post over at the Plank. If those results are to be believed, the 56% is less surprising. And I might be reading too much into this, but I think it's entirely possible that there could be a reverse-Bradley dimension to this one, too.

,,,Well, there's a perfect example of condescending Liberal racism, if ever I saw it...

Good point: but I'm thinking that Obama is going to continue to rack up the big black vote numbers regardless and the racial politics of all this wil continue to intensify.

"Bizarrely, 56 percent of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for Obama. Not sure what to make of that. Maybe whereas some whites felt Obama didn't sufficiently distance himself from Wright, many blacks felt he shouldn't have to condemn him at all? " Michael Crowley

Why don't you ask people instead of speaking (guessing) for them?

"Well, there's a perfect example of condescending Liberal racism, if ever I saw it. You are surprised, Mr. Crowley, that black people love their country? That black people would be outraged by Rev Wright?  That black people would wonder why Obama continued to sit through these sermons for 20 years?"

Ugh, what a disgusting and completely unfounded attack. If you think Crowley's speculation is out of line, take a look at The Root. A few writers there expressed precisely the sentiment that Crowley speculated about -- i.e., that while Obama's speech was good in some ways, he shouldn't have criticized Wright so directly, or should have at least devoted more attention to white bigotry. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a significant number of black people feel that way. Even if that's not the case, the speculation certainly not "racist" (a sorely overused word).

On the issue of electibility, Hillary is much more electable than Obama.  The Repubs know this which is why they have done such a great job demonizing her. They prefer to run again him.

That Democrats fell for this trick is truly sickening.

I have a different interpretation about why Obama's close connection to Wright would make African-Americans less likely to vote for him. There are other poll results that support a significant post-Wright shift for Clinton among blacks.

One of the most striking findings in a post-Wright poll from Franklin and Marshall in Pennsylvania 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 embracing Wright, Obama has resurrected and re-immersed us in the harsh, angry, and defensive racial politics of the 1960s and the 1970s. Very few blacks or non-blacks want to go back to that era. But watch the commentators 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. In fact, I believe that Clinton won Harlem in the recent NY primary.

Obama has actually become retro on race rather than post-racial. His speech was the kind of stuff that people said years ago, and it actually does not reflect where black & non-black relationships are today. Basically, Obama put himself in the same cluster that includes Al Sharpton, who is approving but hiding in the shadows of Obama's campaign. Contrast this with Charlie Rangel, a Clinton supporter, who recently said, speaking with intentional irony: "I'm angry. I keep looking for all these white people who are insulting me and I can't find them." That is a truly post-racial and novel stance in our discourse about race, but it reflects where things are at teh growing edge. But Obama goes in exactly the opposite direction. I think there are a lot of African-Americans who are not any more comfortable with Obama's way of talking about race than are many non-blacks. Rangel's sensibility is where things are at. And Obama and Wright ain't there at all.

Lots of people, black and non-black, supported Obama when he was post-racial, but are less interested in supporting him as a version of Sharpton. But Obama's allegiance to Wright and his speech have placed him squarely back in 1972. Not a good year for Democrats.

The key phrase in the poll question is "taking all this into account" which embraces both the speech and the Wright controversy itself.  

We can hardly be surprised that, in the short term, the whole thing hurts Obama.  But, bizarrely (no too strong), surprisingly, the poll dip has been quite small, a lot smaller than many of the swings we have seen in the very recent past.

It was not a very good question and certainly will not bear the weight being given it hear that treats the question entirely as if it asked about the speech rather than about the entire controversy.

Which is more evidence that some African Americans believe that society hasn't changed since the 1960s -- when it so clearly has in many many ways.  Interestingly, this is exactly what Obama tried to communicate in his speech, that Wright's big problem is that he can't or won't grasp how far things have come.

Isn't it amusing that Obama is being snottily attacked by whites for saying exactly what a lot of blacks find unacceptable and against the community consensus?

Or simply depressing.

Can I plead yet again for space to type that at least does not have such a tiny typeface?  I am barely able to read what I am typing as I type it which is how I am normally able to correct errors.  The spellchecker does not find grammatical errors or word that are spelled correctly for some usage but are inappropriate or inapposite.  It is a tick or my mediocre touch typing that I substitute homonyms because I am reciting to myself what I want to say as I am typing.  I cannot correct these errors because I cannot see them.

"On the issue of electibility, Hillary is much more electable than Obama.  The Repubs know this which is why they have done such a great job demonizing her. They prefer to run again him."

A fascinating theory, jackson.  And yet for the last couple of days you've been running around here telling everyone about how "some" Republicans are now coming to believe that Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election.  So riddle me this: Given your theory, shouldn't Hillary bashing have INCREASED and Obama bashing DECREASED after the Wright affair?  

Oh, and I suppose all that anti-Hillary sentiment we've been seeing from the right since, oh, 1992, has all been a carefully laid plan to ensure she doesn't get the Democratic nomination.  Damn those shifty Republicans and their incredibly far-sighted conspiracies!

Seriously, do you even think about what you post?

irony,

Actually, the irony is that the white, liberal, racially anxious media have slobbered all over themselves in fulsome idealization of a retro speech, even--absurdly--comparing Obama to Lincoln. It may be that Obama, too influenced in his thinking by the time capsules of Wright and South Carolina, and too limited in his experience by Hawaii , Harvard, and Indonesia, doesn't have much to offer the nation about blacks and non-blacks except to give us an impersonation of a wise man.

roid--

finally something we can agree about--font sizes and typing to these blogs.

If John McCain has any sense, he will choose Michael Steele of Maryland as his running mate. I think he would then wipe the floor with either Obama or Clinton.

jackson - leaving aside the question of which Democrat is REALLY the more electable, evidently Republicans seem to believe it ain't Hillary.  The evidence for this would be: 1) that Rush and other right wing media folk are recommending that Republicans cross over and vote for Hillary; and 2) that 119,000 Republicans voted for Hillary in Texas (presumably, not all for the love of Hillary).  Maybe they've got it wrong, but there it is.

pcostello:  "limited in his experience by Hawaii, Harvard, and Indonesia"

That's so true.  I mean, if he wanted to be president he should have stuck to Kansas, Wichita State U, and spring break in Cancun.

"Why don't you ask people instead of speaking (guessing) for them?"

Bingo. TNR has become much less interesting, less compelling, less exciting, since the scribes embraced the Obama Phenom. Mike C and his colleagues are way behind the curve on this issue, probably because they've insulated themselves from ordinary voters and are in a feedback loop consisting of other east coast journalists and the usual blog-suspects.

Here are some hypotheses that an intrepid reporter ought to test with some field work among the non-chatterati:

-- Ordinary (ie non-college or junior/some-college educated) mature adults of ALL RACES are sick of racial rabble-rousing, from any quarter.

-- Ordinary mature adults of all races are not looking to any candidate now for grand lessons or exegeses of the History of Race Relations in America. They know about slavery, they've heard the Bill Cosby/Bill Clinton responsibility sermons for over 15 years now, they GET IT.

-- These same adults want to MOVE BEYOND RACE, not dwell on it. They perceive ** far ** greater and more urgent challenges to this nation now, and want all the candidates to focus on those, the real issues.

If the above are correct, then the public's rejection of yet more talk talk talk on race race race is not only unsurprising but entirely predictable, and logical. And healthy.

Very much in flux, so it's hard to take much from them.

Gallup's latest tracking poll has the race back firmly within the margin of error- Obama 45, Clinton 47.

So the horrible and steep collapse of Obama may have been prematurely stated.

irony,

reductio ad absurdum as you will, my point is not much different from his description of himself and his own struggle in these regards.

Youtube watch continues:  Nothing from Obama or Wright on top pages for the day.  For the week, Obama's speech  is near the top, and I don't see anything from Wright in the top 100.  My interpretation -- young internet users like and buy into Obama's speech.  Conservatives are digging themselves a generational hole by continuing to attack Obama.  If Obama wins the nomination and looses the general election because the Republicans get nasty, it may be the last Republican administration we see in a long time.  They will have effectively sawed off their own legs.

AD- why would the GOP ops waste their ammo now? I'd expect them to spring this stuff in October. And/or the weekend before the election.

Assuming, of course, that there aren't many more mis-steps like this by Obama between now and then.

"So the horrible and steep collapse of Obama may have been prematurely stated."

Rather.  

With zero margin in the polls, and Obama almost certain to have more delegates and votes, Mission Accomplished -- the nomination for Obama.  Whether the Speech arrested Obama's decline or it would have ended here anyway is unknowable, but the predictions of Obama's demise for the nominating race were just plain wrong.  

It would be amusing to revisit the claims of several here (you know who you are!) that Obama was finished, but who has the time.  Most of these folks have now shifted to arguing that Obama will lose the general, tacitly conceding that he has won the nomination.  I don't find their analyses of the general election any more persuasive than their now discredited analyses of how Wright was the end of Obama's chances for the nomination.

Might we ask them to at least sit down and re-think about before picking up the exact same refrains?

mice--

and rasmussen has him falling further. look at rasmussen's actual report on unfavorability changes for obama.

the wright thing is a permanent change in frame and context for obama. it now becomes part of most other stories about him.

roid--

the dems may find themselves in the unfortunate postion of being forced to nominate a very flawed and vulnerable candidate. that doesn't make it a good idea.

tel--

i agree with you that things are a little tedious around tnr. crowley generally has his eyes open, though, in a subversive kind of way.

say what you will against the NY Times--their newsroom is still awfully good (judy aside).

Those of you who are trying to read too much (read "anything") into the fluxuations in these polls need to take a step back.  This is a huge case of missing the forest for the trees. Certainly, the whole Rev Wright thing is going to pop up throughout this campaign, but like anything else, this issue has a shelf-life. The thing about YouTube society is that stuff can circulate around the world in minutes, but the flip side is, people get numb to it that much more quickly. The fac that this is blowing up in March means that, if the right tries to fan the flames with it in September, it will feel much more like old news. Plus, however much the right wants to tie Obama to Wright, the fact remains that they were Wright's comments, not Obamas. And people don't vote for or against a candidate based on what someone else said.

ALso,the reality is, poll people today about what they are going to to do in 8 month (with regard to anything) and the results are effectively meaningless. Obama's up, Obama's down, he's bleeding black support, Hillary's surging...good god. And it all means what???

We've got 8 months until people actually vote, and the dynamics of this will shift an untold number of times before then.

pc, et all

I think, if I were you, I might refrain from using the word "permanent change" to refer to anything having to do with opinion polls, especially those that occur "8 months" before an election. It just makes you look naive and foolish.

Any reputable pollster will acknowledge that fluxuations in polls at this point reflect little more than current media buzz. If Hillary or McCain have a bad media week or two, the numbers will turn right around. Guaranteed. I know it is hard for those on this blog to comprehend, but most americans (or at least swing voters - those not preternaturally disposed toward one party or the other) have given relatively little thought to what they'll have for breakfast tomorrow, let alone who they may vote for in 8 months.

so pccostello, I take it you will be endorsing and voting for McCain in November if he wins the nomination? and by the way, Charlie Rangel is a typical black in your book? A congressman whose ass is kissed daily? Do you actually know any black people in your life?

These same (white) adults want to MOVE BEYOND RACE. yeah, damn right, damn inconvenient for blacks to continue being black. good lord Tep, I expected far better from you. I worked in a printing company in New Jersey where not a single black person ever worked in the office but were all relegated to the plant, and I saw many qualified blacks apply for office jobs, but the owner didn't want them in his office. You can easily see this in small office after small office everywhere.

roidubouloi re your technical problems with the type size, have you tried what I suggested on another thread?

If you're using a Mac, hit the command (Apple or cloverleaf) key and the plus + key at the same time to make type bigger, the minus - key to make it smaller.

If you're using a Windows machine, the same trick works, but I think it's the "control" key you use with the + key.  I

If the Control key doesn't work, try the other ones, like Option, Windows, etc

The economy is entering a serious recession, Iraq will certainly not improve by November (at best it won't get any worse), the dollar is at an all time low, gas at an all time high, housing prices are plummeting. All due to the disastrous Presidency of George Bush, Republican. And in order to maintain the Republican base McCain has to run around saying that things ain't so bad that another tax cut won't fix.

yeah. right. great time to be a Republican running for President.

pccostello, you are so disingenuous it is hilarious. of course you know that now is the only time a Clinton or an Obama can be elected, you are desperate for Hillary that you will say anything, but it ain't going to happen (barring some major Obama catastrophe, which is as likely with any candidate).

McCain might, just might eek out a victory (the electoral college favoring Republicans and all), but the Democrats pretty much everywhere else will clean up.

i dont think pccostello realizes that after you shill for one candidate on every blog post, you dont seem credible when making any point, regardless of how intelligent it may seem or be.

You may be on to something, but your constant and often unfounded condemnation of Obama and praise of Hillary colors everything you write in the eyes of your readers.

I believe that trick doesn't work on IE, chan.  Although I could be wrong and, PC users ought to be using Firefox anyway....

I made fun of tep the other day for suggesting that TNR should redesign its blogs with a heavy dose of AJAX.  But to be honest, although the overall blog format is well established and works, TNR's particular implementation of it is, ummm, kinda sucky.  Considering that there are a million blogging engines out there that are much better, what's the excuse, guys?

Frankly, I like how the gawker blogs do their comments.  It's the best thing about gawker!  

PC- you're making a big set of assumptions about the permanent discourse. And there's also a little bit of poll-shopping going on.

"oh, the Gallup poll shows a permanent drop in Obama's support. Wait, he's back within the margin of error in Gallup? Well, there's a Rasmussen poll out there that shows him 'dropping'"

He's still ahead in Rasmussen- 45-44. It's down from yesterday, which was 46-43, but exactly where it was on tuesday. A drop of a point is hardly "falling." You're really interpreting small noise points in terms of rasmussen, which has basically had him up slightly since the early march.

In terms of favorability, Obama has lost exactly three points of favorabiility since the Wright thing happened, dropping from 51 to 48. His unfavorables have risen by 2-5, to 50 (depends on what you consider the starting point- it was as low as 45, but as high as 48 in early march- I suspect the nafta story hurt him slightly then. Clinton's favorables have gone down further and her unfavorables have risen higher than Obama's over the same period. She's at 43-55 now, vs. 47-51 a week ago.

Meanwhile, as I noted, gallup has things closing, and rasmussen has essentially no change. And in the latest state polls Obama wins Minnesota while HIllary loses it to McCain.

As I said, to the extent that the polls show anything, they show pretty minor fluctuation thus far. And if you want to read the favorability tea leaves, it looks worse for Clinton than for Obama.

rasmussenreports.com/.../overall_favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates

I believe Gallup itself says today that their current results show a sharp drop in oiverall support for Obama, even given the slight rebound. You have to read down through their analysis.

kim,

one has to be a bit singleminded to cut through the glare of the globamalights around tnr.

I hit a wall today - if Hillary was nominated tomorrow, I'd pop a good bottle of champagne and toast to her good luck and THANK GOD THIS WAS OVER.  In my mind, Obama and Hillary are tied - screw the numbers.  Psychology and hocus pocus play into this every it as much as numbers

Put me own as feeling opposite of Tep on the quality of TNR these days - from detailed, wonky sweet Noam to fiery Jonathon Chait, to droll Michelle Cottel - you all on it.  The coverage has been consistently engaging and often educational (like, in say, learning how angry I can get?).

The quality of the posters is sometimes like a grad school seminar, in the best possible way (sometimes like MAD magazine, sometimes MAD MAX).  I am grateful you all have let it all hang out over there in TNR land, no holds bared - real emotion adds, doesn't detract from your work, especially in this intense situation. Just to think of how often you feed us beasts tasty morsels all day and yet half of us still bite your head off.  You work your asses off, it seems - are you sleep deprived too?

PC. I call BS. Here's the gallup writeup. They merely say that the race has closed, which it has. perhaps you were thinking of the earlier polls?

www.gallup.com/.../Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

Again, you have a very selective reading of the polls. If I were you, I'd consult with a friend who is neutral in such matters.

It's one thing to refer to polls as being the be-all and end-all. It's another to make demonstrably false claims about them.

Mice--

I am afraid you are wrong. Gallup does not merely say the race has closed. They say the situation may have stabilized with an eight point swing to Clinton. Rasmussen finds a similar seven point swing to Clinton post-Wright, and also finds that Obama's speech had little effect. Are you reading down through their analyses or just taking the headline?

tHIS IS FROM GALLUP THIS AFTERNOON: >>>>>Obama has yet to recover fully from the apparent damage done by the Wright controversy. It was only one week ago that Obama led the race by a significant six-point margin over Clinton, 50% to 44%.<<<<<<< They show Clinton now ahead by two points, up from six points down. That is an eight point swing, post Wright.

AND THE FOLLOWING THREE PARAGRAPHS ARE FROM RASMUSSEN THIS MORNING:>>>>>>Nationally, Barack Obama now holds a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 45% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points. Today’s results are identical to those just before Obama’s Tuesday morning speech (see recent daily results).

Nationally, 51% of all Likely Voters said that speech was good or excellent. Just 21% said poor. However, 56% remain concerned about Obama’s relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

On Friday, Obama’s favorable ratings remain little changed from recent days—48% favorable, 50% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. The number with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Obama has increased from 26% a week ago to 33% today. <<<<<<<<<

If you go to the polls in Pennsylvania, where people are beginning to pay attention, the results are even stronger for Clinton post-Wright.

Hey chan, thanks for that tip.  It works.  This was completely unknown to me.  This is the first time I've been able to type something in this field and see what I'm typing (my eyesight not being quite what it used to be, not that it was ever great).

Anyways, thanks again.  Much appreciated.

The point PC is that even the Rasmussen changes are basically trivial in the short-term.  You cannot discount the polls that have been consistently favorable to Obama for a long time and then suddenly insist that a relatively minor poll change in direct response to a specific news event be taken as dispositive for the election, particularly since there is no longer any negative momentum in the polls.  It is just a misuse of polls to argue in this manner.

The latest FEC reports indicate that the Clinton campaign is in dire straights financially. TPM Election Central headlines a post "Hillary Campaign "In The Red" and then quotes:

-- After spending about $31 million in her efforts to keep up with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton finished February with more than $33 million in cash on hand, but $21.5 million of that is earmarked exclusively for the general election, leaving her with $11.7 million for the primary.

-- Mrs. Clinton, however, loaned her campaign $5 million earlier this year and she listed $8.7 million in debts to various vendors, making clear why she has not yet paid herself back from her loan.

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php

TPM Election Central estimate the Clinton campaign has about $3M in cash once debts have been included while the Obama campaign has $30M.  These campaigns are spending $1-3M a day.

If Clinton were any other candidate her campaign would be OVER. It is time for Clinton and her supporters to recognize her candidacy is finished and that she should withdraw from the race before she wrecks the Democratic party.

PC, this is very silly- where do you get "the situation may have stabilized with an eight point swing to Clinton" from "has yet to recover fully"???

You're taking your own analysis and attributing it to Gallup. The current situation in Gallup is better for Obama than it was on March 7.

Rasmussen has Clinton's favorabilities going down more sharply and her unfavorables going up more sharply over the same period. Care to make a theory as to why that would be? Is it that the voters hate her that much just for sharing the same party as Obama?

glad to hear it worked, roid.  Someone here thought it wouldn't work on Internet Explorer.  For the geek record, what browser are you using?

My memory from using hotel lobby PCs is that the technique does work on IE.

Oh, and roid, while I'm geeking, which command key was it that worked with +/- on the Windows machine?

Chan,

I'm strictly a Mac guy.  Windows makes me seasick.  The Apple and + keys worked just fine.

It works in Firefox.  Just checked Safari.  Works there too.

Another Trick to Enlarge the Font: Click on "View" in the top bar of your browser (I'm using Mozilla Firefox). In the drop-down menu click "Text Size" and then "Increase."

roid, you're a Mac guy!  See, you're a good dude after all.

Let's have a drink

Okay, what corner of the world do you live in?

We should have a talkbacker cruise.  That would be a laugh riot.  I can only imagine the general shock as everyone discovers that no one remotely resembles the images they had formed in their heads based on what is written here.

If not that, at least TNR could invite a selection of us to DC and treat us to dinner at that nice expensive restaurant that I was in only once (see "expensive") and can't recall the name of.  But the roast duck was out of this freakin' world.

Dang -- fell for the title again. IMO, electability is not correlated to polls in March -- I'd like to know why MC thinks that. And one week is too short a time period to gauge how the media, the public and the opposing camps (HRC and Repblicans) will view/use the Wright issue, and the associated negatives for Obama wrt. judgement, character and patriotism.

pc raises an interesting point -- that there are a lot of African Americans who have moved beyond racial politics of the 60's and even of the 80's. I often wonder about that -- because the evidence thus far in terms of how they vote (in monolithic blocks for Obama) has not indicated that.  The day I'll truly believe that is when race doesn't show up as one of the top discriminating dimensions in any clustering of voting patterns. I do think pc's right that the reaction to Obamas's speech has not been uniformly positive among African Americans -- but we'll know how lasting that effect is soon. Even a small but discernible shift of African Americans "for" Clinton might be a factor in terms of how the SuperDelegates view the race for nomination.

roid -- you are generally realistic about the data, and may be right in that Obama has the nomination (which as I've acknowledged before, would be disappointing to me -- but not surprising). However, note that this might also be just the first of Obama's dips. His associations with others such as Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis have not been fully cycled through the MSM - as are his relationships in Kenya -- which may provide fodder for several more news cycles. I know, I know -- that all sounds like conspiracy theories, and they may not amount to much but Axelrod is an advertising guy -- so he should know what brand damage strategies are built around.  Note especially how many times Obama used the word "judgement" this week -- scarcely. He has lost that weapon and has been neutralized on that front now. A couple more stories and he could well be fatally wounded.

I have been a long time TNR subscriber/reader, and in general love the level of discourse. The recent fascination that TNR contributors with Obama however has me a bit surprised -- because frankly I find his rhetoric empty. Clinton and Gore -- for example had far more substance in their speeches that I could reflect upon and learn from. The latter was endorsed by Martin Peretz in the TNR -- in a piece that I was quite impressed by.  There have been no similar pieces covering Obama in depth -- because he has been a somewhat empty vessel in which his supporters project whatever they want to see.

roid, I'm in L.A.

roid writes, re a Talkback Cruise, "..I can only imagine the general shock as everyone discovers that no one remotely resembles the images they had formed in their heads based on what is written here."

Yes, we see a collection of angels and monsters.

Okay, we can meet in KS

Obama's Wright problem is basically not about race.  It's about Obama's close  long-term identification with a public figure (at least in Chicago) who can reasonably be characterized as blatently unpatriotic.

Now there is no responsibility for any private citizen, or religious leader or other spokesman, to be patriotic.  So long as you obey the law, you are free to think and say what you want.

However, Obama is running for President, Commander in Chief, Leader of the entire nation, Number One spokesman for the United States.  He must be patriotic -- it is a basic requirement for the job.

Despite his claims to the contrary, I am sure that many, including I am sure many blacks, are doubtful about Obama's eleventh hour distancing himself from Wright and Wright's philosophical positions.  It is something he should have addressed a year or more ago.