Obama has NO record of civil rights work. Obama couldn't even bother to walk a mile from his house to see how his constituents were being treated in the housing put up by his friend, Tony Rezko. He didn't care enough to walk that far. He has avoided it probably because it would categorize him, in his mind, as a "black politician" who is concerned about black issues. Never occurs to people that civil rights are citizen issues, not black issues. Obama has avoided being involved in civil rights work, but is oh so happy to co-opt the Rev. King's work to his advantage. In my book, that is cheating, just like putting your name on bills you had nothing to do with is cheating.

That's really helpful.  Obama is up by 10 over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll (which has benn Hillary's best poll), and the ARG poll out today shows Obama tied with Hillary in Penn.   Wright has not hurt him there.

And Rasmussen shows Obama polling better against McCain than Hillary, and only one point behind.

Hillary has tried to use Wright against Obama, while Obama has not used Tuzla agaisnt Hillary.....

I agree that saying so doesn't make it so. But just as with Sen. Obama's "handling" of his issues with Rev. Wright, just because you say he handled it brilliantly doesn't make it so.

And just because the chattering class says so doesn't make it so. We won't know the effect until the day after the general election.

I say this because I think Rev. Wright's sermons are going to be the heart of the Republican 527 attack against Sen. Obama should he be the nominee.

(Before anyone jumps up to say Sen. Clinton has some crappy preachers in her camp as does Sen. McCain, neither of them have claimed a deep and abiding spiritual mentorship with them. Me? That Sen. Obama is so Jesus-y scares me more than Rev. Wright, though I hate the AIDS was invented to kill people of color crap and reject it as ignorant and irrational.)

Because Sen. Obama still remains largely unknown to many regular folks, the 527 attacks will define him---easily---as unpatriotic, a flip-flopper, a coward, an effete, corrupt, a commie/pinko, sheesh there's a lot of big lies that can be created just from the stuff I can remember without having all my coffee yet.

And then there all the things coming we don't know yet. Should he be the nominee, this guy is going to be eviscerated.

I don't think he can withstand it. If you believe, as I do, that the primary process is about selecting (not electing) a nominee who can win, then Sen. Obama is not the guy.

Sen. Clinton has a different set of problems with 527s. I agree---there's probably a Tuzla video already cut and ready. I thought I saw a mash on YouTube a while back that was, unfortunately, made by an Obama supporter. (I also saw a sample 527 using footage from the WTC on 9/11 and Rev. Wright's sermons that will be devastating to Democrats should Sen. Obama be the nominee. That mash was created by a Clinton supporter.)

The 527 efforts against Sen. Clinton will be more difficult because what can they say to define her that we don't already know? Yawn.

Her campaign sucked donkey ducks. But the last few weeks of her fighting has caused some to re-think what they thought they knew.She has already redefined herself. No, it's not immunization from 527 attacks, but it's a pretty good shield.

I would also suggest, contrary to CW, that Sen. Obama's campaign has also sucked the aforementioned ducks. Alienating a core pillar of the electorate you need to win the White House by smearing them as racist and stupid is not a winning strategy.

It is a strategy to beat somebody.

You may believe that Sen. Obama's campaign did not set out to alienate voters from his opponent using the charge of racism. But I believe BTD posted and commented on Matt Yglesias's commentary stating the exact opposite: anti-Clinton Democrats used race and charges of racism to peel away the base of support Sen. Clinton had among African-American voters. It was intentional.

It's a good strategy if your goal is to defeat Sen. Clinton. It is a bad strategy to win the White House.

Then again, maybe the point isn't the White House, but to get larger majorities in the House and Senate. Locking in those majorities means some favored policies can be enacted, while giving political cover ("The White House fought us, boo hoo hoo!") to failed or nonexistent efforts.

MLK spoke with fire and conviction about the problems facing America and DEMANDED solutions.  Obama outlined what we already know while offering no plan (which a Presidential hopeful might want to do...to show he is "on the case".) and demanding no solutions from a Congress to which he belongs nor an office to which he aspires.

Maybe the race part of the speech isn't what you found historic.  Maybe it was the jabs at Ferraro and Clinton?  Or maybe it was his high-minded outing of his grandmother as being somewhat bigoted?  Maybe it was when he condemned the words of his preacher but not the man himself.  Maybe it was when he lumped blacks of Wright's generation as harboring a feeling that racism was endemic to whites?  Maybe it was when he threw Islam under the bus (like Bush lumping any Muslim who disagrees with US foreign policy as a radical) and gave carte blanche approval to Israel solely because they are a "reliable" ally?

Remember, this is the same machine, GOP, that had no problem smearing McCain when he was running in their primary. Imagine what they can do with Obama and all his short-comings. If you think he can "deal with it" by making a couple of pretty speeches, you are dreaming. By then, people will be parsing his speeches like they did Reagan's, and finding out that it is all fluff and filler. Not much meat. Except what the GOP smear machine finds on Obama, then it will be feast time, and not in a good way for us.

Kristol also said this:

"As a Congressional staffer put it, "Here's something to consider: Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain's secret weapon -- among Clinton supporters -- may be Hillary's 3 a.m. national security ad."