Perfect. It would be hard to find a more apt visual metaphor for the TNR Obamaphiles' abandonment of detached skepticism and critical judgment.

Maybe you guys will get lots of new subscribers with the goo-goo ga-ga approach (perhaps you could do some targeted mailings to Wrightville, IL?), but I suspect an even larger number of old-time subs will find it irritating and boring.

I liked TNR better when it was treating politicians as politicians, not boyband heartthrobs.

Love Michael Crowley's bottom Obama shirt with the image of the  Black Panther fist. The Black Panther party did endorse Obama and his campaign first accepted than rejected that endorsement.

I liked TNR better before the redesign.

I liked TNR better before the redesign.

Looks like a Ben Shahn fist to me.

The bottom photograph is a good indication of how Obama's retro version of identiy politics has re-immersed us in the tensions and stereotypes of the 1960s and 1970s. Obama's position is retro-racial, not post-racial.

Contrast Obama's speech and remarks with what Charlie Rangel recently said, speaking with full 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 fresher and much more contemporary version of racial relationships than Wright and Obama's regression to 1970. It actually is post-racial, unlike Wright and Obama.

This may be why the Franklin and Marshall poll in Pennsylvania shows Clinton getting an unprecedented 27% support from African-Americans in the wake of Wright. Black and non-black Americans have no desire to go back to the 1960s for their views of race. But that is where Obama and Wright are threatening to take us.

BTW, as I have posted elsewhere, Rasmussen's Saturday tracking poll now shows a further shift of 3 percentage points toward Clinton. She is now ahead of Obama in Rasmussen's poll by 46% to 44%. Yesterday, Obama was ahead by 1 point. A few days ago, he was ahead by 5 points. A week ago, he was ahead by 8 points.

That is a gradual ten point shift toward Clinton in a week, and it seems to be continuing.

Obama's retro version of identity politics? Say what?  

You are delusional pc, really.  You keep stroking Wright and Obama as if that is going to make it so.  But do keep your eye on the actual elections.  So far, every single one of your prognostications about the course of the campaign has been wrong.  Keep up the good work.

Eat a helping of this, pc,

Perceived Honesty Gap for Clinton Versus Obama, McCain

McCain most likely to be viewed as a strong leader

by Jeffrey M. Jones

Page:12

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).

That is to say, a majority of Americans think Hillary is a liar.

"Contrast Obama's speech and remarks with what Charlie Rangel recently said, speaking with full irony: "I'm angry. I keep looking for all these white people who are insulting me and I can't find them." "

I like the quote, do you have a source or a link?

Take your claim that 27% of blacks now support Hillary and throw it in the trash pc.

Obama Seeks to Bridge Racial Divide Among Democrats

Fifty-three percent of Non-Hispanic whites support Clinton, while 38% prefer Obama

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's major speech on race in Philadelphia Tuesday is a reminder of the continuing, and highly charged, impact of race in American society and in this presidential campaign.

There is a large racial divide in the Democratic presidential campaign at this point. In Gallup Poll Daily election tracking, race is the single issue that divides the Democratic electorate more than any other. In an aggregate of 6,721 interviews Gallup has conducted between March 1 and March 16, 80% of black Democrats support Obama while only 15% support Hillary Clinton.

jackson--

i'll look for a link--I may have saved it in onenote.

roid--

i am just telling your what the polls say. Wright is a slow poison in the body of obama's campaign.

Tep- come on.  That is what it is supposed to be- a cute diversion.  Sometimes we can have a little fun.  Frankly, a big-eyed chubby baby with a broad grin and a black power shirt is delightful.  

And jack, Charlie Rangel is a stooge.   You think racism has gone away in America, hm?  Yeah, no blacks have any right to be angry about anything.  Pcc, that is what Obama said- that things have changed, but resentments linger.   You desire of post-racialism is to ignore things.  That isn't post-racial- Obama's call was to look at the problems we have and deal with them, to understand why blacks are resentful and why some whites are resentful.   It is the opposite of what you described.

Anyway- this is all fun, but I have to say fare the well for bit.  Going to the ancestral homeland for a week, where I will ignore anything having to do with the US election.   I will raise a pint for all of you.  

pccostello  to roid-- "i am just telling your what the polls say. Wright is a slow poison in the body of obama's campaign."

Forget it, he can't hear you. Like most posters here he has suspended judgement when it comes to Obama.

Um, pc---Gallup just put Obama three points ahead of Hillary.  Sorry to ruin your day.

Not sure about that bottom photo myself, though . . . could we have some Knights of Columbus for Obama T-Shirts, please?  Or maybe Baptists for Obama?  (They could call themselves Obaptists!)

Jeez, PC- you're telling us what SOME of the polls say. Gallup has Obama back up by three. (Remember, they were the ones who were being used by you a couple of days ago as indicative of a fundamental shift against Obama).

Indeed, taking your logic wrt Rasmussen, and applying it to Gallup, we have gone from a 49-42 clinton lead at the height of the Wright thing to a 48-45 Obama lead. That a switch from a 7 point Cilnton lead to a 3 point Obama lead- a drop of 10 points for Clinton and a "shift toward Obama by ten points in less than a week"

*I'M* not making that claim. But then, I am not trying to make very small variations in polls fit a broader theme, while ignoring countervailing evidence.

You claimed that Gallup was a problem. Now it's not, so you focus on Rasmussen. If tomorrow rasmussen has Obama and CLinton tied and gallup has obama's lead shrink from 3 to 2, you'll be talking about a terrific drop-off in Obama's support.

I like you and enjoy conversing with you. But as I said earlier, your selectivity wrt polls is silly, bordering on Baghdad Bob territory.

Cute kids. I like the black power baby top.

roid --

Why do you bother even addressing pc?  He's just baiting all of us Obama supporters.  We should all ignore him.  

Hey all you Hillary lovers!  Try doing something positive for a change like telling us why you love her so much rather than trying to tear Obama down.  You would think he is some kinda monster to hear the way you people talk about him.  What has he done to get you all so hot and bothered?  Dare to make people think he can make a difference as President?  God knows it can't be his policies since he and Hillary are almost carbon copies when it comes to those.  

She has a fun, deep-throated chortle that reminds me of Dolores Claiborne. I like that about her. I don't know how I feel about Dolores in the White House though. She was a bit tough on Joe.

Woland, I believe (could be wrong, but I am pretty sure) that PC is a she.

Woland,

Thanks for writing so many fine posts here.

If I think about it, it's hard to think of a good reason why I read or write anything at all here.  This is not the most productive thing in the world to be doing, although it is entertaining.  For that reason, I don't know that I should exclude responding to PC any more than anyone else.

It happens that using statistical tools to measure and then predict things is the way I make my living.  My firm has been doing this successfully for 14 years with never a down year.  I also have had a big hand in running local political campaigns for the Democratic party. I've written polls of different types and used them, successfully, to help make decisions about nominees and campaign strategy.

I read PC making a hash out of opinion polls and even out of election results,  trying to claim they prove things they don't prove or evidence things they don't evidence (e.g., using primary results to make claims about  the outcome of the general -- although some of the TNR staff make the same error and Hillary tries to spin things this way for lack of any better claim).  I get annoyed.  Perhaps I am wrongly assuming that some readers may be confused about this and it seems like a chance to educate a little about something I know a lot about  On the other hand, maybe these errors are apparent to everyone and I am underestimating the general level of sophistication about polls.

Dunno.  But, it's a way to pass the time.  

Roid: Hillary's negatives are real.  So is the fact that Obama hasn't been able to win a large state.  It's a disheartening situation for progresives -- or should be.  

Woland: Here are some reasons why someone is perfectly justified in voting for Hillary Clinton:

1)  There has been one time in my middle aged life when there was true peace and prosperity.  There was one time in my adult life when we had a budget surplus.  There was one time in my life when the economic gap between blacks and whites narrowed.  Much of this was due to the 1993 budget, which took a titantic effort to pass and which Hillary Clinton played a large roll -- read Woodward's book, it wouldn't have passed without her.  And Hillary Clinton got to see an overall sucessful presidency for 8 years up close and as a high level advisor a la Bobby Kennedy, not just a "first lady."  Few have such a mix of executive and legislative experience.

2)  Krugman is absolutely right: you cannot do health care without mandates.

3)  Bill Clinton.  Yes, I'd like to have him as a "world ambassador" or somesuch, and comparisons here are necessary -- the Obama foreign policy braintrust makes me uneasy.

4)  Iraq.  I don't know about you, but I think people should be far more conflicted about that 2003 decision, especially given Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. and Saddam's behavior at the time, what kind of person would be *so* sure that they wouldn't have been risk adverse at the time.  If it's a choice between "conflicted but wrong" versus "no way in heck would I have voted for that"  a good case can be made for the former.

I'm not saying Obama supporters can't disagree with the above, but it's perfectly plausible for someone to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her merits and not because they are racists or otherwise voting "against Obama."

bone, ancestral homeland? what, the Southside of Chicago?

I like the pictures too, good lord can't anyone mention(besides iggy)  how cute those kids are? The top picture is a dead ringer of my nephew. My own kids being half chinese are kind of sui generis so I am more accustomed to seeing resemblences of others with my brothers and sisters kids.

lymon, of course you can do health care without mandates. wisconsin is thinking of having a payroll tax to fund health care. And as I have said before, Japan has UHC without mandates (outside of everybodies mandate to pay taxes)

I love the bib, Black power bitches! :-)

pccostello

Of course political neophytes like yourself fail to grasp the daily opinion me nothing in this election, or any other for that matter.  It's just the way to get the natives like yourself worked up, and the Clinton supporters clinging to false hope.

Obama is back up in the Gallup poll by the way, not that it means anything other than an indicator that Obama's momentum cannot be stopped, and that he is America's irrepressible choice. Not even CNN and Lou Dobbs, that filthy corporate pander, can stop the Obama train.  :-)  www.gallup.com/.../Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

There is a going to be some magical shift towards Clinton and the dead philosophy she espouses, her time is over, and the sooner she gets out of the way, the better it will be for the Democratic Party and America.  So if I were you I would start making peace with that reality, or perhaps think about becoming a John McCain supporter, a laughable option, one that I and all right-thinking Americans who believe in democracy would only consider if the Democrats decided to try and go against the will of the people. But that's not going to happen.  So I suggest it's time for all Clinton supporters to ABANDON ALL HOPE, and face the fact that she never gave this country any real hope with her campaign, and that is why she failed.

The forces of old, and I'm not talking about old folks in America, at least not the ones who stay young at heart, but the forces of OLD and the arcane edifices of the past, which have failed this nation so dreadfully, are finally coming to an end, rejoice therefore.  Sure they're going to make it an ugly fight, but their demise is written into their genetic code and in the stars with the inevitable march of Time.  To you stubborn Clinton supporters I say lay down your burdens, and let the young folks with fresh vision take a crack at this democracy thing, they sure can't screw it up any worse than you and the Clintons have.

lymon,

Illinois is a large state, but, by Hillary accounting, it doesn't count.  The spread in Texas was miniscule, with Hillary barely hanging on to win.  In any case, it is quite irrelevant whether Obama can win a large state against Hillary.  He will certainly carry CA and NY although he didn't win those Democratic primaries.  Hillary would not carry TX or FL against McCain even though she did win those primaries.

This is so obvious that one wonders why it needs to be said -- oh, the reason is that the Hillary spinners want to pretend that she is winning by losing.

While it is true that Hillary won some victories, Obama won more in more regions of the country.  He has won more delegates.  He has won more popular votes.  When the primary season is over he will still have won more of both.

The very notion that the best candidate is the one who cannot run an effective campaign and is losing is preposterous.  And nothing in any poll can possibly be interpreted to the contrary.

There.  Does that cover it?

pccostello, chanrobt, et alia,

I want lots of praise and strokes for correctly predicting that the Hillary gain over Obama as a result of the Wright affair would be short-lived.  What is unfortunate is that it seems to have hurt both Democrats vis a vis McCain, at least in the short run.  

For the HIllary supporters:  Is this what you want?  For Hillary to keep trying to damage Obama in her hopeless efforts to win the nomination?  She is not only going to keep fading in the polls, she is about broke.  How much longer?

no party pooper here, I just miss the old we-piss-anywhere TNR.

Marty's standard retort to people upset with his refusal to toe a particular line used to be, "TNR's not a chruch bulletin. You want a church bulletin, there are plenty of those around-- Nation, National Review etc."

TNR is becoming a church bulletin. It's a nice church, and the anointed one's a good guy, smart and all that, but it's a church nonetheless. Agnostics like me view that as a loss.

The Black Power fist is identical to the ones shown by the Mexico 1968 athletes in the GOP slimers' video. You guys don't really want to perpetuate the Obama-retro Black Power meme, do you? No matter how cute the toddlers are.

"I liked TNR better when it was treating politicians as politicians, not boyband heartthrobs."

I agree, tep. It seems impossible to believe that last year -- last year! -- The Plank posted a photoshopped Tiger Beat cover with BHO on the cover. Going from that to what TNR is now -- the Obama Love Mag -- is rather dishartening to contemplate.

roid --  re>> In any case, it is quite irrelevant whether Obama can win a large state against Hillary.  He will certainly carry CA and NY although he didn't win those Democratic primaries.  Hillary would not carry TX or FL against McCain even though she did win those primaries. This is so obvious that one wonders why it needs to be said -- oh, the reason is that the Hillary spinners want to pretend that she is winning by losing.<<

Now who is cherry-picking?  You utterly miss the point, which isn't that Hillary is the stronger general election candidate (I disagree with some of your analysis and think they have completely different dynamics, but a case can be made for either), but that Obama looks weak in the general.  Not because he didn't win EVERY large state but because he couldn't win ANY.  Good luck winning the general election without Ohio and Pennsylvania if you can't win Florida -- just ask Al Gore about that one.  

blackton -- well, Japan has single-payer a la Canada -- I'm happy with that on the table but I don't think most of America is.  Also, I think you need more economic egalitarianism than we have in the US for single payer to work.  

roid--

try not to be an idiot. there is no evidence that the damage from wright is short-lived. so far, it clearly has legs and has damaged obama to the tune of 6-8 points. but the full effect won't be knowable for weeks in the primaries and for months in the general. the early signs are that there has been a shift in preferences that has returned a bit toward obama but has certainly not gone back where it was.

more critically, there is now a different narrative about obama. the effect of that is going to play out continuously from here on in.

lymon and pccostello,

Try doing a little arithmetic.  Read the US News analysis of the Electoral College vote.  You don't have to agree with it, but try and educate yourselves just a little bit.  A majority of the Electoral College is a majority, no matter which states make up the majority.  In the abstract, it is perfectly true that winning big states makes the job of winning a majority much easier.  But, ultimately, it is the aggregate that matters.  The fact is that small states have more Electoral College votes in proportion to their numbers than big states.  A large number of small states is therefore actually MORE valuable, not less, then a collection of big states with the same population.

If you read the US News article, you will see that Obama has a distinct edge in the Electoral College.  Further, your thesis that primary victories or losses are relevant to, or predictive of, victories or losses in those states in the general is demonstrably wrong.

The Dems start with CA and NY, the 1st and 3rd largest states.  The Repugs start with TX and FL, the 2nd and 4th.  Advantage, Dems, be it Hillary or Obama.  After that, you have to look state by state.  It is McCain who MUST win Ohio to have a chance.  The converse of that is not that Obama or Hillary must win Ohio but that winning Ohio would pretty much assure victory.

You have to work on your understanding or polls, arithmetic, and formal logic.

Yes, pc, the effects of things that have happened six weeks from now is unknowable.  That is not a license to argue that such evidence as has emerged means the opposite of what it clearly means.  You cannot look at numbers that show Obama recovering the ground he lost against Hillary and claim that shows a secular decline against Hillary that is destined to continue.

Both Democrats have declined against McCain during the time of the Wright flap.  This suggests that race-baiting by Hillary has been a self-defeating strategy, for herself and for the Democratic party.  When you legitimize that sort of behavior by doing it yourself, you amplify its impact.  Shame on Hillary.

Roid: re: "Shame on Hillary"

From Dave Eggers Op-Ed in the NY Times:

"During a speech in November, Hillary Rodham Clinton said of Darfur 'Every day we fail to act is a betrayal of our common values."  In a YouTube video last year, Barack Obama said "we can't say 'never again,' and thenn allow it to happen again."  In a similar video, John McCain said the United States "has the obligation to lead, to act."

Since then, the campaigns have been quiet on the subject of the 21st century's first genocide."

From God's point of view, the distinctions in shame won't be all that great.  Oh, forgot, we can't talk issues on TNR, so back to politics:

As for your U.S. News (the most Iraq war hawkish of the 3 newsweeklies, as I recall - Hi Mort!), nice of you to provide a link.  I don't subscribe and don't see it by googling -- there's a pre-Wright SurveyUSA poll with Obama slightly ahead, but it gives Obama Ohio (and Nevada and Colorado and Michigan and North Dakota and Virginia).  Again, the hubris that you can't dare to point out that it's not a good thing when your nominee can't win manage to win a large state in the primaries, without being mocked by the uber-partisans.  I have no doubt that should Obama lose in November, the same people will blame Hillary Clinton rather than the campaign their candidate waged in the general election.  

This US News article

www.usnews.com/.../two-campaign-maps-emerge.html

was linked in one of the blogs (not the comments but the blog itself) and was the basis of one of the discussions of the Obama/Clinton splits in the Electoral College.  When I first commented on it, I mentioned that US News is not exactly friendly to either Clinton or Obama.

You can point out that Obama hasn't won a "large state" against Hillary, excluding Illinois of course, not that there are so many large states and TX was pretty close.  But that doesn't make it relevant to the general.  If you want to draw ridiculous conclusions from a set of facts, you will be subject to ridicule.

The careful state-by-state analysis of the Electoral College vote, based on state-by-state polls, shows Obama to be much stronger the Hillary -- and both by the way would be expected to win CA and NY.  

It's not a good thing when your primary candidate cannot win more popular votes, delegates, or states than her opponent.  Yet it seems to drive Hillaristas insane when it is suggested that those are all good reasons why nominating Hillary (1) would more likely result in a loss in the general or (2) be widely perceived as a usurpation by party insiders or (3) is never going to happen.

Noticed how you avoided the genocide point completely -- Happy Easter Roid.

How many times do I have to say I don't argue that Hillary is the stronger general candidate (I'm undecided on that), but that Obama is showing real weakness?  Probably just once and you purposefully ignore the point.  Unless you can show me a candidate of either party that failed to win the primary in one of the large states other than his home state and went on to win the Presidency, because I'm unaware of one.  

Well, lymon, I quite fail to understand the distinction between arguing that Hillary is stronger and Obama is weaker.  But suit yourself.

I have no response to your point about Darfur.  Seems as though it is nothing more than an attempt to distract.  But tell us, if this is an issue about which Hillary has genuine concern, rather than another example of Clinton hypocrisy and opportunism, what has Hillary been doing on behalf of Darfur?  This humanitarian crisis has been going on for much of her tenure in the Senate, yet I do not recall her being in the vanguard.

I don't know if anyone is still reading, but I thought I should respond briefly to some of the comments here.

TNR is not becoming an Obama love rag.  It has become--and was for quite awhile before the Obama phenomenon--a Hillary . . . well, not Hillary hate, but Hillary disliike rag.  Are we forgetting the long love affair of this magazine with Al Gore?  Obama love here is just a case of transference.

Obama was not my first choice.  But I was ALWAYS against Hillary---and I suspect that is the case with several of the writers here at TNR, as well as a number of the posters on these blogs.

I'm with timteeter.  I wanted Biden, when that became hopeless, Edwards, when that became hopeless Obama.  I cannot abide Hillary Clinton, and that has nothing at all to do with Obama any more than her persistently high negatives do.  Before Iowa, I was just in a state of depression assuming that Hillary would be nominated and lose to Romney, McCain, or Giuliani, in that order, and barely able to be any happier at the prospect that she might win.

When I woke up after the Iowa caucuses, I experienced a completely unanticipated sense of elation that there might actually be hope, a way out of the morass we are in.  The more I started to pay attention to Obama, that happier and more optimistic I became.  When he reeled off his string of 13 victories (including Democrats Abroad),  .   .  .  well, now I cannot wait for the moment when I do not have to hear any more from or about Hillary Clinton.