Well for sure, he shouldn't have come out and said"typical white person" because he just seperated blacks and whites with that one statement.  Words do matter!

Yeah, real frikkin' easy for you to command us to be "calm." Each and every day this goes on is a day that our dollars are spent tearing our own party apart, while McCain utters stupid shit and gets a free pass on it.

You command calm because patience is the only way your preferred candidate can possibly win the nomination. You would like us to watch for six more months while you proclaim as loudly as you can that Obama cannot possibly win the general election. What a little dance you'll do when your prophesy fulfills itself.

Here is where you are most wrong: it is not "very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count." Clinton cannot possibly find an intellectually defensible claim to either of those. Impossible is the opposite of very likely.

The civil war in this party will not be at the convention. If it comes, it will be after the general election, when your faction will say "I told you so" while the rest of the party blames you for condemning us to four more years of Republican insanity.

What sweet irony it will be that you worked so hard to wrest the party away from Clinton's DLC only to help her destroy it anyway.

Very impressive commentary here, Jerome. Nice to see one of the reasons why I'm glad I'm spending a lot of time here recently! Keep it goin'!

Unless Clinton somehow has more pledged delegates at the end of this process, if she gets the nomination  a lot of people ARE going to sit it out, and Clinton IS going to lose. That's just a fact.

Stay calm, Jerome at al.

<<By the end of the primary calendar, its very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count, and the super-delegates will eventually decide their votes. I don't expect that the nomination will be concluded until August.>>

Yeah, right.

You right about the next vote. I think if Hillary can run up the score in PA, it's really bad for Barack.

Anything 10 pts and under, and he's weathered the storm, and will probably get the nom.

15 pts, and he's in deep trouble. A brokered convention is very likely.

20+ and he may get pushed out.

I know. I know. The math is the math. It's over. Hillary and the deadenders arte flailing about.

But he has historical factors against him. A 20 pt loss means he has effectively lost white voters. It means a big loss in Indiana and NC coming up. It means certain doom in the GE. Remember, as the first "Viable" African-American candidate he has more than his own ambitions on the line.

I think it's wishful postmodernist thinking to pretend that there is no such thing as race. If anything that is a Republican argument used to desperately deny that the playing field remains non-level.

The truth is that race is a genuine concept and has always been in human history. Race is not "bad". Its just a source of variation within the human race, like height or musical ability or intelligence or strength. Its not purely genetic, either - race is also enmeshed at its boundaries with culture, and with language.

Before we can ever get to that state where race exists, but doesn't matter, we need to confront the fact that it exists. And be honest about what our attitudes are - and yes, all of us, white, black, asian, latino, etc DO have "typical" attitudes about everybody else. We need to confront them, be honest about them, and thus recognize them for the barriers they are rather than wish them away.

Obama does not, despite the stereotype, speak of or promise to transcend race. He promises to approach it realistically instead of in the pseudo cryptic way we all dance around in in politics. That is what made his speech on race so unique.

His goal was to explain his embrace of Wright, not repudiate it, because the latter would be buying into the cynical racial politics that have still not done a thing to heal us as a nation since the trauma of Jim Crow. If that means that everyone who is not ready to move forward with actual progress on race relations, instead preferring the cryptoracial dance that serves as status quo, becomes entrenched in opposition to Obama, then that is actually fine. And if Obama cant win without the support of the racial status quo, also fine. That means that we arent ready for change. But we will be.

That article made me laugh out loud when I read it. Yes, what better way to confront of the continuing racism of our society but to pretend it doesn't exist? "We're all humans!" What a bold cry for reason.

It's sanitized Nicktoons logic that is easy to swallow because it's all wrapped in a sweet pill of bullshit.

Obama totally blew it by confronting the issue of racism, from all sides, head on. He should have blandly coasted by on a meaningless platitude sure to offend no one. God forbid a politician dare to eloquent challange us to think!

I think Michael Meyers blew it, actually, because he wasn't listening to Obama carefully enough. The sad fact is we Americans do have misguided perceptions of race, and that's exactly what Obama was talking about. Those perceptions contribute to certain realities. Like segregated, rotting schools. (What neighborhood do you live in, Jerome? :-))

Obama is not George W. Bush, and indeed he is an unconventional politician. As we've learned from George W. Bush, it's a fundamental truth that you cannot hope to fix a problem, especially a big one, unless you first admit its existence and define it. We haven't had a politician do that when it comes to racism in... well, forever maybe. Obama took a bold step here.

As you hint Jerome, I think it's way too soon to judge how Americans react. It's March, not November, as Mike Huckabee (!) pointed out. We'll see how mature most Americans are. Are they interested in listening to a candidate who challenges their preconceptions? Who occasionally makes them think? We'll see.

Obama is still in a dominating position for winning the nomination. (See: Bill Richardson's endorsement today as yet one more data point.) The fundamentals of this race haven't changed since at least Super Tuesday. I had no doubt the right-wing noise machine would attempt a "Southern strategy" this cycle. It's good news for Obama that it's March during a 6-week lull in the primary calendar, especially prior to a state he was never expected to win.

Recall that Bill Clinton faced a political catastrophe ten times worse than Obama faced, the accusation and his (grudging, between-the-lines) admission that he committed adultery. He got the wind knocked out of him, but obviously he survived, won the nomination, and won the presidency. No analogies are perfect, but I think this one is closer to the mark than most.

I think that before we simply accept the word of a black "expert" on race relation was look at some of his recent positions on various issues.  He seems to get a lot of ink and air time based on his contrarian views. 

For example see the Washington Post column Let the Idiocy Be Heard where he defends Don Imus and other racist shock jocks.

And see this discussion of his views on how recent rash of nooses is "no big deal" and could just be practical jokes since "We don't know why people are doing this"

And take a look at this commentary from Media Maters Michael Meyers denied that Clinton appointed minorities to "real jobs" about an appearance by Meyers on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes where he

suggested that former President Bill Clinton failed to appoint African-Americans to "real jobs" in his administration, asserting that Clinton's appointments of minorities were merely "window dressing" compared with the prominent minority appointments by President Bush.

I think we need take Meyers' views on this a grain of salt given his propensity to present contrarian views on things.

I'm a biochemist - I know exactly how false racial distinctions are from a biological perspective.  Race, though, is mostly a social construct.  And as such it can't simply be wished into history as Jerome seems to want.

Ideas don't simply disappear in the face of scientific evidence.  You need to engage those ideas directly.  

Obama's speech was a courageous and eloquent engagement of those ideas.  As much as HRC's partisans rail against the emptiness of words - words are all we have to tie us together as humans.  

you're really, really reaching.

The polls you point to are contradicted by other polls that say the exact opposite.

Your pronouncements are entirely colored by your agenda, as are the pronouncements of your polar opposites.

The thing that really blows me away is that the vitriol and slime spewing across my screen is written by the same person who wrote about the "consultocracy" in a book called "Crashing the Gates" - a paean to the power of the Netroots and the grassroots and a slam against the entrenched grasp of the corporate power brokers...

What do Penn and Wolfson and Davis and McCaulliffe look like from the other side of the mirror?

Jerome, I understand your passion for Hillary and I've never doubted it was sincere, but I've never understood the anger that is constantly flowing from your posts.  Every diary you post seems to be another anti-Obama diatribe and it always seems to take the most slanted view of the subject to try and attack him.

Where does this anger come from?  Are you upset b/c a person you view as unqualified is beating someone you view as qualified?  Or is something else?

I've been upset w/ Hillary during this campaign, but I respect her.  I get the feeling you don't respect Obama and his legitimacy in challenging Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

Perhaps, I'm foolish in challenging you (a person who has established a successful blog and represented progressive politics at the Take Back America Conference).  It may be dumb for me (a person with a UID from 2007 or perhaps a little earlier) to question you.  But this isn't the MYDD that I remember when I first joined.  MYDD was a great complement to DailyKos, b/c where I thought Kos was more cultural and movement-oriented, MYDD was always a place for politics.  MYDD was my source for progressive political news.  Now, I only see from you invective (whereas I still enjoy Todd Beeton's and others on this blog).

Please do not misinterpret this as chiding you, but more as an effort to enlighten you as to this one blogger's opinion.  An opinion in which I do not think I am alone.

This is the polling stat that floors me:

On Thursday, Barack Obama's favorable ratings are unchanged for the third straight day--48% favorable, 49% unfavorable. McCain is viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

Maybe Rasmussen is some sort of outlier, but how could Clinton have 6 points worst in the unfavorable opinion when its Obama in the midst of a scandal.  That's the whole problem with the vetted argument.  At Obama's worst, he still seems to be viewed more favorably than Clinton.  

I knew the speech wouldn't work before he gave it. I knew it wouldn't work whatever its content may be. Broadly speaking, people didn't listen to it, I didn't listen to if, does that shock you?

And why should I listen to a speech, speeches are ALLWAY good, ALLWAYs, they are put together by teams of writer, focus groups and pollster to produce the desired effect on the electorate. Obama speech, from what I heard contained all the ingredients to be the least objectionable to the widest public possible.

In short, speech are like TV ads, only they last much longer, so you won't reach a larger public with it, and frankly nor should you.

Now, if he had given a 30 min unscripted one -on-one interview, then that would have been different. I would have LOVED to get his natural response on some pertinent questions:
When did you hear about the "America got what it desearved on 911" comment?
What drove you to him?
Why did you stay, was it out of loyalty?
Etc...

The pundits acclaimed many speeches of president Bush, they thought that Mitt Romney's speech was the greatest, I rest my case

This is a really, really bizarre position to take.  We are post-racial but the strongest argument for Hillary Clinton is that part of the base - Hispanics and white working class voters - won't follow Obama into the General Election.  

"its very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count"

Or put that Pipe down. You must be high if you think Hillary can catch Obama in either Pop Vote or Pledged Delegates.

MI & FL are getting what they asked for, regardless if Hillary cries again.

But the bile you're now spilling truly shocks me.

Why so bitter?

Is it self-hatred over the fact that your site now has more links to wingnuts (hell, your using one yourself as a citation certainly seems to indicate it's OK), more encapsulations of FoxNews, and other supposedly progressive/Democratic site on the planet?

I used to say I stuck around because I thought sure this site would return its once great state - regardless of whom we all support or who wins the nomination.  

Neither the winner of the Democratic primary nor the winner of the General Election will bring the apolocypse or nirvana.

It's become entirely apparent that you think it will.

I wish you well in whatever endeavor you pursue - you seem utterly uninterested in anything you once wrote or blogged about.

It has nothing to do with your support of Hillary Clinton.  There are many Clinton supporters here that I hold in the highest regard, whom I look forward in joining in not only electing a Democratic President, but larger Democratic majorities.  It's sad that you seem hellbent on not being one of them.

I was married to an African-American woman for a long time.  I have been a criminal defense attorney for a long time too.

I am painfully aware of racial attitudes.  We as a society do not ask John McCain to defend every utterance from baptist ministers or even to ask him to explain how his spiritual mentor John Hagee believes that Hurricane katrina hit 4 states as revenge against New Orleans foir being sinful or to stop a homosexual parade in one town  (I always thought that being all powerful would make God have perfect aim)

We as a society have accepted and embraced profiling every dark skinned person going through an airport since 9/11/2001.  Did we support profilng middle aged white males after the Oklahoma City bombings?  No....that would be ridiculous

Its time to wake up.  If the Pope said what John Wright said no one would ask me to defend it.  I don't ask people who attend the church led by Pat Robertson to repudiate all the garbage that man speaks.  

We as a society accept forcing African-American to explain every action, every word and every utterance any person of color does that angers us, upsets us or confuses us.  Why? I was never ask to explain the racial comment about Obama that was said by Governor Rendell (and I worked on his first mayoral campaign).  

The presumption is that Ed Rendell is a person free to speak his mind and if you want answers, ask the source.  That same presumption is not given to persons of color.

Michael Meyers denied that Clinton appointed minorities to "real jobs".

Per Media Matters

How shocking, he did so with Sean Hannity...

    SEAN HANNITY (co-host): [I]t's the Republican Party that is reaching out, putting African-Americans in positions of power that they've never seen in history.

   MEYERS: Into real jobs.

   HANNITY: Real positions of power.

   COLMES: Wasn't a real job, secretary of labor? That was a real job?

   MEYERS: I'll tell you what a real job is: the attorney general of the United States is a real job.

   HANNITY: Secretary of state.

   MEYERS: Secretary of state is a real job. Secretary of commerce is a real job. Secretary of transportation is a real job. Counsel to the president of the United States is a real job.

   [...]

   COLMES: Ron Brown was already head of the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. Ron Brown is black. When Clinton was president, he was also commerce secretary. To suggest that Democrats do not recognize black Americans --

   MEYERS: You've got one black. You just mentioned one black in two positions.

   COLMES: Also, when Bill Clinton was president, jobs for blacks went up. Highest employment ever for blacks.

   MEYERS: Blacks are good for symbolism. And I'm not saying the Democrats -- Democrats are not good for window dressing. Window dressing jobs and one-time, first-time blacks, yes. But look at President Bush's record. Look at President Bush's record --

   COLMES: That's particularly inaccurate, inaccurate based on what Clinton did in terms of number of blacks he put in office.

Race still does matter in 2008, but it doesn't have to define us going forward.  That's what I took away from Obama's speech, and I think it's dead on.  I respect your opinion Jerome, but I think you're just wrong in saying that Obama should have essentially said that race doesn't matter and that we've more or less addressed our racial divisions.  In truth, we've just stopped talking about them in "polite company."  

obama is a loser and tends to think that people do have different skin colors and thinks that americans tend to notice that.

It is so sad that people on this site are attacking the speech that Barack gave on Tuesday.

If Barack loses because of that speech and what his minister said, well that is a very sad statement about our country.  Call me naive, but I do think most Americans are better than that.

As an Obama supporter/Democrat/decent human being, these poll results are not very comforting.  

That said, the fact that a majority of Americans say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright doesn't ultimately tell us much about his chances in the general, simply because it doesn't tell us how MUCH the scandal hurt him - just that it does.  So, the fact that Hilary voted for the war makes me less likely to support her candidacy, but I would still choose her over McCain in a heart beat.  This could be more of a deal breaker than that.  Or it could be less of one.  We just don't know.

Obama should have told us there's no such thing as race?

That's where all hope to go, but it's not where we are now and it's not out of bounds to point that out.  

Well, I guess our national discussion of race has truly begun.

Interesting conversation. Many points I agree with partially. It's a painful topic, for all of us, white, black, and brown. I applaud Obama for his speech. There were things in it I didn't like, and much of that was the subtext of contrasting statements of Wright with those of white women like Ferraro and his grandmother. There's a gender issue here, as well.

Like Jerome, I wish he had been clearer in his repudiation of Wright's statements, and more unifying in his embrace of us all as part of the human race.

Not because I don't agree with many of the comments here. Race is very real, though a social construct, not only in America, but throughout the world where it surfaces in different permutations (try India's caste system for example). However, in the context of a presidential contest (especially the GE), a more unifying message is what many of us thirst for. I would also like to see more graciousness from Obama toward the Clintons.

That said, it looks to me as if Obama will take the nomination. It's hard to see how Clinton (my candidate) puts together a win, unless Obama really tanks in the upcoming primaries.

I hope he can find a way to use this controversy, learn from it politically, to pull in those people who are not as used to hearing the more nuanced statements on race and are very fearful of black anger. We, as a nation, need to find a way out of this terrible shame that has stained our history.

If the nomination is not going to be decided until mid-August, I suspect that it will be hollow victory for whoever gets it because they'll have no chance in November.

Jerome, you are so full of beans, its pathetic

Good analysis Jerome. I think Independents truly want to get beyond the identity politics.  Anyting Obama does too indicate sympathy with those who play the race card will cost him Independent voters. He may htink he can bring in enough new voters to make up the difference.

I was worried about this... the speech was too intelligent for America.  As Jon Stewart said, "He actually talked to us like we were adults."  If there is any discrimination in America, it is against intellectuals.  Do you remember how John Kery was savaged 'cos he was intelligent and didn't speak in sound bites?

I thought that maybe we had gotten past that, but I guess we are still stuck with the "want to have a beer with the guy" mentality.

Jerome,

About the politics of it: I think you are mostly correct, although I'm not sure things look quite as bleak for Obama as you make them out to be.

But as for Meyer's substantive point, I think he is just completely wrong. Race is a real thing. Not because it is natural, or something that exists in our genetics, but because of our history. What would Meyers have Obama do? Well, we have judged and treated certain people horrible for years because of this made-up concept of race. Now that we are no longer treating those people badly we are going to pretend that race all of a sudden doesn't exist? Nice switcheroo, but NO. There is a history (and a present) there, and that history has continuing affects that are harmful and need to be addressed.

Obama has spent more than enough time talking about moving beyond racial divisions and finding those commonalities that make us all human so that he doesn't have to justify his discussion about the historical effects of race to you or me. To the voters in Pennsylvania, maybe. That's a valid criticism of political strategy.

But if you actually believe that Obama is incapable of challenging racial "boxes" and "labels" and is "stuck on race" in his own mind, then you must be out of yours.

And you know what, as a white person, it is very difficult for me to understand and relate to the black, or latino, or asian, or female experience.  That doesn't mean I'm inferior, or a racist, or a sexist. That's not Obama's point.

There is a tension between Obama's two claims, that (1) there are historical legacies of race and other divisions that have continuing effects on our economic and social interacttions, and these legacies must sometimes be addressed head-on; and (2) there are commonalities, shared values and experiences, and solidarity that exist and can be strengthened between people from these different historically-determined groups, and that the above labels and boxes can be blurred and undermined in wonderful ways even if they are not necessarily deleted.

This powerful tension is the tension of a true multicultural society. Meyers' rejection of the former is just as problematic as a racist's rejection of the latter.

The issue that I think many people have with Wright (in regards to Obama) is not something that I have seen many people hit on, because there's a flash in their eyes distracting them from it. That flash is the "God damn America" line from the sermon. People are shocked by it, and rightly so. But that isn't the real problem for Obama.

Obama is putting himself out as the guy who can bring people together. His supporters looked at "The Speech" and determined that he is the best hope for America to heal the scars of racism. He can reach across the aisle and he can heal the divide. Yet he's been close friends with Wright for twenty years. So, when people see Rev. Wright's divisive sermons part of their minds are asking the question, "Is this the best that Obama can do, when it comes to race?" If he can't heal Rev. Wright's pain in twenty years, how's he going to heal America's in four/eight years?

The questioning of Obama's ability to actually change things is the fundamental question to his whole premise of his campaign. But Obama essentially said in his speech, that some people are unchangeable (even if they fundamentally agree with you on most issues). The Wright episode is a big hit for the idea that Obama can change (the big) things, and thus is a big hit for the stated reason for his run for the Presidency.

Jerome - I like how you say Obama's speak - which most people are praising as an historic speach was "hastily written"

Come on, man.... do you even believe half of what you write?

Also, in the internals of the poll - if you add up the democrats that are either MORE likely to support Obama or remain UNCHANGED in their support, this is greater than those who are less likely to support him

Statistics... its all in how you present the numbers AND which numbers you present

Reading some of the posts here it is as if some Obama supporters haven't even read what Obama has to say:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Obviously race is an issue in modern America, Democrats don't deny that. But many of us who are still fighting those battles of the '60s, for the civil rights of all Americans, follow the words of Martin Luther King, not Jeremiah Wright. Obama's speech reinforced the words of Jeremiah Wright, not those of Martin Luther King. Wright's theory of Christianity, where Obama, a wealthy, privileged man, takes the role of Jesus simply because of the color of his skin, and Hillary Clinton and other leaders take the role of the Romans (Italians, Europeans) simply because of the color of her skin, is the opposite of what Jesus preached, it is the opposite of what the Catholic (i.e. universal) church preaches, it is the opposite of what Jesse Jackson preaches and it is the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached.

Some people here have praised Huckabee's take on Rev. Wright, but Huckabee compares Wright to Falwell because they have a similar, and divisive, interpretation of Christianity. An interpretation that Huckabee subscribes to. I do not, and I mistakenly thought that Obama did not.

When the topic of Obama's pastor came up about a year ago I considered the source and took Obama at his word, that his pastor attracted controversy for his support of the boycott of South Africa, or his opposition to war in Iraq, or his views on the family. Controversial political positions like those of Pope John Paul, and rooted in the same tolerant and loving message of Christ. As it has become clear that Wright's controversial opinions spring not from politics, but from a deeply divisive view of race, Obama continued to mislead and characterize the issue as a few crazy uncle mis-statements and conspiracy theories, limiting his rejection with phrases like "the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue." Now, in "A More Perfect Union", Obama has embraced Wright's underlying theory of race and Christianity, while rejecting some of it's extreme expressions. Wright's theory explains and justifies the messianic imagery Obama uses, but puts it in a very dangerous light.

I reject Wright's theory of race and Christianity, for the same reasons I reject Mike Huckabee's and Jerry Falwell's. The more Obama embraces those theories the harder it is for me to support him.

Jerome,

Yet another intellectually dishonest post from you:

1) Your spin on Obama's speech is wholly negative and completely distorted.  You cherry pick polls to support your position. You take a speech that has been widely hailed as historic, except for those like yourself who have an ax to grind for Hillary or McCain, and called it "hastily crafted."

2) Your spin on the delegate count and the popular vote suggests that you can't or don't want to perform basic arithmetic.

Most importantly, you use Republican talking points to frame your whole argument. Your refusal to use any nuance or context in viewing Wright's comments puts you in the same camp with the wing-nuts.  

I keep trying to remind myself that you are the same guy that wrote "Crashing the Gates" and that you are a "leader" of the progressive blogosphere, but your behaviour makes it increasingly difficult.  

Perhaps you will ban me for my sentiments. You certainly have been unwilling to respond in a substantive way to my repeated efforts to engage you in a real discussion about your ongoing efforts to undermine the candidacy of the almost certain nominee of our party. Do you ever think about the long term consequences of your actions?  Do you even think about your own credibility in our party?  A little honest discussion about the state of the race and the future of our party would be welcome, or are you committed to going down with the ship?  

I'm off to the Obama/Richardson rally.

Nah, I think you Jerome blow it every time you write something.  Geez.  Let it go already.

I am still trying to determine how Jerome sees us winning by being dismissive of the African American vote. Rather, than say we should all be treated the same. Barack acknowledges that all races have grievances. This goes pretty far beyond what has been done before. Jerome's discussion yesterday of his time in Africa was so irrelevant as to be humorous. I don't expect Holocaust survivors to be particularly fond of Germans and I don't expect people that have experienced segragation to be particularly fond of all aspects of the US. Do you think we will make a lot of progress towards peace in the Middle East if we just ignore the grievances of Palistianians and Israeli's? Are to just ignore the fact that the US has propped up the Saudi Arabian theocratic dictatorship and see how we do with solving issues there? I understand Jerome's desire to move beyond these issues and agree the world would be better if that was simply possible, but all Barack was doing was acknoledging them and than suggesting that we should move beyond them. I think that is reasonable.

This post is to Bias for my likeing! I'll move alse where, untill you have both sides of the story to tell, and tell it with some trueth!

Leaving the politics alone for a second, Michael Meyers point is roughly why I was disappointed with Obama's speech.  I'd like to see individuals challenge the construction of race, rather than the acceptance of it.  

That said, as I've noted in my other comments, I don't think the speech hurt Obama (nor do I think it helped him if it wasn't clear).  Furthermore, I do believe that any discourse is the right step forward on the issue of race.  I just don't think the speech was as defining as some want to make it out to be, and for those that do find it defining, I think it should be viewed in the prism of the lack of discourse in many respects.