Right Wing Nut House

As the race for the White House enters its “malaise phase,” with Democratic candidates struggling to set a world record for talking out of both sides of their mouths without their lips moving while John McCain struggles just to get a word in edgewise, I have caught myself several times the last few weeks trying to shake the feeling of dread - the cold hand of history clapped around my shoulders, its icy grip reminiscent of a time when the world seemed to be spinning out of control and the American people made a conscious decision to radically alter the political landscape in Washington.

I am speaking of 1980, of course. It isn’t that the economy is suffering from out of control inflation, record high interest rates, and near double digit unemployment as was the case during Jimmy Carter’s disastrous interregnum. But the same fear about the future worries ordinary American families that afflicted us back then. And it is beginning to look to me as if the voters are eager to take out their frustrations and anger on the party who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today; the party of Bush, Cheney, Foley, Cunningham, Ney, Renzi and the whole gang of corrupt, arrogant, venal, greedy Babbitts who have turned the Republican brand into a badge of shame.

You would have to be brain dead not to see the trouble this country is in. As bad as 1980? No, but it certainly is bad enough. Our mortal enemy may not be on the march as the Soviets were in the late 70’s. But al-Qaeda is doing quite well thank you, largely the result of an over reliance on President Musharraf in Pakistan (who took us for $11 billion in military aid like a fast talking scam artist on the midway of some local carnival) and our inability to get NATO to commit combat troops to the fight in Afghanistan. Jesus, if we can’t get the Europeans to recognize what’s at stake in Afghanistan and give us a hand, then either the alliance is kaput or America’s political leadership just isn’t up to the task.

I will brook no argument about Iraq not being a disaster, at least in the near term. It may yet turn out to be a barely passable plus for our interests in the Middle East - given another several years. But what has transpired the previous 5 years has been appalling. It’s been like a 5 year Iranian hostage rescue mission - blunder after blunder committed by our elected leaders and the Pentagon.

I don’t want to hear the argument “Mistakes happen in war.” That may be true. But to carry the adage beyond reason, beyond logic, beyond belief just makes the person spouting that claim look like an idiot. Holy Christ! You would think Bushco would get something right in 5 years. I’ll grant the surge has helped but it has also created other unforeseen problems. Face it; Iraq is a mess and its our own fault. Just thank your lucky stars, I would say to my Republican friends, that the media is so shallow and stupid that unless things really go south in Iraq between now and the election, it will continue to be ignored - despite the fact that the laundry list of problems in that country is growing, not shrinking.

My analogy that Iraq is like the failed hostage rescue, I believe, is a good one. It has placed doubts in the mind of Americans about the competence of our elected leaders while underscoring the fact that our power has its limits. The difference is in the confidence our current voters should have in the military overall. Back in 1980, we saw what years of neglect had done to the military and doubts were raised about its abilities. Not so today. But the recognition that military power cannot solve what ails Iraq has been no less an eye opener for many.

Ronald Reagan famously said that he would rather other nations fear us than love us. I generally subscribe to that notion - especially as it relates to our enemies. But Bush has taken that adage beyond the realm of rhetoric and made it the basis of his foreign policy. When even your allies fear you, it should be obvious that you’ve taken the concept just a bit too far and that somebody, somewhere screwed up royally.

It is one of our glaring weaknesses that we love to be loved by other nations and can’t stand the idea of people thinking beastly things about us. The left has riffed off this meme for decades. But when even our allies give us the cold shoulder because being seen as too close to America is death to their political alliances at home, even a nincompoop realizes a change is in order.

In 1980, Carter managed a foreign policy twofer - being disrespected by our enemies and held in contempt by our friends. Our situation today isn’t the same. But when our friends are reluctant to follow our lead and our enemies feel emboldened to exploit that weakness, the differences hardly matter because the result is similar; our goals are not achieved and the world becomes more dangerous as a result.

As for the economy then and now, there really isn’t much comparison - in a technical sense. But in politics, perception is everything. Rising gas prices has the electorate spooked as do skyrocketing food prices. You can’t get much more basic than gas and food as far as what’s important to American families. And when those two items bite, well you can kiss the shopping trip to Walmart goodbye. Or if the parents do end up shopping for summer clothes for their kids, they will spend a lot less.

Inflation is not a problem yet. But with so much of what we buy dependent on the price of gasoline, how long before the cost of other things begins to creep up as well. And there is no more debilitating disease for an economy than inflation. It saps the will to produce and save when a dollar will be worth substantially less 6 months down the road.

Unemployment is still low by historical standards but that hardly matters when layoffs are starting to happen all over the economy. Who cares if the unemployment rate dipped by a tenth of a point last month? People are not cheered by news like that when they see and know people getting laid off in their town. All they can think of is “Am I next?”

Interest rates are ridiculously low but credit itself is tight because of wary lenders while people are pulling in their horns about making major purchases on their credit cards due to the uncertain future.

Taken as a whole, the economy is still relatively healthy. But “relative” doesn’t mean squat to voters whose perceptions are shaped by their own observations and a relentless drumbeat of criticism by the media and the Democrats - much more the former than the latter when you consider how often people shop for food or fill their tanks.

All of this has a logical ending; 75% of the nation believes we are on the “wrong track.” That may be the understatement of the year because what that figure is really saying is that people do not feel in control of their lives. Things are happening here and abroad that defy many people’s understanding and it has torn many Americans from their moorings and set them adrift politically. More than likely, they will end up tying themselves to the Democrats when all is said and done.

I believe John McCain realizes this which is why he is not pulling punches about how bad things are. Unlike Carter who, in 1980, tried to convince the voters that they were doing alright with inflation and unemployment at record highs while trying to scare people into thinking Reagan was a monster, McCain has judged the mood of the country correctly so far. He isn’t going after Obama nor is he soft pedalling our problems. I think that this is one reason he isn’t 10 points behind at this point (only that CBS poll has him that far behind).

As a general election strategy, I’m not so sure. Once the Democrats really begin their assault, voters will think Bush is running for a third term. Just about every commercial that features McCain for the Democrats will also have a picture of Bush - count on it. Whether the Arizona senator can successfully perform a Bushectomy and remove the most unpopular president in the history of polls from the body of his campaign remains to be seen. I doubt it. The Democrats will be rolling in 527 money thanks to Daddy Warbucks Soros and the rest of his billionaire crew.

My gut feeling - totally speculative at this point - is that the race between Obama and McCain will be close until after the debates are over - about two weeks before the campaign ends. At that point, I think voters will start to break heavily for the Democrats and it will be something of a rout. Perhaps not a 1980 style kick in the groin rejection of one party for another. But I fully expect the GOP to get slapped pretty hard by the electorate - well deserved in my view.

I really do hope I’m wrong - will gladly eat my share of crow if this analysis is off base. But I would say to my Republican friends that we better start getting used to wandering in the political wilderness. It may be a long time before we find our way back to where we were just a few short years ago.

As if awakening from a long, languorous slumber where dreams of the perfect liberal being comfortably ensconced in the White House made it impossible for the press to get up, rub their eyes, and return to the real world, it seems that the American media has finally decided to start treating Barack Obama with a little of the curmudgeonly cynicism that has been the hallmark of political reporting in this country for much of its existence.

The press likes to think of themselves as the “Fourth Estate” - the gatekeepers who protect American democracy from the ravages of crooked pols, greedy businessmen, religious charlatans, and most especially, unqualified presidential candidates.

Of course, many of my fellow conservatives don’t think of the press as the “Fourth Estate” as much as they see the media as a “Fifth Column,” deliberately undermining American policy abroad and either ignoring or savaging conservatives at home.

But that judgment may be too harsh. Overall, the press may hold liberal positions on the issues but their real failure lies in their total insularity from views different than their own.

Bernard Goldberg:

The problem is that there is a bubble that these media elites live in. They live in it in Manhattan & Washington. It’s a very comfortable bubble and they almost never run into people inside it who have differing points of view. They can go through a whole day, a whole week, a whole month, without running into someone who has a differing view on the big social issues of our time…

If you take into consideration how consolidated the media is today and the fact that most local newspapers and TV networks depend on the big boys for national and foreign news reporting, you can see how just a handful of insulated liberals can affect the way news is reported across a wide swath of the American media landscape.

So it is not surprising that the glowing, almost worshipful coverage of the Obama campaign would have powered the Illinois senator through the primaries to a now virtual lock on the Democratic nomination.

But as Howard Kurtz points out, the dynamic of press coverage has now changed:

After more than a year of mostly glowing coverage, Barack Obama is having to defend his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his temerity in not sporting a flag pin, even his arugula-loving, bad-bowling, let-me-eat-my-waffle persona that fostered what Newsweek has branded “the Bubba Gap.”

“The media have decided to get tougher on Obama,” says St. Petersburg Times media critic Eric Deggans. “There was so much talk about him getting such an easy ride that some journalists got tired of it.”

And the catalyst for this turnabout came from a very unexpected source; a couple of skits on the old political warhorse TV show Saturday Night Live. The bits were devilishly clever, playing to the idea that the media was in the tank for Obama - something almost everyone in America was aware except the media itself.

The February 23rd show was actually mentioned by Hillary Clinton in the Cleveland debate as proof that the press was biased toward her opponent. Those skits may have been one of the most impactful political satires in decades. Not since Chevy Chase’s bumbling portrayal of President Ford has a TV bit entered the political consciousness of the country.

The press was stung to the quick and began to look for opportunities to stick it to Obama. They didn’t have long to wait when the Jeremiah Wright fiasco exploded onto the scene in mid-March. Seeming to make up for lost time, the press latched on to the Wright controversy and began to question Obama’s judgement and beliefs - long overdue according to some:

Still, says David Greenberg, a Rutgers University professor of journalism and history, the coverage could be far worse. For journalists, he says, “there has been a real infatuation with Obama that has served as almost an unconscious restraint” as many became “taken with the idea of demonstrating their tolerance and America’s tolerance by electing a black candidate.”

What loosened those restraints, Greenberg says, was the media’s conclusion that Obama had virtually wrapped up his nomination fight against Hillary Clinton. “It’s backwards — the toughest scrutiny should come while it’s still a real fight,” he says.

Obama’s image has undergone something of a transformation. In March, feeding the curiosity about his background, a Newsweek cover story focused on “When Barry Became Barack” in college, while a Time cover profiled the candidate’s mother. By last week, Newsweek’s cover piece was exploring why he seems “strange,” “exotic” and, to some, “haughty” and “a bit of an egghead.” How did Obama, cast by some journalists as the new JFK, come to be depicted as what the New Republic’s John Judis says may be “The Next McGovern”?

What does it say about a press that waits until the candidate has the nomination virtually sown up before pouncing on his vulnerabilities? I think any reasonable person can conclude that they’ve got the process back asswards. Aren’t they supposed to vet the candidate while there is still a competitive race going on? And the fact that they haven’t played their traditional role of gatekeeper with Obama (closing the gate after the horse has gotten away) is significant.

That and the fact that all of this is happening 7 months before the election in November means that Obama - a gifted and inspiring figure to many - can still recover and beat McCain in the fall. One wonders if Reverend Wright would have received this kind of coverage in October.

My guess is no, he wouldn’t have been a big issue in September or October. Nor will Tony Rezko make an appearance between the time of the Democratic convention and election day. And I doubt we’ll be hearing too much about William Ayers and his flag stomping, terrorist ways either.

All of that will rightfully be seen as old news by then - that is, unless new information surfaces that would show Obama to be a liar as far as the extent of his problem associations have been. Whether such information is out there to be reported I have little doubt. But the only place you are going to see Wright damning America come the fall campaign is in a GOP 527 ad.

In short, the press may not be as puppy-dog worshipful as they were a couple of months ago. But their basic feelings about Obama don’t show any signs of changing. Witness the panting over his March speech in Philadelphia where he denounced what Wright was saying but not the man. It was hailed as one of the greatest political speeches in history. The press was just looking for an excuse to forgive him and they found it in Obama’s post-racial vision of America.

Then just last week, the press once again praised Obama to the skies for “distancing himself” from Wright - rarely asking the obvious question of why he couldn’t have done so the previous month in “one of the greatest speeches” of all time.

Yes the press has taken a more aggressive tack in covering Obama. But at the same time, they are still bending over backwards to excuse, to explain away, or, as in the case of the William Ayers story, simply ignore Obama’s lies about how well he knew him.

For these reasons, I don’t think we can say that the press still isn’t in the bag for Barack Obama. They may like McCain as well but does anyone really believe that when the campaign narrative is developed this fall that John McCain will be seen by the press in a positive light? It will be Barack Obama to America’s rescue, riding on a black and white horse but with the head of an elephant and the tail of a donkey. He will be the post-racial, post partisan candidate just as he was always meant to be.

Just as the press wants him to be.

My post on Friday that somewhat petulantly complained about people still saying that there was a legitimate chance for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination elicited many angry responses from Clintonites and even some Republicans.

While it is true that math was my worst subject in school even a numbers-challenged dummy like me can read the writing on the wall and declare without reservation that Hillary Clinton is toast and has been for weeks.

A casual examination of the delegate numbers reveals the unstartling truth that it is likely Senator Obama will have the nomination wrapped up shortly after the primaries end on June 6. It also shows that it doesn’t matter a hoot in hell what happens with Michigan and Florida’s delegates.

Using the RCP delegate totals (which differs from others by no more than 3 or 4 delegates), here is how we find the race today:

TOTAL DELEGATES:

Obama: 1742
Clinton: 1606

SUPERDELEGATES (795 Total):

Obama: 251
Clinton 269

PLEDGED DELEGATES:

Obama: 1491
Clinton: 1337

The chart shows Obama with a 136 delegate lead overall.  With 520 Superdelegates already committed, that leaves around 275 supers yet to choose (I’ve seen that number as low as 268). But let’s give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and use the higher number for our purposes.

Now let’s look at the remaining contests and the number of delegates at stake:

May 6: Indiana (85) and North Carolina (134)
May 13: West Virginia (39)
May 20: Kentucky (60) and Oregon (55)
June 1: Puerto Rico (63)
June 3: Montana (25) and South Dakota (23)

(Note: There are some state conventions in May and June that will determine some additional delegates but are based on primary and caucus results and hence, are predictable with a large degree of certainty. Most pledged delegate counts have included all but a handful of these delegates which is where the discrepancy between counts occurs.)

Now let’s take a pro-Hillary split on these delegates since she is really expected only to lose NC, OR, and possibly MT out of these remaining primaries although I think those three states will be close - no blow outs by Obama. Now let’s take each state and award Obama the absolute minimum he will win. Remember, Democrats award delegates proportionally:

Indiana: 38
N. Carolina: 65
W. Virginia 15
Kentucky: 25
Oregon: 30
Puerto Rico: 25
Montana: 10
South Dakota: 10

Total: 218 minimum delegates for Obama.

I don’t see how anyone could accuse me of overcounting Obama’s delegate totals in any of those states - especially since I assume Hillary will win every single primary. But let’s look now at Obama’s totals. Add the 218 additional delegates to Obama’s RCP total of 1742 and you get:

Total Delegates for Obama on June 3: 1960
Needed to Nominate: 2025

With 275 supers yet to commit, Obama needs only 65 Superdelegates to go over the top. And that is not counting those supers who come out for Obama between now and June 3!

In short, it is possible that at the end of the primaries, Obama will need only a handful - perhaps as few as 25-30 supers - to make Michigan and Florida moot and Hillary’s candidacy kaput.

Does anyone believe that the moment Obama goes over the top that anyone, anywhere is going to deny him the nomination? If you believe that, go back to sleep because the only place you’ll see a scenario like that unfolding is in your dreams. Just imagine Republican attack ads against Hillary and the Democratic party if that were to occur.

It would probably not only doom Clinton’s candidacy but possibly affect some of the down ballot races, especially for the House. The Democratic brand would be poison. Hillary would be a pariah with half the Democratic party and those superdelegates who switched or went for Hillary wouldn’t be any better off.

But there is nothing to worry about if you’re a Democrat because it isn’t going to happen.

Allow me to state at the outset that I believe that a vast majority of liberals believe themselves to be as patriotic as anyone else and that Republican efforts to portray this or that candidate as “unpatriotic” is wrong.

It is wrong because we cannot gaze into the hearts of our countrymen and establish their true feelings about America. Nor should we even try. A citizen’s relationship with his country is as personal as his relationship with God - and only pharisees in the temple and some TV preachers would have us believe that they love God more than others.

It is silly to say that this liberal or that one does not love this country enough - as if there is a scale on which all American’s patriotic feelings are placed and weighed, the result judged fair or foul according to explicitly subjective criteria.

“Do you put your hand over the heart during the playing of our national anthem?”

“Do you wear a flag pin?”

“Do you say the Pledge of Allegiance?”

If this be the measure of a patriot, gag me. I almost didn’t vote for George Bush #41 in 1988 because of his obsession with making it a requirement for schoolchildren to say the pledge of allegiance. It was embarrassing for any thinking person to watch the elder Bush tour flag factories and otherwise bring the issue up at almost every campaign stop. It was a transparent attempt to place his idea of patriotism above that of anyone else and by extension, accusing his opponent Michael Dukakis of being less patriotic than he.

At the time the Obama flag pin controversy first surfaced, I wrote what I believe to be a logical, sensible defense of liberal patriotism:

I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.

On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.

It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.

There is some obvious exaggeration in both definitions but I believe they ring true at a basic level of understanding. It certainly makes it easier to acknowledge Senator Obama’s patriotism which the Washington Post examined today:

“You want to know about my patriotism?” Obama said last week in Chapel Hill, N.C. “My patriotism is rooted in the fact that my story, Michelle’s story, is not possible anywhere else on Earth. That the American dream, despite this country’s imperfections, has always been there. . . . That there are ladders of opportunity that all of us can climb. That we’re all created equal. That we’re all endowed with certain inalienable rights — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. . . . That we’re willing to shed blood for those liberties, we’re willing to speak out for those liberties. . . . That we can make this country more just and more equal and more prosperous and more unified. That’s why I love this country. That’s why you love this country.”

Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist unaffiliated in the primary, said Obama’s patriotic talk early in the campaign was a shrewd attempt to reshape the debate to guard against a future vulnerability. “In successful campaigns, you recognize your potential liabilities and figure out how to turn them into strengths,” he said.

Obama’s patriotism then, is as exceptional as anyone’s on the right. This stands in stark contrast to other liberals and Democrats who belittle the idea of American exceptionalism or simply refuse to acknowledge it. It doesn’t mean that you are less patriotic if you reject the idea that America is different than anywhere else on earth. But since most Americans share the belief that we are an exceptional people and nation, it is a legitimate campaign issue to point out that a candidate does not share a belief in the same values as most voters.

That avenue of attack is not open to Republicans with Obama. Hence, the creation of non-issues like the flag pin and the demonstrably false issues of his not saying the pledge or putting his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem. They have not resonated with the voter because people aren’t buying it - until now.

Enter Jeremiah Wright and his “damning” America. To ask the question is Reverend Wright a “patriot” or is he a “patriotic” American stretches the notion of love of country far beyond where a vast majority of ordinary voters wish to go. If Wright is patriotic - and indeed, I do not believe him to be, proving an exception to the rule above - then it is a kind of patriotism never before seen in America. Wright’s critique goes far beyond dissent and attacks the very reasons America exists in the first place. Can you hate America and love it at the same time? That’s the kind of nuance only a liberal could embrace.

Obama has a different kind of problem with Wright than any Democrat has had in the past with their own personal patriotism being questioned. And making matters much worse for the candidate are his other radical associations with individuals who, like Wright, have attacked the foundations of American democracy and the existential reasons for America’s being. Unrepentant terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn - who I predict will become a huge problem for the candidate once it is revealed that he lied about the nature and extent of his relationship with those radicals - as well as his close association with other radical figures like PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi and radical Liberation Theology priest and warm friend of Louis Farrakhan Father Michael Phleger raise serious questions not about Obama’s patriotism but rather his values and judgement.

What is it about these people that attracts the candidate? There are just too many radicals in his background not to make this a legitimate question of the campaign. My own personal view - highly speculative - is that Obama is drawn to the certainty of their beliefs as well as their outrage. Obama’s emotional makeup makes it very difficult for him to share the radical’s certainty about their worldview while he yearns for that kind of black and white outlook. And since his own worldview is informed more by his intellect than his gut, he perhaps envies the radicals ability to express their outrage at perceived injustices in America.

A guess to be sure but better than what the candidate has offered as an explanation. And lest someone take me to task for my observation about so many radicals in his past, there is this from the Rolling Stone profile written last year:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

And the RR profile didn’t even mention Ayers, et.al. It is this “radical background” about which American voters are confused regarding Obama. His heartfelt rhetoric about his love of America cannot be denied. There is nothing about which to disagree with Obama when he talks about our race problems “not defining America” - the first black leader in a long time to make that point. There is nothing to criticize when Obama talks about the American dream and American opportunity and how it is a shared goal of all.

So why, in a Pew Research poll, did only 61% of of voters view Obama as patriotic, compared with 76% for Clinton and 90% for McCain? It can’t be the way that McCain or even Hillary Clinton have been hammering away at his patriotism in ads and in campaign appearances. Hillary has raised the issue that Obama’s associations will be attacked by Republicans in the fall and that because of that, the Illinois Senator is unelectable. But she hasn’t directly criticized him for his relationship with Wright or anyone else. (Update: An emailer reminds me that Clinton said at the Philadelphia debate that the Ayers relationship “raised questions.” - hardly a hard hitting attack.)

Something else is clearly at work and it goes to the heart of how people perceive Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright. Quite simply, voters place themselves in Obama’s shoes and ask themselves if they would act the same way as the candidate has acted for the last 20 years. They ask themselves would they allow an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers host a fundraising event in his home. The left would love to dismiss these concerns as typical ignorance on the part of the yahoos but for good or ill, this is how Obama is being judged. And a significant number of people are coming up with answers detrimental to the candidate’s standing in the polls.

I would love to see a campaign this fall where everyone acknowledged everyone else’s commitment to America and love of country. But Obama’s high minded, patriotic rhetoric will fall flat unless he can explain and thus distance himself from people he made a conscious choice to embrace in one way or another and who give the lie to that pretty talk about patriotism through their poisonous and yes, unpatriotic view of America.

Is the press on drugs? MSNBC’s Domenico Montanaro obviously is. Or maybe he’s just normally spaced out like some addle brained stoner:

What other explanation is there for this idiocy?

After Pennsylvania, a lot of folks — including us — figured that Obama would win North Carolina by as much, or even more, than Clinton won the Keystone State, thus erasing the gains she made there in delegates and the popular vote. But the race in Carolina is tightening from the double-digit lead he once held; a new Research 2000 poll has him up by seven points, 51%-44%. After several days of Jeremiah Wright dominating the news — plus some new polls showing an erosion of support — Obama’s back is against the wall, at least in terms of perception and momentum. Of course, almost every time a candidate’s back has been against the wall this campaign (think Clinton and McCain in NH, Obama and McCain in SC, and Clinton in OH and PA), that candidate has flourished. Will Obama continue the trend? His appearance on Meet the Press this Sunday might offer some clues.

Obama’s back is not against the wall. He could lose every primary contest between now and June 3rd and unless he were to get slaughtered in all 8 primaries remaining by an average of about 70%, there is no way in hell Hillary Clinton will have more pledged delegates going into the convention in August.

This has been a fact of the campaign for more than a month. More recently, Obama has been garnering uncommitted Superdelegates to the point that, according to RCP, he now trails Hillary - who once had a 180 superdelegate lead - by only 17. More importantly with only around 280 Superdelegates who are still uncommitted, by the time the primaries are over Obama will only need a handful of supers to clinch it.

And once he goes over the top it will be as if God himself had descended from heaven and annointed him. Any effort to unseat him will cause a backlash in the African American community so profound that it could radically alter the relationship between the party and blacks for a long while. It’s not that they would support Republicans. It’s the very real possibility that they will stay home in huge numbers on election day.

This idea of Black anger is more than just Democrats whistling past the graveyard.

If Obama isn’t the nominee, “there would be a significant number of African-Americans who would stay home. They’re not voting for (presumptive Republican nominee) John McCain,” predicted David Bositis, a senior analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which researches black voting trends.

Todd Shaw, a University of South Carolina political science professor, agreed, citing a groundswell of African-American disenchantment with both Bill and Hillary Clinton. They’re particularly annoyed by Bill Clinton’s performance during the South Carolina primary and by Clinton supporter James Carville’s description of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Latino, as “Judas” for endorsing Obama over Hillary Clinton.

“The comment plays very badly with African-Americans and Latinos,” Shaw said. “They remind them of ‘Look what we’ve done for you; you should stay in line.’ That doesn’t sit well with voters of color. They view it as Northern machine politics or Old South boss politics.”

Hunter Bacot, an associate professor of political science at Elon University in North Carolina, saw another piece of political history haunting black Obama backers.

“There’s a sentiment among blacks that they’ve been taken for granted by the Democratic Party,” Bacot said. “If Obama loses, it’s as though their candidate’s victory was overturned.”

Democratic National Committee officials acknowledge that there could be some falloff of African-American voters if Obama isn’t the nominee. Still, Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman, said the party expects African-Americans — frustrated by the war in Iraq, the sagging economy and high gasoline prices — to go to the polls in their usual numbers when they compare whomever the Democratic nominee is with McCain.

The bottom line is simple but lost on the mainstream press which, for reasons much more to do with bottom line journalism than with reporting the facts, continues to treat the nomination process as a competitive enterprise rather than the flailing efforts of the Clinton campaign to overturn a result that for all practical and realistic purposes has been confirmed by the party.

It should be obvious to even the casual observer the Hillary Clinton’s only hope for the nomination - and it is an extremely faint hope at that - is to split the Democratic party wide open by, in effect, trying to reverse the decision made by voters and caucus goers in 50 states at the convention. She will fail because the Obama campaign will ensure discipline among its delegates and party leaders, who will be running the convention, will deny Clinton any opportunity to use the rules to achieve victory.

Where Clinton will succeed is in splitting the party. Whether Obama - an enormously skilled politician - can put it back together in the wake of Hillary’s Kamikaze attack will be the question facing Democrats when the Illinois Senator makes what promises to be the most dramatic convention speech since Ted Kennedy’s masterpiece at the 1980 Democratic convention as Obama accepts the nomination of his party.

Mainlining the internet as I do both for my paying gigs at PJM and AT and as someone who just enjoys reading about history and politics, you can’t help but marvel at the varying emotions brought to the surface by Barack Obama’s candidacy.

I’ve made fun of his devoted followers in the past on this site, largely because they’ve got a great big red bullseye tatooed on their chest - easy pickings as they say. Having that much faith in any politician would have caused our Founders (George Washington excluded) much discomfort and worry. The men who sat through that long hot summer of 1787 in Philadelphia in order to bring forth our Constitution had absolutely no illusions about power and an individual’s desire to exercise it. Their greatest fear was that the “mob” would fall in love with one man, blinding themselves to the danger inherent in concentrating power in the hands of the few. Their wisdom has worn well through the ages.

But there is no denying the enormous attraction that candidate Obama brings to the table. He has that incredibly rare gift of being able to inspire people. His rhetoric on the stump touches something deep inside - so American, so seductive to believe that he really is “an agent of change” or that he is somehow a different politician who can bridge the chasm between the races, between ideologies, between all those who feel cut off from the body politic.

I think Obama is sincere in his desire to accomplish these miracles. The problem, of course, is that there is absolutely nothing in his past - absolutely nothing - that would give anyone not taken in by his post-racial, post ideological mantra any hope whatsoever that he has the first clue as to how to go about such a task.

Does intent count for anything? I am dubious. And I am much more concerned that perhaps the candidate himself doesn’t realize - as shown in his remarks about voter’s clinging to values rather than voting what he perceives to be their interests - just how hard his kind of “change” is going to be.

Are we to believe it just an accident of history that Obama, trained as a street organizer using the template supplied by radical leftist Saul Alinsky, would have so many radicals dotting his present and past associations? Not just Wright, of course, but also the Weather Underground bomber William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn as well as radical Arabs,, radical racialists like Reverend James Meeks, and the real lunatic fringe represented by Father Michael Pfleger, a fixture in radical Chicago politics for many years who “counseled” Obama prior to his presser on Tuesday.

These are not just run of the mill, starry eyed idealists. These are gimlet eyed radicals with decades of experience in the political trenches who are out to make a revolution - a leftist revolution that would turn America into something unrecognizable to the vast majority of us. It is immaterial whether Obama shares their beliefs regarding “change” - a word that takes on an entirely different meaning when keeping in mind the kinds of people Obama has been hanging around with for much of his adult life. The radicals, too, want “change” after all and have developed the strategies to mask their true intent while going about the business of turning America upside down.

Obama almost certainly dabbled in radical leftist politics in the years prior to his run for the US Senate. A blatant tell is that some of his rhetoric reflects a post-modern view of the world where substance takes a back seat to intent and meaning plays second fiddle to an interpretive dialogue with his audience. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (from a poem by a left-wing-radical-feminist-bisexual poet named June Jordanis) a good example of this interpretive speech where Obama invites the audience to take their own meaning from the words.

As a rhetorical device, it is clever without being gimmicky. But as an indication of what kind of president Obama would make it is as obtuse as you can get without falling into gibberish.

But it doesn’t answer the question of just how radical is Obama? Not very, in my opinion. He is probably attracted to the radical’s certainty and their sense of outrage but beyond that, Obama is much too pragmatic to cater to their whims or listen very closely to their ideas regarding “changing” America. In this respect, Obama would not be leading any kind of crusade to turn America into some kind of socialist paradise. The most statist of proposals - national health care - is actually less draconian than Hillary’s mandate-laden, IRS enforcing disaster of a plan.

And we conservatives better get used to the idea of some kind of national health insurance. The people are “wild for it” as Abe Lincoln said about war and with an almost certain Democratic majority in both houses, it seems a foregone conclusion that Republicans will be fighting a rear guard action on the issue.

As for the rest of Obama’s program, his raising taxes won’t help the economy much and he will be constrained by enormous federal deficits in implementing some of his more problematic social programs. In this respect, his statist tendencies will be blunted by the reality of the budget. Good news for conservatives who will no doubt be surprised that Obama will turn out to be something of a budget hawk - if we can defeat any of his ideas to raise taxes across the board. We know from experience that any additional revenue received through an increase in taxes never, ever goes to reducing the deficit. Only budget cuts will accomplish that goal along with, as history also teaches us, a healthy, growing economy which will automatically put more tax dollars in the goverment’s coffers.

Where Obama worries me most is on national security and foreign policy matters. Here is where his inexperience and addle headed idealism could really cause problems. But he won’t skedaddle from Iraq nor will he be able to effectively engage Iran or Syria. Those are pipe dreams as is any notion of a peace deal between Hamas and Israel. Once again, Obama’s lofty rhetoric will be brought back to earth by reality.

I don’t buy the proposition that Obama would give up on the War on Terror. He will shift resources around and he will probably rename the conflict but beyond that what’s he going to do? Leave the United States wide open to attack? Not likely. And any hint that he would do so by Republicans would be seen for what it is; an attempt to use fear to get votes.

In short, an Obama presidency would not be the end of the world. Conservatives won’t like it. It is doubtful that a President Obama would be able to reach across the aisle very often or know what to do even if he does. He has not shown much inclination in the past to engage in bi-partisanship and campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, I doubt whether he would accomplish much anyway.

Nor will there be a magical racial reconciliation - not as long as the media keeps giving air time to the likes of Sharpton, Wright, and that crew of racialist demogagues. And Obama will probably turn out to be as partisan as any president in the past.

But the republic will survive. It has survived much worse and thrived. Even though an Obama presidency will almost certainly not live up to his rhetoric, those of us who take a realistic view of politicians and the presidency will probably not be too disappointed. His devoted followers may be another story.

But they too, will almost certainly bow to the wisdom of our founders who detested radical change and built into the system of government itself the mechanisms by which change is effected only through careful consideration of all viewpoints and a healthy respect for the minority.

The controversy surrounding the North Carolina GOP ad that features the now familiar Jeremiah Wright clip damning America has generated the largest amount of manufactured outrage I’ve seen in quite a while.

The ad raises a legitimate question: Is Obama too “extreme” for North Carolina? Does his belonging to Wright’s church for 20 years - “sitting in a pew” and listening to his pastor spout his hatred - make Obama himself an extremist?

There can be no reasonable challenge to the idea that Wright spreads hate. It is not only in his sermons but in the bulletins published by his church as well. Black “Liberation” Theology or not. Good works in the community notwithstanding. Jeremiah Wright encourages his flock to hate rich white people, hate Jews, hate the government of the United States, hate our ancestors, hate everything about America - including “middle classness - of which he doesn’t approve.

No amount of spinning can alter the fact that Wright is a conspiracy mongering, hate spewing preacher. If he has asked God to forgive those who he sees as having oppressed African Americans - as indeed there has been plenty of oppression - I have not seen it. This would seem to give the lie to Obama’s contention that Wright preaches a gospel of Christian love. Without forgiveness, there is no love and there is no room for “love” of anyone in Wright’s sermons except the oppressed - a curious belief for a Christian.

Where Christ forgave the Romans because the didn’t know what they were doing, Wright specifically makes mention of conspiracies against African Americans and genocide - atrocities carried out by whites with the full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong and evil. This is an interesting but flawed analysis because it presupposes a level of organization and an ability to carry out long term plans by generations of white people as well as (compared to today) an extraordinarily weak and divided central government. And, of course, Wright makes no mention of the many white abolitionists - many of them rich, white men - who fought to end the abomination of slavery.

But since there is no forgiveness (nor, one suspects, any redemption) for the architects of black oppression, the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that African Americans should hate those who Wright says are their oppressors. Wright urges God to damn America and Americans for our past and present sins. And if you can spin that any other way than promoting hatred, you should be a PR flack for the devil.

I am told that I don’t understand this kind of Christianity, that because I and others who are condemning Wright have not immersed ourselves in the black religious experience that we should just keep our mouths shut and ignore Wright’s hate mongering. This may be politically convenient for Obama but it hardly addresses the issue raised by the North Carolina ad - which, of course, is the entire point of criticism directed against it and the NC GOP.

Can Obama be tarred with the charge of being an “extremist” because of what his pastor of 20 years believes? And more to the point, by making the charge is the North Carolina GOP guilty of racism or even dirty politics?

As to the notion that Obama himself is an extremist I suppose that depends on your point of view. I don’t find him extreme - no more so than any liberal with a statist agenda. However, there may be some in North Carolina who feel differently. Conservative Tar Heels are a notoriously independent lot (they elected Democrat Heath Shuler who defeated 8 term incumbent Charlie Taylor) and some of Obama’s positions on gun control, late term abortions, perhaps even the Iraq War could be considered by some as “extreme.”

But to make that claim just because of what his pastor believes is another question. While Obama’s politics are not extreme to many, the fact that he sat in a pew for 20 years listening to Wright without leaving or even complaining about his pastor’s warped views - the point of the ad - raises legitimate questions as to Obama’s core beliefs about America.

The answer is we don’t know if Obama shares the extremist views of his pastor because he only denounced them when it was politically expedient to do so - when his campaign was in deep trouble immediately after Wright’s hate mongering came to light. To take Obama at his word that the reason he didn’t denounce Wright’s remarks earlier was because he wasn’t aware that his pastor held such views is becoming less and less credible as more information surfaces about the wide extent and dissemination of Wright’s beliefs. In short, Obama would have had to slept through Wright’s sermons not to have heard the pastor’s message.

However, there is considerable doubt whether Obama really believes that God should damn America or that AIDS is a government plot or that white people are evil. In that respect, the NC ad is a typical political ad - that is, it is stretches the truth to the breaking point.

But it is hardly racist nor, as the New York Times claims, is it designed to “stir up bigotry” in North Carolina. Why make that claim? Because it has black people in it? Because it makes the unarguable point that Wright is a hate mongering preacher? Because the ad portrays the close relationship Obama has with his pastor?

This is nuts. And it is a taste of the kind of defense that Obama will use in the general election against any and all Republican attacks. They will play the race card for all that it is worth. And that will be just as dishonest as any ad the GOP will ever run against him. It will be Obama who will seek to make this coming contest a campaign about race.

In this, he will have a willing assist from the press who will insist that the campaign should be about “issues” while calling out the GOP for any attempt to brand Obama as too liberal or too “extreme.” The will let slide Democratic attack ads that will portray McCain as “out of touch” (read “too old”) or unfeeling about the plight of the middle class.

It may be not accurate to intimate that Obama shares his pastor’s extremist views about America as the NC GOP ad clearly does. But the hysterical reaction - including McCain’s denunciation without even seeing the piece - gives us a taste of what’s to come as the Obama campaign and the press fully intend to “racialize” this campaign. Every attempt to criticize Obama will be decried as trying to scare white voters. Every attempt to bring Reverend Wright into the campaign will be denounced as racist.

It will not be the GOP playing the race card in the coming campaign. They wouldn’t dare. Rather it will be the Obama campaign using race to shield the candidate from attacks - fair or unfair. It’s probably smart politics. But what it says about Obama is not very elevating.

Obama’s problem associations with Wright, Rezko, and Ayers have really got the creative juices flowing on the left as they twist themselves into rhetorical and intellectual pretzels trying to downplay or dismiss, their candidate’s monumentally poor judgement in hanging around with these folks for much of his adult life.

Some may read this apologia for Obama’s associations from Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe and shake their heads in wonderment at the cluelessness of the author. Others may marvel at the sheer brazenness of Hundt’s dismissive comments about Ayers and Wright, admiring the guts it took to reveal oneself as an idiot.

Still others may laugh at the appellation “Swiftboating” as a descriptive for people who tell the truth about what Wright and Ayers have sermonized and accomplished in the past that makes them such problematic friends. Even the candidate has accepted as true what these hateful FOO’s (Friends of Obama) have said and done thus making the charge “Swiftboating” Obama pretty silly - as if the candidate would “Swiftboat” himself.

But as an anthropological exhibit showing an utter lack of honesty and integrity by the left in commenting about people that ordinary Americans find despicable, Hundt nails it:

It ought to be beneath senator McCain to have his side label Obama as a terrible person because he has failed to shun a fellow who did wrong 40 years or is not a patriot because he neglected to wear a flag on lapel, or declined to disavow a Korean War vet and pastor because he spoke too harshly one Sunday. McCain went to Vietnam to re-open peaceful relations, so he knows the place of forgiveness. He is a man of military honor and knows how to respect a friend and a foe. Hence, it ought to be beneath McCain to tolerate attacks against Obama that closely resemble the despicable charges bush launched against McCain in South Carolina in 2000. It should be the case that mccain doesn’t just pretend to stop these attacks, but actually does so. Aside from his laissez-faire positions on iraq and the economy, McCain’s primary disqualification for the oval office is that he knows these vile, crazy attacks are wrong for America but he won’t stop them.

Hundt has walked the bases loaded and set the ball on a tee for me to hit. Far be it for me to not oblige him.

“…he has failed to shun a fellow who did wrong 40 years…”

Yes, some may think trying to blow up the Pentagon is “wrong” although many more people might also believe that carrying out that act of barbarism and to this day not regretting it (indeed, wishing to have tried to commit more mayhem) puts such an individual beyond the pale of ordinary society. Most would agree that we should consign unapologetic miscreants like Ayers to the outer darkness where only criminals and radical wackos (and liberal universities) will have dealings with him.

Instead, Hundt believes we are “swiftboating” Obama by pointing out in the Age of Terror that our President being on a first name basis with an unrepentant terrorist is probably a bad example to set and causes most Americans with half a brain to wonder “What is that guy doing with William Ayers?”

For in truth, Ayers has not only not repented his criminal acts, he still holds views of America that are so outside the mainstream - hateful and laughably adolescent views they are - that carrying on a long term friendship with this lout calls into question not only Obama’s judgement but his sanity as well. Indeed, his campaign said after the ABC debate that Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernadine Dohrn were “respectable fixtures of the mainstream in Chicago.”

Ayers most recent pronouncements (and Dohrns) are contained on some audio tapes dug up by a small radio station in Chicago and blasted over the internet on Wednesday by Powerline and Hugh Hewitt. The tapes show that Ayers and Dorhn are in the mainstream of Chicago politics only if Josef Stalin is mayor and Pol Pot is Cook County Commissioner.

This would come as a surprise to Mayor Daley who also has had kind words to say about Ayers/Dorhn - no doubt because he doesn’t wish to anger the liberals in Hyde Park and because he has a sneaking admiration for the former terrorist’s chutzpah. Daley is also a crook who gets away with his crimes which at least gives him something in common with Ayers. There is no excuse for Obama.

Hundt knows all of this and yet chooses to dismiss Obama’s association with Ayers in a way that suggests we shouldn’t be beastly to the candidate for hanging around with an ex-shoplifter. Pardon my gas but that fart ain’t stinkin’.

“…or declined to disavow a Korean War vet and pastor because he spoke too harshly one Sunday…”

First, I would ask my readers with an IQ above 60 to stop screaming at your monitor. Mr. Hundt can’t hear you and you are disturbing the dog who thankfully, can’t read what this monumentally dishonest and royally idiotic liberal has written about Jeremiah Wright. Otherwise, your beloved pooch might jump up on your desk and urinate on the screen -which is better than Hundt’s ridiculous notion of Wright’s rantings deserve.

Yes, everyone knows that Reverend Wright did quite a bit more than “speak harshly” about America, about whites, about Jews, and just about anyone else who this misanthropic nincompoop railed against in his sermons. If Hundt believes Wright saying “Not God Bless America but God Damn America” to be only “speaking harshly,” I would hate to see how he would categorize some of Bin Laden’s diatribes. Perhaps Osama is “just letting off steam” or maybe he’s “remonstrating” against the US.

Wright, of course, is a bigoted, America hating, anti-Semitic, nut case who believes AIDS was invented by the government to kill black people. And questioning Obama’s knowledge of his “Spiritual Advisor’s” outrageously hateful and despicable views is extremely relevant in that the candidate has denied being aware either in public or private that his pastor held to these positions.

If found otherwise, Obama is a bald faced liar. And it would appear just looking at what Tom Blumer has been able to come up with that either Obama looked the American people in the eye during his speech in Philadelphia and lied through his teeth or he was asleep during Wright’s sermons and never read any of the Trinity Church bulletins or purchased any tapes of his unbalanced pastor’s talks.

Blumer, by the way, makes a compelling case that Obama was wide awake during the services, went so far as to take notes of Wright’s sermons in the space provided by the church bulletin, and purchased at least one tape of Wright’s talks.

When Hundt makes his stupidly dishonest point that Wright preached his hate mongering only “one Sunday” he is either ignorant or is clumsily trying to excuse Obama’s incredible lack of judgement in continuing his association with a man the vast majority of Americans would have shunned like the plague after only one of his outbursts.

Instead, the candidate spent 20 years absorbing a worldview so at odds with the reality that is America that one can legitimately question Obama’s gut feelings about this country. This may anger the left but most of the rest of us see questioning Obama’s beliefs about America as a logical and reasonable outgrowth of the importance the candidate himself places on his relationship with Wright.

And this brings us to the essence of why Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Auchi, and other FOO’s are legitimate campaign issues; Obama’s claim that despite his lack of experience, it is his superior “judgement” that should recommend him to the American people. Obama conveniently tags questions about his associations as “distractions.” But are they?

Krauthammer:

With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the “distractions” foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. “It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics” and “trivializes the profound issues” that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.

Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those “Saturday Night Live” parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama’s own anthropological observation that “bitter” working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

You explain it either one of two way; towering hypocrisy or a disconnect from the way things are percieved outside of his own narrow, elitist social circles. I lean toward the latter but don’t dismiss the former. And this gets to the issue of Obama’s “judgement” that Ed Morrissey handles quite nicely:

Remember that one of the campaign slogans for Obama was “Judgment to Lead”. I often use the picture of Obama with that slogan on the lectern just to emphasize that Obama himself opened the debate over his judgment. Now that people want to start asking about the judgment he claims as his superior quality for the election, he wants to label it a “distraction”, but without it he has nothing else to offer except three undistinguished years as a backbencher in the Senate.

With no track record of legislative accomplishments and no evidence of any real engagement in change, judgment would have eventually become a focal issue for Obama anyway, even if he hadn’t brought it up himself. That means his judgment in launching his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist like William Ayers becomes relevant and germane, especially since the political connections between the two continued after Ayers announced that he wished he’d gone further in his political violence. Even in 2007, Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn talk about overthrowing the “corporate government” of the United States, to replace it with something more akin to Red China.

What is Obama’s judgment on Ayers and Dohrn? They’re “respectable figures of the mainstream in Chicago.”

The left will continue to downplay, dismiss, or just plain lie about Obama’s associations and why they are important. But as revelations continue to bubble up from the murky depths of American radicalism about these two characters and others, questions about Obama’s judgement, his core beliefs, his honesty and integrity, and how he feels about the rest of us will continue to be raised.

I would say to Mr. Hundt that this is not “Swiftboating” - not by any means. If by using that term you imply that Obama is being falsely accused you are greatly mistaken. Accusations based on audio and video evidence that slaps ordinary Americans in the face with their virulent hatred and radical chic doctrines do more to undermine your candidate than anything Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or the right wing “noise machine” could ever do.

I stand corrected.

Actually, the fact that I’m sitting quite comfortably doesn’t matter as much as the fact that I was wrong.

Hillary Clinton did not - I repeat, did not - score a double digit victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

As of now, CNN’s official tally of Hillary’s win shows her with 54.7501939494590227735948765900% of the vote to Obama’s 45.40193856383920203294874665848% percent of the vote for a victory margin by Hillary of 9.301929348375758339929219919287%.

So many of you were adamant that it was wrong of me to make the claim that Hillary won by “double digits” that I felt a correction was in order. In fact, some of you went to great pains to show me the error of my mathematical ways. Unfortunately, my Cray is down at the moment so I could only give a limited number of decimal point spread. I suppose I could have called the NSA and borrowed theirs but I understand they’re a little busy right now trying to decrypt the latest al-Qaeda intercepts so I nixed that idea.

I retract my earlier pronouncement that Hillary won by 10% or “double digits. Except if you’re talking about white voters.

Or Catholic voters.

Or Jewish voters

Or voters who go to church once a week.

Or voters who own guns.

Or voters 45-59 years of age.

Or voters 60 and over.

Or Female voters.

Or those with no college degree.

Or those who make $15-30 thousand and $30-$50 thousand, and $50-$75 thousand, and $100-$150 thousand a year.

Or those who believe the economy is the most important issue.

Or those with a union member in the household.

Other than that, Obama did great. He spent $11 million and got the stoner vote, the Limousine Liberal vote, the celebrity watchers vote, the elitist egghead vote, the atheists, anti-gun nuts, and open borders vote (the “Anti-Bittergate crowd), the perpetual student vote, and hundreds of thousands of rightly proud African Americans.

With a coalition like that, I predict that ex-President McGovern will be the first one to call with his congratulations on election night.

Conventional wisdom says Obama is not in any danger of losing the nomination as long as he remains ahead in the pledged delegate count. I would say that this is true at this point despite his blow out loss yesterday to Clinton in Pennsylvania.

And yes friends, it was a blow out. When you lose 62% of the white vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 70% of the Catholic vote, that is a blowout. When you lose 57% of the Jewish vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 58% of churchgoers, that is a blowout. When you lose 54% of workers making less than $50,000 a year (and win only those making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000), that’s a blowout. When you lose 63% of seniors, that’s a blowout. When you outspend your opponent by 3-1 and still lose by 10 points, that’s a blowout.

Obama was thoroughly and completely trounced, being saved only by his dominance with young voters and African Americans. Otherwise, Clinton would have gotten her 20 point win and we would probably be looking at an entirely different campaign today.

But we’re not. And Obama is not in trouble - yet. The May 6 primary in Indiana will be an interesting test for him since he is expected to breeze to victory in North Carolina’s contest held the same day. Once again he will have the opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign - this time by winning Indiana.

Indiana does not set up well for Obama except in the southeastern northwestern part of the state where Gary, an ex-steel town with an 85% African American population will give him overwhelming support thanks to its proximity to Chicago. The rest of the state will be a problem for him - especially Indianapolis which is one of the more conservative big cities in America. And Indiana voters look something like those same rural Pennsylvania voters who just snubbed him. Clearly, he has an uphill climb to defeat Clinton in the Hoosier state.

It is in North Carolina where Obama is in a must win situation. He is way ahead in the polls at this point - anywhere from 9-13 points. But looking at the PA exit polls once again, trouble may be brewing in Obamaland that could make North Carolina and much tougher race than it appears to be now.

In a piece headlined “The Next McGovern?” John Judis at TNR shows what is happening to some heretofore strong constituencies for Obama:

For his part, Obama cut into Clinton’s advantage, but couldn’t erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn’t crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics–losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn’t vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.

But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia’s very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.

My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton’s success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama’s gaffes and his suspect associations–whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko–began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama’s campaign–that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents–is being undermined.

Indeed, if you look at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ’70s and ’80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

VDH also is channeling McGovern today:

They won’t be able to force Hillary out since she still has strong arguments — the popular vote may end up dead even, or even in her favor; while he won caucuses and out-of-play states, she won the critical fall battlegrounds — and by plebiscites; she is the more experienced and more likely to run a steady national campaign; she wins the Reagan Democrats that will determine the fall election; and by other, more logical nomination rules (like the Republicans’ fewer caucuses, winner-take-all elections) she would have already wrapped it up. There seems something unfair, after all, for someone to win these mega-states and end up only with a few extra delegates for the effort. The more this drags out, the more Obama and Hillary get nastier and more estranged from each other — at precisely the time one must take the VP nomination to unite the party.

On the plus side, Hillary is showing a scrappy, tough blue-collar talent that is critical for November — but apparently it will be all for naught, or worse, cause lots of these Middle America “clingers” to go over to McCain.

More and more, McCain will want to run against Obama and his far weaker coalition of elite whites, African-Americans, students — and closets of skeletons. More and more, we will start to see the buyer’s remorse of midsummer 1972.

In short, Obama’s base is shrinking and there is very little he can do to stop the bleeding.

This then, is the biggest race left for Obama. He is not expected to win in Indiana, or West Virginia the following week or Kentucky the week after that (Oregon is considered a toss-up). All of a sudden, North Carolina becomes a must win for him - proof that he still has that old magic and that his campaign is not falling apart, shriveling under the onslaught from Hillary, McCain, and a suddenly querulous press.

No, Obama is not in trouble because he lost Pennsylvania. But the harbingers in the exit polls tell a story by which Obama may not enjoy the ending. If he loses North Carolina, the drumbeat will begin from many Democrats to ignore the pledged delegate total and pick the candidate that has the best chance of defeating John McCain and the Republicans in November.

Correction: Gary is in the northwest not southeast part of the state. If it was in the southeast, the rest of the state would be under water, drowned by Lake Michigan.