I don't really see a draw. I don't think Clinton should resign; she does have a path (a valid one, too) to the nomination, hinging on persuading the superdelegates and swinging the Credentials committee in her favor. However, by all metrics Obama is leading and Clinton's chances are a genuine longshot. Yes she can win, but a longshot does not equal a draw.
As far as veep goes, Obama would be a great veep for Hillary, but the reverse is not really true. I think Richardson complements Obama far more effectively, helps make a play for the Latino swing vote, and also is a strategic play in the border states and mountain west. With a Obama Richardson ticket, theres a real possibility of a map-changing election.
That elite conservatives could turn on Obama with guns blazing in their phony p.c.-driven rage was the perfect arrangement for them: they could express disapproval of the media darling because he had made a very un-p.c. blunder, making it possible for them to pose as the champions of the kind of "liberal intolerance" they might have decried a decade or two earlier.
Meanwhile, middle- and working-class white (and probably other) audiences heard this, remembered the anti-racist catechisms they had been taught for as long as they could remember and understood that the proper, approved reaction was to shake their heads and boo. McWhorter makes a similar observation. Now that anti-racism has captured the minds of so many of these people, now that the conditioning has had its intended effect, observers sympathetic to Obama are dismayed that Obama's nuanced effort to explain (or, as the critics have it, explain away) racially-charged and potentially racialist rhetoric fell on deaf ears. Yet this shouldn't surprise anyone-if the speech fell on deaf ears, it was the elites who deafened them years before with a single, simple imperative: "Don't pay attention to race, except when we tell you to!"
I think it's wishful postmodernist thinking to pretend that there is no such thing as race. If anything that is a Republican argument used to desperately deny that the playing field remains non-level.
The truth is that race is a genuine concept and has always been in human history. Race is not "bad". Its just a source of variation within the human race, like height or musical ability or intelligence or strength. Its not purely genetic, either - race is also enmeshed at its boundaries with culture, and with language.
Before we can ever get to that state where race exists, but doesn't matter, we need to confront the fact that it exists. And be honest about what our attitudes are - and yes, all of us, white, black, asian, latino, etc DO have "typical" attitudes about everybody else. We need to confront them, be honest about them, and thus recognize them for the barriers they are rather than wish them away.
Obama does not, despite the stereotype, speak of or promise to transcend race. He promises to approach it realistically instead of in the pseudo cryptic way we all dance around in in politics. That is what made his speech on race so unique.
His goal was to explain his embrace of Wright, not repudiate it, because the latter would be buying into the cynical racial politics that have still not done a thing to heal us as a nation since the trauma of Jim Crow. If that means that everyone who is not ready to move forward with actual progress on race relations, instead preferring the cryptoracial dance that serves as status quo, becomes entrenched in opposition to Obama, then that is actually fine. And if Obama cant win without the support of the racial status quo, also fine. That means that we arent ready for change. But we will be.