Sen. Obama may be risking the nomination, however his non-descript, non-policy, non-specific approach may be the proper technique in the general election.

In my opinion, Nixon pulled that off twice & Reagan pulled it off twice.  It's the equivalent of "trust me, I know what I'm doing."

Whether Obama heard or didn't hear the divisive sermons really was never the issue at all. Obama was the guilt-free black candidate...that holding white American's to task for the sins of the past wasn't his platform as it was for someone like Jesse Jackson.

Obama then gives his 'major speech on race' which merely admits that yes, he is black and that there are wacky divisive people who are black and white.

When Wright publicly suggests that Obama is a mere politician, saying the things politicians say, Obama then proves Wright to be correct in his assertion by disowning him.

Somehow, somewhere , some people had the notion that voting for Obama would magically heal race relations in America but there has been absolutely no evidence of that occuring. In fact, the black community is aware that Obama gets their votes without a single commitment given to the black community. Obama has distanced himself from the black community by refusing to appear at functions such as Tavis Smiley's, the MLK assassination anniversary in Memphis and in fact, any event that has either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for fear of being identified with either of them.

... Hillary Clinton and John McCain favor this dopey, irresponsible proposal, which would save individual motorists a grand total of $28, but which would result in $9 billion in lost tax revenues, much of it targeted for infrastructure needs.

(Senator Clinton says she would recoup the losses with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Don't hold your breath.)

No one with a serious understanding of the nation's energy needs supports this foolishness. Senators Clinton and McCain have been assailed by editorial writers on the left and the right for pandering. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City was stinging in his criticism, calling the proposal "about the dumbest thing" he'd heard in a long time.

Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn't let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.

That's been it for the party for the past 40 years.

I think part of Obama's problem is that the way he structured his message to appeal to the American people - the hope, the unity, the change, the "new kind of candidate," the semi-revivalist rallies, the "yes we can" - long on "trust me" and short on specifics - was already reminding people too much of a religious message, such that it is very hard for them to stop thinking about the influence of Wright, regardless of Obama's attempt to distance himself.

He does not have the ability Clinton does to talk about policy with as much fluidity and interest and excitement - it's not necessarily fair, but she can do that in the same conversational way that people discuss what happened on American Idol this week - which connects with voters - and his attempts remind people of that economics course they took in college, or that history teacher they had in high school, that was so boring there was a contest to keep count of how many times he said "uh" and for how long he could draw out the word "and."

Why do I have to keep pointing out that Obama started talking about the Lincoln Bedroom on day 1?  And is still attacking Clinton's character every day with his "Nader Campaign Trademarked" "takes money from lobbyists" talking point.

But I'll try to add, if only to deviate slightly from my typical comment, and at least dig a little deeper, a lot of this depends on what you consider to be an issues based campaign.  

I mean, if one considers Character an issue proper in and of itself, then all these things really do all come into play.

Clinton does really have to fall on her sword with respect to misspeaking about sniper fire.

Which she did, of course.

And of course, we can point out yet again, that the double standard always exists in the mind of the Obama supporter.

Character really is a legitimate ISSUE (it's an issue's based campaign) for them when it comes to Clinton, but if one ever talks about that issue with respect to Obama, there's a huge problem, and Obama himself starts whining about the usual stuff.  Soundbytes.  Gotcha questions.

Check this out from yesterday on mydd

None of this stupidity (or at least very little) appears to transpire behind the closed doors of the corporate board room.

Now of course, that door is closed, so what do we really know about it?

Stupidity to me is when supposed political analysts repeat gossip, then come out and say the gossip turned out to be false, and then repeat the nonsense next week.  That stupidity I've seen over the course of the primary.  

Stupidity is when someone endorses bi-partisanship and raves about Obama's words.  Meanwhile turns around and blasts Hillary for actually winning over her former Republican enemies and cannot see the contradiction in their own position.  

Stupidity is when Obama spends 80% of his campaign energy on negative ads and speeches that villify Hillary, and some political analyst writes an editorial saying it's time for Obama to "get tough."  

Stupidity is when you can't give an inch, even when it's obvious.  Obama DID parade his grandmother as a racist in that speech.  Not good.  He DID dig at Ferarro in that speech.  Not good.  He DID treat his pastor in the same way he treated PA voters in his bitter comment.  Not good.  And because the topic was about race, the silly people raced to their computers to discuss how it would be taught in schools as a great American speech?  Lordy, I hope not.  He violated cardinal rules right and left in that speech.

Finally, stupidity is thinking that something as fundamental as the way he handled the Wright issue, not just in the campaign but all along in his life, is NOT an issue reflecting Obama's character and, therefore, will be a topic of discussion for voters.

Now, that's really stupid.

I can only think that some of these writers have fallen into thinking that the "power of the pen" is mighty.  His call for journalists to kill the story is telling.

That's a mistake.  Words do not wield power.  Ideas do.  

 I just watched the video of the guy who as a child his house was bombed by the Weather underground.  Like the Wright tape ti gives a different flavor to the Ayers story.  When people start seeing this guy on tv telling that story, there is no way Obama will be elected president.  

 I frankly did not give a hoot about that one, but at the core is the issue of Ayers and his group advocating violence.  I know that we are not supposed to do guilt by association, but Obama got virtues by his association with Ayers and Wright, connections, social status etc.  Now in my eyes, you cannot pick and choose.  

I gave up on him after he cited a single anonymous blog comment as evidence that the alleged Clinton race-baiting program was working. He also described Hillary's 60 Minutes interview ("Is Obama Muslim?" "Of course not.") as evidence of her evil.

It's too bad. I remember when he actually wrote good stuff, as with the Tulia cases.