Wow, that is a bit dizzying. One thing here: it would seem that Obama's support from "independents and some Republicans", which his campaign has indeed talked about incessantly, may well be lessening as we speak. This, as a result of the past week's 'revelations' in re to the Rev. Wright, and Rezko's significantly larger than previously reported role in Obama's campaign finance history.

This weekend, I've spent a fair amount of time perusing reader comments on mainstream news stories and opinion pieces related to these topics. Many of the comments would seem to be from beer label voters, but a good number have a more, uh, fruity tang to them. Judging by the sometimes voluminous reader comments, it looks like Obama might well encounter a lot more voter resistance ahead than he has heretofore experienced. Is there any reason to believe Republicans and independents would not be among those less inclined to vote for him?

You say: "thousands of Republicans followed orders in MS, and maybe TX and OH, to support Senator Clinton"

An equal amount of noise has been made in the opposite direction - Republicans who have no intention of supporting Obama in the general, voting for him in primaries in a number of states. In fact, the NYTimes documented one of these instances - two Texas Republicans who backed out of the deal at the last minute, when a poll worker informed them they would be listed in the Democratic column for the next year. It's doubtful the Times would've written about this instance if they had judged it an isolated one.

This looks like more, not less:

"In an extensive 80-minute interview with the Sun-Times, White House hopeful Barack Obama laid out just how close he and indicted Chicago businessman Tony Rezko grew personally and financially.

Rezko could have donated as much as $250,000 to Obama's campaigns over the years -- much more than the $60,000 to $70,000 Obama's campaign initially estimated, Obama said..."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/843582,obama031408a.article

That's ugly, it's Markos and his likeminded minions. The sheer unadulterated nastiness toward Clinton on Kos is almost stupifying. So, peace, Hare Krishna, and water beds to you, Mr. M - John McCain's gotta love you.

It's all over if there's no longer any center to hold. I'm afraid we're witnessing the death throes of the Democratic party, this country, the whole shooting match. Ah well, I shall just continue to watch spring unfold and wonder how many more we're likely to see.

The Alice Palmer mentioned in this column was not incidental to Obama's career. As one of his earliest political mentors, Palmer Palmer helped Obama get his start in politics on Chicago's South Side. How did he repay her? By playing hardball when she decided to once again run for her seat in the IL state senate, after Obama had already entered the race. Palmer asked him to reconsider, but his answer was pretty much, "No way, out of my way."

When a Chicago newspaper asked Obama last year (I believe) about his subsequent relations with Alice Palmer, he said he hadn't been in touch with her since 1996.

If you take time to read the 2000 Chicago Reader story Josie provided a link to, you'll find this:

'The other knock on Obama is that he's still getting his legislative chops in the minor league of the Illinois senate. He's not ready for a promotion to Washington. Rich Miller, the publisher of Capitol Fax, a Springfield newsletter, says Obama hasn't compiled much of a legislative record, partly because he's turned off other senators.

"Barack is a very intelligent man," Miller said. "He hasn't had a lot of success here, and it could be because he places himself above everybody. He likes people to know he went to Harvard."'

Mind you, this piece was written less than eight years ago... All along, Obama has seemed like the guy in so much of a rush to grab the gold medal, he's opted for steroids and airbrushed photos in lieu of hard training. Well, now we're seeing him stumble and as he does so, he's injuring not only himself, but the whole Democratic party.

You say: "Yes, the angry black people who have gotten screwed over and have been unable to get over it. Let's not elect Obama and we can go back to forgetting about them."

I'm sorry, but this is pure pap. It has absolutely nothing to do with the hate-filled raps from Jeremiah Wright. Nor does it have anything at all to do with voting for Obama, unless the point here is to simply make a point of voting for the black guy. Great.

Know what's striking so often here on salon.com? That so many posters are still hewing to the White Man's Burden School of Race Relations. And. You. Don't. Even. Know. It.

This thread is specifically about Obama's issues, his potential liabilities in specific. We've all known about Clinton's issues for some time. This has not been the case with Obama and one of his liabilities, as it turns out, is this very lack of knowledge.

Slightly OT, but this article in the Village Voice makes a whole lot of sense re the underpinnings of this season of disastrous divisiveness. Hint: it starts with 'right wing conspiracy'. Don't know where else to post it at the moment:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

Your message was spot on. The hypocrisy of Obama giving such a speech is nothing short of stunning, and angered supporters of Clinton are hardly going to be mollified by one more attempt at blatant manipulation. Apparently, it's quite alright to irreparably harm the Clinton's longstanding, heartfelt, positive relationship with American blacks (so, what's one more schism in the Democratic party?), as long as this furthers the Obama cause. Where and when do the rationalizations stop?