- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It's part of the history of this amazing race that Obama did wipe up Wisconsin with Clinton. It's also historic that Clinton won Pennsylvania against him by less than ten percentage points. He couldn't have shown so well in either state if he weren't able to connect with white, working class workers, as you point out in your very brief, seemingly pointless article. You ask the question, you give the obvious (historical) answer, then you stroke your chin and ponder how he'll do it again. What's up with that?
We all accept he will very likely take North Carolina, probably by a margin very similar to what he managed in South Carolina. We all know the contest seems to be very tight in Indiana, and either one could eke out a victory there, and if Obama wins the state it will go toward his impressive number of states won compared with Clintons, plus add to his pledged delegate count. If Clinton wins by less than 20 points she will have gained only a few delegates against Obama's lead.
So what's your point?
You're not asking about Clinton here, you're asking about Obama. Obama leads the race. There may be some out there waiting for the Rev. Wright's Other Shoe to drop, but even if one does hit the floor, it isn't going to matter, because it's irrelevant to anything. So why do I get the feeling you're really asking "Has Jeremiah Wright knocked Obama off his tricycle?" Will he have adequately satisfied white, working-class voters that he's not Wright's sock puppet?
This was not only a pointless exercise in chin-stroking; it was veiled and irresolute speculation. Those who believe in Obama will continue to do so. Those who do not probably won't be converted this week. Those on the fence will fall both ways, so overall nothing has changed. If the candidate with "balls" will win, what about journalists with the balls to ask the questions on their minds? Or if those questions are irrelevant, then why make up some pointless and annoying questions to ask while waiting for the primaries to happen? We'll know those results soon enough, and we already know that when they are over Barack Obama will still lead in every department, regardless of how slim a lead, after having come out of nowhere to unhorse Hilary Ben Hur. That's all the news that fits, so why don't you either write it or, preferably, focus on something that matters, like when will John McCain explode before our eyes? Now there's a possibility worth taking bets on.
