"Rather, Clinton was belatedly putting some needed distance between herself and Wright."

Do you really believe Clinton thinks people are so stupid that without her explicit remarks they might confuse the situation and see her as  supporting the media snips of Wright's comments?  

Jerome-

Wright has obviously damaged Obama, but I don't know that it's fair to assume that Wright automatically damaged Clinton as well.

I think the extended campaign, however, has hurt both of them.  As they each tear each other to pieces, McCain goes unopposed.  As soon as Clinton won the popular votes in OH and TX, McCain rising in the polls was pretty much a guarantee, and was predicted by people like Chris Bowers before Wright even came out.

Wright may have indirectly hurt Clinton, but it's only because it basically puts a negative cloud on the entire Democratic campaign.  If Obama had effectively "sealed" the nomination, then yes, I think more people would come out defending him.  Instead, we get Obama supporters trying to support him, and Clinton supporters attempting to tear him apart with it, and thus Obama supporters going back to tear Clinton apart with something else, etc...  That's why both Clinton and Obama have declining poll numbers against McCain now.  

Hillary has tanked in Missouri because of Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Really?

That seems like a pretty far logical stretch.

I also enjoy the typical Clintonian response that when someone is causing you trouble, no matter the relationship, the history or what good they have done, you immediately throw them under the bus.  For political expediency sake.

I completely believe Hillary when she said she would have left that church.  She would thrown anything under the bus if Mark Penn told her it would help politically.

That 17% lead Dukakis had over Bush in June 1988 also showed that the race was over.

Sorry. Can't spare you.

This is a devastating week for your girl. She lied about facing SNIPER FIRE. That's probably one of the most despicable lies I can think of - especially when we have troops in battle right now.

Anything to take the focus off of this travesty.

There was no gun to her head, she should have done the decent thing and said, "No comment." or "The American people are aware of Wright's comments and will make their own decisions."

Even her own pastor supports Wright,

"
"When the Jeremiah Wright sound bites appeared this week, I wish white Americans could have said, "Tell us more, Dr. Wright. Explain to us what you are trying to tell us. Let's see the videos of the entire sermon. We want to understand your perspective. We are going to try to not be defensive. We may end up disagreeing with you, but we are going to take some time to try to understand what you have to say." What a wonderful thing that would have been for white America to do.

But instead we became afraid. We can choose between fear and great joy, because in America today, in the place of our deepest oppression, we are experiencing the shock of resurrection. "

As for your polls,

"http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol  itics/blog/2008/03/obamaclinton_ti e_in_n ew_poll_p.html

" Obama is the choice of 47 percent, Clinton 46, a neglible difference in a poll like this, a March 20-22 survey by the Gallup Poll. The survey confirms Gallup's finding just before Easter that "Clinton's recent lead in the race -- apparently fueled by controversy dogging the Obama campaign over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- had evaporated,'' Gallup's Lydia Saad reports.

For all the controversy that Obama has faced during the past few weeks surrounding the "incendiary'' remarks of his longtime and now-retired pastor, remarks which the candidate has disavowed, the last two accountings of the Gallup daily tracker suggest that the senator from Illinois has placed that behind him. Clinton had gained a detectable polling advantage over Obama during the height of the controversy.

Gallup's general election polling, matching presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain against Obama and Clinton, continue to show McCain holding a slight advantage.

The Arizona senator holds a three percentage point lead over Obama in the preferences of registered voters, and a two-point lead over Clinton, again, within the margin of error.""

-----
But anyway Jerome, good luck trying to flog this story again since Hillary is drowning in her lies, nice distraction attempt.

Well said Jerome, This Wright issue will be the stuff of swiftboat ads towards Nov.  We might not like it, but thats the way it is.

I agree with others who have noted that the cause of both our candidates numbers going down is far more closely related to the ongoing negative primary than it is to Wright specifically.

McCain's favorables are through the roof right now b/c he's not being attacked by anyone.  That will change.  Honestly, I find the doom and gloom views of many almost comical.  This is McCain at his peak.  EITHER of our candidates will beat him.  Just wait and see.  

As everybody knows, state-by-state general election polls in late March never, ever move.

Thanks for the reminder.

But, as you also note, partisans are too emotionally invested to care.  I also agree with you that both of our candidates are now damaged goods.  Seven Strings' diary from yesterday illustrates how Clinton's unfavorability ratings generally vary the same as Obama's.  When Obama is in a rough period, Clinton's unfavorables rise as Obama partisans take it out on Clinton.  And the whole thing makes more independent voters just not want to take a chance on the Democratic party.

alive but the question is so?

if the Wright story is affecting Obama AND Clinton, then its a democratic problem, but as you pointed out, Liberals aren't just going to throw Wright under a bus, so if thats not an option then what?

and please once Mccain actually gets some media focus lets see if he can keep those numbers up.

mr. we are succeeding in Iraq and I don't care what anyone says?

yeah hey the ceasefire just ended, good call on that one Mr. Mccain

If McCain already has MO locked up by April, we are in deep trouble.

Yes, if that is or were true, we would be. Thing is, McLame has nothing locked up. He's benefiting from his party coalescing around him, which ours has yet to do, and from a media narrative driven largely, now, by Democratic infighting.

The Wright episode, because of Obama's speech, has been a net positive for Democrats. That speech enhanced our brand value overall, staying away from primary partisanship for a moment; it showed that Democrats are the ones to turn to for some actual thinking about long-standing problems.

The difference between that speech and the soundbites thrown out by the average politician was a breath of fresh air. People noticed that quality of it.

Keep holding Wright's hand if you all want to, hold Ayers' too, but don't say we haven't tried to warn you. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory (again).

Thank you for your concern in solemnly pointing out that the landscape has shifted. Sadly, I guess there really is no choice but for Obama to drop out and remove this issue from the race.

::snicker::

Obama's pastor will taint the entire democratic party.  I think that's one reason Murtha came out for Hillary.  He couldn't imagine having to go on tv defending obama and his pastor's comments.  It will be a nightmare for democrats.  You can't associate closely with someone who bashes the United States in such harsh language..and expect to be elected or even nominated for president.

Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the "kitchen sink strategy" and the fact that McCain is allowed to look like a statesmen while Clinton is singing his praises.

Hard for me to know for certain as I was kind of busy over the past month.  Dodging sniper fire don't you see.

Jerome,

Your point about Wright hurting the entire Democratic party is right on the money.

Bill Clinton spent his entire 8 years trying to re-brand the Democrats as New Democrats and trying to align the party with the culturally conservative Reagan Democrats of the mid-west.

Wright (and Obama) has destroyed all of that in one neat anti-American sermon. Obama continues to pour fire on all of that by defending Wright daily.

Americans had a negative visceral reaction to Wright's sermons. I find it incredible that Obama and his surrogates are out on TV representing the Democratic party defending and rationalizing Wright's sermons. They are seriously hurting the Democratic party's brand and its future as a majority party. Wright is a huge gift to the Republicans.

The Democratic part should renounce and reject Wright's comments as strongly as possible for its own good. The top leaders of the party are afraid to denounce Wright for the fear of offending the AA voters. The greater danger is by not denouncing they are offending everyone else. They appear as being captive to the special interests of the party which is what hurt this party in the 70s and the 80s.

There we go again!

The polls show no dramatic effect from the Wright controversy.  Both Hilary and Obama's poll numbers have dropped because both are caught up in a negative primary.  McCain is up, because he gets to sit above their petty fighting.  If the Wright controversy had a huge effect, Hilary's poll numbers would be holding steady.  The national numbers continue fluctuate around 45%, both candidates base of support.  Obama is probably up a point or two overall, but nothing significant and i doubt this will change.  However, maintaining the status quo favors Obama because Hilary ran such a horrible campaign in February.  

Blaming Clinton's decline on Wright is weird enough to not require any comment.

However, it seems you've somehow decided to blame the people who feel America is discriminatory and unfair, or cast them in a negative "unpatriotic" light? Now we're  saying people that feel the system is unfair are what, wrong? They shouldn't be Democrats? And that the people who think everything in Bush's America is hunky-dory just started voted for Republicans?

Please, this sounds like the data anyone would expect (at any time) given a progressive versus conservative electorate. Conservatives are satisfied, progressives are not. Why on Earth is this a negative or unexpected outcome? And you give absolutely no tracking information on the "unfair/fair" polling data (only the overall vs. data) you use to indicate the damage Wright has done to Democrats, so how in the world are we supposed to know how precipitous the drop has been? It's almost like you're making tracking conclusions about a cause/effect event on a single polling point (which is impossible)

Finally, even if the drop in Clinton's numbers is attributable to Wright (and somehow Obama as well) it still can't possibly equal the drop in Democrats' numbers achieved by the Clintons in 1994. Now CAN it?

back when Dr. King was marching and taking on the white power structure and white imperialism distanced themselves from his words. They would have been wrong then and any Dem who distances themselves from those words now is just as wrong.

But then again, who cares about equality and imperialism anyway? That's liberal crap and this party doesn't need those latte drinking liberals anyway.

So, the Clinton campaign avoids Wright like the plague, refusing to touch it.  But then, all of a sudden, when her campaign is suffering a meltdown over her serial exaggeration, she brings it up personally...

And you say that it's so she can distance himself from Wright, when she was never associated with him in the first place.

Sure.  Occam's razor says that makes perfect sense!

Is way to early to pick on polls; especially in MO- in that sense the numbers are not that bad-now, I am curious about the polling methodology- does Rasmussen balance the polls with the current R/D balance which is unfavorable to Rs? My guess is that he hasn't yet- and I think Gallup does- which would explain the 10 point gap in the national polls. Also he polls likely voters. Considering the that R field is set and the D is not, that would be an advantage. And one thing- Hillary is overdoing it and it is costing her.    

This is an incredible letter from a military veteran who was there in Tuzla when Hillary made her heroic landing under heavy enemy fire.

This might be the one that ends it for HRC...

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.c om/my_weblog/2008/03/bosnian-vet-acc.htm l

Whether or not he intends to, I think Jerome is actually making the Obama camapaign stronger and his supporters smarter by constantly challenging them on issues such as Wright.  It can only help to deal with these potentially destructive issues now - as it stands, Obama hasn't won anything yet.  

And this goes for susanhu and alegre and Universal as well.  If the Obama campaign can't deal with the stuff that gets thrown at them from a bunch of bloggers, then there is little chance it will be able to deal with the crap thrown at it from right wing operatives and their lackies.

So I say keep bringing the attacks, keep on raising questions and keep us from holding our heads under the sand - because Obama and his suppoter need to know what were up against in the Fall, should we be so fortunate.

I am a highly partisan Obama supporter, but I will support Clinton wholeheartedly in the Fall should she be the nominee.  

McCain must not win.

Rev. Meeks is another preacher Obama prays with.  http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726 619,obamafalsani040504.article  Watch Meeks on You Tube.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2M11BsA 3g  Or read about him.  
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/James. Meeks.Mayor.2.330967.html

Bonus: he's a gay basher who has earned a spot on the roster of bad guys at the Southern Poverty Law Center.  http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrepo rt/article.jsp?sid=410

I have more.  I'm waiting for a good time to write a diary.

Jerome "The Sky is Falling" Armstrong has called MO for McCain, Wed, March 25 2008, at 5:21 est. The call was considered risky by many in the media as results were still out, as polls are to close in approximately 200 days. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX have yet to follow the call. Final results were not available but due to pre-entrance polls, the state, and 11 electoral votes, appears headed for the McCain column

Called EV's McCain 11, (Obama/Clinton) 0

Developing...

In other news, Armstrong lauded the first successful manned landing on Mars, the flying Car, and the turn of the millenium

This is a very interesting piece, but I think it might be stretching to say that this pattern is a direct result of the Wright controversy.

I imagine it is actually a well established pattern, and one that we, as Democrats, may wish to reflect on candidly.  But I do think that you're right in one sense - as I've read conservative columns (the only place I can find rational commentary on Obama, sadly), they have certainly capitalized on this as an illustrative example of what is so wrong with "the Left".

It has helped me to understand better, for myself, that I'm quite a bit more centrist than I had supposed.  Because, like most conservatives, I actually find the notion of dismissing Wright as some misunderstood product of context to be fairly irresponsible.

the memory of the American electorate.

I bet this is even forgotten by July 4th.

Heck, by May Day.

Obama is a sinking ship. This elections is going to be a disaster for the Democrats.

Al Gore should have run.

That the Wright issue has hurt the Dems to a certain extent. But I would also argue that a big part of this McCain "surge" is that he is criss-crossing the globe/country looking presidential and meanwhile the Obama/Clinton camps are firebombing each other daily.

If this were a Obama/McCain or Clinton/McCain race, I think you'd see it get back to pretty much even.

I'd like to add also that, while I know this is a political site and that part of politics is figuring out the best way to win an election, I find Jerome's continuous rants that all Democrats should have immediately thrown Wright under a bus extremely cynical and disheartening.

The fact that people, like Martin Marty, are coming around to try and defend Wright and give a more well-rounded discussion of who Wright is and what he's accomplished, is not a bad thing.  Even Bill Clinton today basically said that we shouldn't be throwing people under a bus just for saying one comment or another... why doesn't this apply to Wright as well?

I agree that we need to het a hold of ourselves here. One poll does not a nomination make. This is the perception of Dems by many people in this country, that we are afraid of our own shadow, that the very idea of a Republican attack ad makes half the party want to faint. Who gives a rat's ass about a poll in March? We haven't yet begun to take the fight to McCain and when we do, do you really think that these numbers will remain where they are?

Lets be real about this. If its not an attack using Rev. Wright it will be something else. If Clinton is the nominee does anyone think that there won't be endless ads accusing them of God knows what? We need to get a grip here, this is absolutely the best possible scenario for Dems to be in this year. Republican party identification is the lowest its been in generations. Money, the key factor in all elections, is so heavily tilted towards Dems that its almost laughable. If its attack ads that are going to scare every one to death all I can say ,in the immortal words of our Dear Leader, BRING IT ON.

although he should definitely have thrown Wright under the bus and then sped off as quickly as possible.  I put full blame on his self-righteous base that is unwilling to call him to task for anything- at all.  They tried to spin this as a race issue, Obama made a speech about it and they thought it was just fine and dandy.  Meanwhile, turns out they missed the entire boat- it was never really about race, but about being told that you suck and should be damned- because you are an American.  

For many HRC supporters, including myself, I don't necessarily disagree with the reality that informed Wright's comments, I disagree with the perspective with which he choses to view that reality- one of anger, hate, and despair- certainly not hope.

I am gay as the night is dark, my people have had it pretty damn bad in this country- although for different reasons.  I get angry, I get despairing, some times I think I hate.   I would never stand before a group of people in a church of all places and bombast in hate.  Never. full stop.  I would certainly never include two of the biggest historical advocates of my 'cause' in my hateful disparaging.  

And you know what?  When it really comes down to it, my view is not so narrow as to forget all the wonder and greatness this beautiful country has brought to the world and to me.  I can't help it, for all my sadness and anger, I cannot but love the sweet land of liberty.

Clinton can still win the presidency, but, if Obama is nominated, he's going down to a smashing defeat.  Ironically, Obama's best chance of winning the presidency is actually losing this nomination, and then trying again in the future when he's had time to build up more of a record and put distance between himself and Wright.

If the choice is between a guy whose Pastor gets a little riled up once in awhile, and a woman who voted to authorize Bush to assault Iraq and then repeatedly defended her decision, then it's an easy call for me.

Obama.

What McCain surge? Oh my god. I'm salviating when Obama starts tearing into him.

Even Bush's speechwriter is calling Obama a 'extraordinary talent'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3628100.ece

Gotta agree Jerome that these numbers are pretty scary for both candidates.

One of the most disturbing things to see in the wake of the Wright revelation is how stupidly so many liberals took up Wright's defense. Really, you've got to believe that many of them would defend anything if they felt that it might help Obama.

It used to be that the right wing would find some crazy person like Ward Churchill, who represented the moonbat wing of the left, and pretend that he was representative of leftist thinking and sentiment, and progressives would loudly protest that such a claim was absurd, that he was a totally marginal figure, nothing like the core of the Democratic Party. And Democrats -- even the netroots -- would proudly try to encourage veterans to run for office as Democrats, so that we could demonstrate to the country that Democrats were no less concerned with national security, and proud of our country, than any Republican.

Yet with the simple act of embracing, without any embarrassment, the likes of Jeremiah Wright, all that work might just as well have been thrown down a rat hole. We have become exactly what we have protested we were not: a Party with a soft spot in its heart for those who hate America.

I can't even begin to imagine the quality of joy in the dark hearts of the right wing over this. They surely had counted the election cycle of 2008 as a certain loss for them. They must be pinching themselves black and blue over their incredible luck, to see the mindless lemmings of the Democratic Party find a way to kill themselves en masse without any real assistance from the outside.

The Democratic brand is turning to junk, and those who defend Wright are the parties responsible.

What Wright has wrought is President McCain...

With significant Democratic support I'll wager

It was bad enough that not enough high profile Democrats would go out and throw Wright under the bus.

Not only are you contributing to the slander of a good man, but you're implying that the Democratic leadership really wanted to, but just couldn't bear the thought of showing their cards in the primary race yet?

I know you hear this every time you write something, Jerome, but what you're doing is abominable.  You're trying to tie Jeremiah Wright to the downfall of the Democratic party, and not only is that ridiculous, it's buying into the worst of the Republican slander machine's tactics.

I don't know you.  I never heard of you before coming to this site last week.  But my impression is that you used to be a decent Democratic advocate, and this level of dishonesty is such that I wish that I could write it off as actual Republican smear.

McCain's numbers are going up because he has no current challengers and he has cultivated the media over 20 years to be his buddies.  When there were legitimate questions about his lobbyist ties, the media put the lid on it for months, and then released it to make it look like a sex scandal which he was able to reject outright.  The media fell on their sword to insulate him against further attacks on his lobbyist connections.

Did the Wright issue have any impact?  Sure, it caused Obama's numbers to dip for awhile before stabilizing.  Why would that affect Clinton at all?  No, if anything is going on here in addition to Teflon John McCain's free ride, it's that Democratic-leaning voters are wearying of the constant negative campaigning that Clinton's team is instigating.

Yes, Clinton's team is instigating.  Clinton apologists can equivocate all they want on Bill's assertion that he was only talking about his wife and McCain in the general, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to note the commonly removed "That is my argument for her" caveat at the end which unquestionably assigns the set of presidential candidates who are patriotic people devoted to the issues to {Hillary Clinton, John McCain} Notice that it /= {Barack Obama}.  Yes, McPeak was stupid for taking the bait with a bit of an overreaction, but the substance of his response was accurate.

So don't be so intellectually bankrupt as to say that the downturn of Democratic favor, which is both temporary and not as bad as you're suggesting, to Reverend Wright.  That wasn't the only thing that happened in the last two weeks.  

I was so proud of Clinton; on the one issue of Reverend Wright, I thought it was so refreshing that she understood that it was a personal matter and that it was okay to not pile on criticism of sermons taken out of context.  But, as you mention, the polling numbers must rule her life, because as soon as she started perhaps seeing the first numbers from her Bosnia whopper seep in, she thought to shuck and jive with the facts and distract us from the issue by saying, "You know that thing that had nothing to do with me before?  Well, I liked it better when you were talking about that instead of my 44%-and-falling honesty rating.  So yes, that guy wouldn't be my pastor, even though he was good enough for my husband to invite over for his "mea culpa" breakfast after he couldn't hide his sex scandal anymore (and shame on Barack Obama for releasing a picture of Bill with that monster!)."

Jerome, I came to this site instead of Kos because I realize that the Kos attitude is detremental to the overall purpose of electing a Democratic president right now.  It's a shame what they've done to Clinton supporters.  But you are not helping, either.

If people continue to see the netroots as so bitterly divided, it will only come to tragedy for us.  We're already being featured as jokes on cable news shows.  

We can't write Clinton supporters off like we can Ron Paul supporters.  We can't drive further bitter dissent to the 90% likely Democratic candidate without further harming our chances in November.  Neither is a good option, so stop helping it to happen.

I can't believe I have to tell adults these things.