This is a pretty egregious misread of what Wright is saying in that interview.  

Saying "I'm a pastor, I talk about God.  Obama is a politician, he talks about politics" is only controversial if you somehow read the word "politician" to mean "lying opportunist" and not "someone who works in politics."

Rev. Wright is highlighting the two different worlds in which they operate; Rev. Wright is a religious figure and addresses societal problems in what he sees to be religious manner, Obama is a politician and thus addresses societal problems politically, as he did in his speech.

"Politics" is about a lot more than just wiping your own ass.   Or at least it should be.

Unless Wright is proven to be a mind reader that's meaningless.

Dems don't play guilt by assocation. Not thatI have a problem ith Wright.

Everyone knows Obama is a politician and that the reason he made that speech at that time was to defend himself.  I don't think the "he's a politician" statement is going to hurt Obama.

Moyers will treat Wright fairly.  Whether or not Wright will hurt Obama here depends on what he says in this interview, I agree, but saying he's a politician isn't going to be a big deal, IMHO.

What's weird is that the polling clearly shows that Obama rewrite the map and eats into the West. You'd think that would be a good thing as that what Dems who want to broaden the party want to do.

and that's were the Clinton Gang wants to take us.

All the way through a long hot summer to the August convention, where at best they have a long-shot chance of gaining the nomination. (and an even longer shot of actually winning the nomination, since the longer this goes on, the more it benefits John McCain.)

What also destroy's this whole argument is FL

Real Clear politcs has Flordia going to McCain.
And if that is true...HRC is DOA
 - And it likely IS true becuase HRC has horrible GE likeability numbers

What's actually really funny is to watch some denizens of your respective blogs trying to make this into some massive flamewar.

In a way, this entire discussion isn't so much about electability - you can't gauge that at this stage anyway - but is a proxy for where the party should be focusing its energies and who it should be trying to attract. Obama should be worried about Latinos and blue-collars, Hillary about youth and blacks.

The critical factor, and why I think we can manage to garner both of their coalitions, is that whoever loses will campaign hard for the other. This isn't going to turn into an either/or scenario.

Myself, I knew this was gonna be tough no matter who won either primary. I've never bought into the triumphalism. With St McCain, it becomes a difficult rather than a close race. I think it's more difficult with Clinton than with Obama.

I appreciate the conversation between you and Markos.  It's clear that it isn't a flame war.  Both of you have mentioned more than once in your posts that you remain friends.

But, could you please talk some sense into him?! ;)

I'll argue Obama has an easier map, but neither can take this thing for granted.

What is true, overall, is that Obama runs stronger in states he's likely to lose, which is important down-ballot.

Does it matter if Obama loses Idaho by 15 and Clinton by 38? Sure, it does to our Senate and House candidates in the state.

Here's a quote (this is where Obama is leading our party- straight over the cliff):

Let's give the mendacious Clinton camp the benefit of the doubt and say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose.  Wrong, but let's grant that idea.

I.  Wouldn't.  Care.  Anyway.  And neither should you.

Why not, you say?  What could be more important than ending the occupation of Iraq and saving thousands or tens of thousands of lives (though there are doubts about whether Clinton would truly end it), preventing an attack on Iran (though there are doubts about what Clinton would do there, too), enacting the beginnings of universal healthcare, ending the insane fiscal mismanagement of the Bush Administration, putting to bed the Imperial Presidency, beginning action on curbing CO2 emissions and other environmental degradataion, and helping to ensure that the Supreme Court does not fall into irreparably conservative, insanely dogmatic hands?  What could be more important than all this?

Demographics and the future of the Democratic Party.  As Morley Winograd and Michael Hais point out in their outstanding new book Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & and the Future of American Politics, America stands on the verge of a new political realignment.

<snip>

Win or lose in November, the right choice for the Party and the country is obvious: Barack Obama is the candidate who will secure the future of the Party--win or lose.  Just don't expect pundits, prognosticators and consultants still stuck in the realignment patterns of 1968 to understand that.

They just don't get it--and they probably never will.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/ 13312/2818/820/502597

I shit you not.

Don't bring that weak-ass Kossack crap over here. That wasn't TR worthy and you know it. Take one yourself for your troubles.

nominating Obama right now means death for the chances of a Dem president in November.

We're actually just waiting for some supporting evidence.  This diary is not that, nor are your opinions about who might stay home or vote for McCain, etc.  We like data, and data seems like to President Barack Obama at this point.

I understand the problem all too well. But I also understand that winning a state in a democratic primary, does NOT portend success in winning that state in the fall. See John Kerry's decisive wins in 2004 for example, mapped against the states he lost in the fall.

My issue is that if Obama is the nominee in the fall and he selects Hillary Clinton as his running mate (if she accepts), what good will it do with her complete evisceration of him and his qualifications?

Do you think that the voters who listened to her for months and months on end completely rip him a new one will then vote for him even with her on the ticket?

That is where this is going right now.

The real problem is that Clinton doesn't have a path to the nomination that gives her legitimacy.

Clinton is, in all likelihood, going to end up the primary season trailing Obama in overall delegates, pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won.  Even counting the bogus FL results.

Given all that, if Clinton gets the nomination by superdelegate fiat, the Obama supporters will -- quite validly -- feel like the election has been stolen from them, and that their voice doesn't matter.  It will be hugely disallusioning, and I think their sitting out of the GE is entirely understandable.

However, if Obama gets the nomination, he will simply have won it.  He'll be ahead in virtually every metric, and if Clinton voters stay home for the GE, that's nothing more than sour grapes at their preferred candidate not winning the nomination.  They'll be hurting the Democratic Party simply out of spite, and bad sportsmanship.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be held hostage by those that want to take their ball and go home simply because they lost.

There is no possible "resolution" of MI and FL.  There simply aren't the time or resources to accurately determine the preferences of the voters of those states.

It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation.

I would love to see FL and MI vote, but both need to vote.  Certainly, I'd expect Clinton to be up in votes from FL but not so sure about MI.  Until there is a DNC-approved vote in either state, those votes don't count.  They are meaningless, especially Michigan.

Um, no. AA's can stay home. They have many times, and they will this time if the voters' will is overturned.