James Fallows is a bit agog that the Clinton team would disseminate articles from The American Spectator -- the same Spectator that spent the 90s conducting a fact-free witch hunt against the Clintons -- to harm Obama. In contrast, I'm much more surprised to see Clinton make a frontal attack on Wright. Forget whether it's skeezy. It seems like terrible strategy. Since all political commentary is powered by sports analogies, let's take football here. The Clinton team is playing as if this will be decided on points. But in fact, it will be decided by judges, some of them empires, some of them representatives of the crowd, some of them big donors to the stadium. And those judges are terrified of pissing off their loyal fan base. The strategy here should be making the loyal fan base like you, not trying to pummel the other team. Back in the world of direct language, if Clinton is to have any chance, any chance at all, African-American voters need to feel comfortable with her ascension. If they don't, and if Obama is rendered unelectable, than the convention will sooner choose a third candidate (Edwards, Gore, etc) than elevate Clinton and risk a schism with one of the party's key voting blocs. Clinton, for her part, could have scored some points with this group by forcefully defending Obama on Wright. But every time she takes a shot at one of these racially-charged controversies, she makes her own nomination less likely. She may score a point, but she turns off more fans, and thus renders more judges unable to vote for her.
