Presume for a moment that the Jeremiah Wright controversies (plural now) would have eventually made national headlines.* For Barack Obama or Democrats more generally, when would it have been best for this story to break?
Consider four possibilities:
(a) Last autumn, before Obama rose up to catch Hillary Clinton;
(b) this spring, after he had built his delegate and popular vote leads over her;
Chris Bowers is worried about Barack Obama’s scheduled appearance this weekend on Fox News Sunday. I was a bit skeptical myself about the decision until TPM’s Greg Sargent reported that a top Obama campaign official told him that Obama will "take on" Fox, whatever that means. Here’s what the adviser told Sargent:
Even though her Pennsylvania win is arguably Hillary Clinton's biggest since New Hampshire -- especially given the gobs of cash she’s raised since Tuesday night -- the fact is that the chances of a Clinton comeback, though better now than they were Monday, are still slim. And so, though some folks are going to find my column today in the Baltimore Sun a bit premature, and maybe very presumptuous, the issue of her departure from the race will need to be addressed. A quick sample:
I have mad respect for Tom Edsall, truly, but he’s just plain wrong in his new HuffPo piece about how the white male voter just must be crucial (as ever...yawn) to all things electoral in American politics. And invoking the Pennsylvania primary as a case in point was not the way to go.
So, David Sirota is correct again about the curious, but entirely logical u-shaped relationship between states' black population share and Barack Obama’s performance. Obama does well where the black population is low (and therefore racial polarization is low as well) or high (black votes swamp out polarizing effects). Hillary Clinton wins the states with medium-sized black populations where polarization is strong enough to overwhelm the black voting base.