It is not about Wright.  It is about the only thing Obama has run on, Judgment.  His judgment was good once for a speech we're not sure he made because the only video of it was a reenactment staged for his ads.

Sorry, but this applies to Clinton in spades.  If she hadn't voted for the Iraq war, she would be the nominee, end of story.  

When the campaign turned away from issues and into a circus, Clinton was the beneficiary.  If Clinton gets the nod, it's like 2004 all over again.  People get all worked up, and wake up on election day already with a sense of buyers remorse.

Democrats will regret nominating Clinton, because her position on the issue that has vexed Democrats for 5 years is at odds with her party.

Its a similar situation with his healthcare plan. Now that people are starting to realize how little Obama is actually going to change, and his arrogance at waiting till 2012 to even attempt to try it, I think many people are realizing Hillary is a much better candidate. We don't want another Bush, arrogance-wise.

Also, we need a candidate who is EXCEPTIONAL on healthcare to go up against McCain, with his terrible healthcare proposals. More than anything else, that issue has the potential to hit Americans where they can't afford it. For many of us, the difference between Hillary and Obama is the difference between having healthcare thats affordable and not. Or thousands of dollars a year.

First, I'm a lowly blogger incapable of issuing threats.  I'm just observing that one possible resolution to this conflict is a third party.

Second, I don't understand why there needs to be any action at all on the Florida and Michigan delegation.  It seems pretty clear: party rules state that if a state holds a primary prior to a certain date, the delegates from that primary won't be seated.  Florida and Michigan held primaries prior to that date -- and they did so with full knowledge and understanding of the rule.

I don't know what there is to figure out?  What is unclear about this situation?

There are 408 primary delegates left to select.  If Clinton wins 283 of those, then she earned the most delegates and she deserves the nomination.  If she does this and wins because she just out-campaigned Obama, I completely respect the process and (though sad) I will accept the results and work hard to get her elected.

If she does not get 283 of the remaining 408 delegates, and wins because of changing the rules for Michigan and Florida or because superdelegates don't like what the voters say...then all bets are off.

If Obama follows all the rules, wins the most delegates through the primary/caucus process and yet loses the nomination, then we have a bad process and its time for a new party.

In the "More Perfect Union" speech, Obama denounced Wrights statements and said Wright did not have the correct view of America, and he also tried to provide context for why Wright thought the way he did.

That's a far cry from defending the remarks.  

And that shows he was angry about that and "NOT the other parts"?

Honestly, I still view Obama as a charlatan. "Hope" and "change" as a campaign platform sounds a little 8th grade hall monitorish to me. Always has. I'll have to think of Ruth Bader and then vote Obama in November. Because there's no way that lady can hold on another 8 years....

You Probama supporters have no idea how unbelievably pathetic this sounds to the rest of us:

"No other candidate in history has had to endure the same kind of beating this man has...  He's still standing, but for how long?"

Really?  Really?  Hillary's basically been tarred and feathered, as this cruel villainess who's willing to do anything to happen, who's racist, who is orchestrating some nefarious Evil Genius campaign, called a b*tch, MSM figures regularly make jokes about her getting killed, etc.

Kerry got hit with a made-up campaign claiming he made up his war record.  Al Gore was attacked by a media that claimed he hired a consultant to dress him in earth tones and that he had claimed to invent the Internet.

And you Probama guys are now whining because after nearly a year of fawning media adoration, they're turning just a little bit on your candidate?  I mean, wow.  Just wow.

At least the stuff they're hitting Obama on is grounded in some substantiated reality.  Whether or not you think the Wright story is unfair (I personally think it's ridiculous), as a matter of objective fact, Obama does have a close tie with Wright, and many people were offended by Wright's statements.  This is contradistinctive from Hillary (I LOVE the Obama folks here who make all sorts of claims about Hillary, as if they knew her from anywhere but the media's negative coverage of her, without any factual substantiation), Kerry, or Gore.

If Obama can't handle this EXTREMELY MILD coverage now, he'll get crucified in the general election.  The MEDIA IS NOT THE DEMOCRATS' FRIEND.  THEY WILL TURN ON US IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.  You Obama folks all thought that Hillary was somehow uniquely divisive.  Wrong.  The media is unique in its hatred of Dem politicians.  Now you're beginning to taste a little of that "not-so-fair" coverage, and Obama's wilting.  But to claim that Obama's this Jesus figure is retarded.

Also, Obama is not exactly unfriendly with the DLC types.  You might want to look at his voting record or his record period, before you make such silly claims.

As far as I can tell, the only major votes he differed from HRC on during their contemporaneous Senate term have been 1) ethanol; 2) tort reform; and 3) the Dem amendment to the 2005 Bankruptcy bill (where Obama initially lied and said the amendment would preempt state usury laws; after being confronted with the fact that he was lying by consumer groups, he has since tried to conflate the 2005 Bankruptcy bill with the 01 Bankruptcy bill).  On all 3 of those votes, Obama took the industry position.

Winning primaries does not predict general election ability.  Period.

I don't know why we continue to speak as if they do.

Considering the historic collapse of the Democratic majority in Congress under Billy Boy, I wouldn't bet on it.  I don't know if you've noticed, but the President can't just do things.  They have to get passed by the legislature first.  

Hillary can't just "fight" her way through a deadlock.  I know she's "tough" and "won't stop fighting for me" etc.  But that's not how things get done in Washington.  Fighting breeds partisanship.  Partisanship leads to deadlock.  And deadlock sure as hell is not getting a controversial healthcare plan passed that not even Democrats agree on!  She tried in the 90's and failed, because you CANT JUST FORCE YOUR AGENDA DOWN THE REPUBLICANS THROATS.

It doesn't matter who has the better plan on paper, because it is just that.  I would consider a plan that doesn't completely cover everyone, but makes it through Congress a much bigger success than a bloody fistfight over healthcare mandates that doesn't amount to anything real.

No, with polls like this Obama's expectations have been considerably reset.

Ah, ok.  So, double-digit means 9.2% That's doable.