My complaints, however, have been specific to this issue. This matter did not engender an epiphany on my part that Hillary Clinton is a bad person, or that she would make a bad president. (I would note that she has dialed back on this issue after a brief foray in the DMZ of religious freedom).
Notwithstanding my personal feelings, it is clear that the Rev. Wright issue has not changed the basic status of the Obama/Clinton battle. Thus, with each passing day, Clinton's ability to wrangle the nomination from Obama becomes less and less likely.
In fact, about the only thing that can foreseeably cost Obama the nomination, and with it the presidency, now would be Obama supporters successfully forcing Clinton from the race prematurely.
(More on the flip)
Because Obama is far enough ahead at this late stage, Clinton winning the nomination requires, at least in part, Obama losing some significant portion of his support. The catalyst for this would be, by definition, something negative about Obama.
This is the main (although not the only) significance of the Wright controversy and why Obama's "survival" of this controversy is so important -- it was NOT that catalyst.
It also explains, IMHO, why Clinton was willing to take the questionable step of addressing the matter herself, even though she had to know the risks it would pose in alienating at least some of her supporters. Her campaign is searching for that negative catalyst.
As we move closer to the Pennsylvania primary, Clinton is likely to continue her high wire act of criticism negative enough to dislodge Obama supporters, but not so negative that it drives away her own support or creates an intolerable situation that forces the party to prematurely end the contest lest the damage to Obama is irreversible.
Obama and his supporters have a balancing act as well. Given the likelihood that he will be the nominee, they need to wrestle with the fact that their supporters (not all of them, but some of them, who for good or for ill have come to define Obama's support in the party) have left a trail of bad feelings through their criticisms of Sen. Clinton that all too often echoed Republican and Conservative talking points from the 1990s.
I understand that these supporters believe the facts fully justify their perspective, and that they have only been responding in kind to what they perceive as unfair attacks by the Clinton camp. My intention here is not to re-plow that Earth or evaluate that assertion one way or another.
Rather, I proceed from the undeniable truth that these bad feelings exist, as demonstrated in polls.
Another undeniable fact is that since Obama is likely to be the nominee and will have to deal with these feeling as a practical matter, while Clinton will not (at least this year).
In this sense, calls by influential Democrats such as Vermont Senator Patrick Lehey for Clinton to drop out of the race are counter-productive. The battle being waged among supporters online simply reflects, although at a less significant level of influence, this same dynamic.
First, they seem to have the effect of making Clinton more determined to stay in the race. Remember, many influential Democrats and pundits called for Bill Clinton to resign when the Lewinsky matter was first disclosed, but he didn't listen. Rather, the Clintons fought back and against the odds came out better off from that whole incident than seemed possible.
It is only natural that the lesson the Clintons carried away from that episode was not only "never give in," but a contrarian sensibility that the more people tell you something cannot be done, the more wrong that conventional wisdom seems.
Secondly, the insistence that she drop out is obviously bothering Clinton supporters, as reflected in a recent polling number (almost certainly overstating what would actually occur in November) that 28% of Clinton supporters would support McCain in the general election. If Clinton is forced to drop out prior to the Pennsylvania primary -- where she is favored to win -- it will guarantee a split Democratic Party and ensure an Obama defeat in the Fall.
As much as Obama supporters rage about superdelegates overturning the will of the voters, if Clinton is forced from the race prior to a primary she is heavily favored to win (and the only way to do that would be superdelegates moving en masse to Obama), millions of Democrats will go to their graves thinking she, and they, were robbed.
Just to be very clear, this is not a matter of Clinton voters staying home just because their candidate lost, but Clinton voters staying home because their candidate was forced from the election by superdelegates before all actual voters have had their say, the exact procedural travesty that so enrages Obama supporters.
I am confident from some recent comments I have seen that Democratic Party leaders have a handle on this process. Will the race be negative? Probably. Will Clinton occasionally step over the line in this negativity? Possibly.
Live with it.
Obama almost has the Democratic nomination in hand, and with it, likely the presidency. On its own accord, the nomination race will be over June 1 or thereabouts.
Unless, somehow, Clinton is forced from the race before then, in which case, she will keep fighting until, as the saying goes, the last dog dies.
Or, as another saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
This idea that the race 'must' continue until every primary is over just does not hold up. The vast majority of Presidential candidates end their campaigns long before the Convention. The only 2 exceptions that come to mind in the last 30 years or so are Jerry Brown in '92 and Jesse Jackson in '88. Regardless of how good things looked early in the race, when serious candidates get shut down by the math, they typically leave the race gracefully and their supporters move on to support the nominee.
Hillary Clinton has sold her followers on this idea that it is well and good for super delegates to use their en bloc voting power to determine the nominee. So where exactly would she or her supporters get off complaining about the great injustice of super delegates announcing their support for Obama right away and putting him over the top?
Like I said, it would be a huge faux pas at this point for Obama and his campaign to press Clinton to drop out. That would definitely backfire and prevent some people from turning out for him in the general. But if a cascade of super delegates declare their support for Obama and begin an organic drumbeat of calls for her to step out and endorse the nominee, I think that would work out fine. There was a similar muttering some months ago in the media about how Edwards should drop out when he just wasn't winning enough. And Edwards did in fact drop out and then his supporters shrugged and moved on.
Reports over the weekend reporting a messy trail of unpaid bills suggest her campaign's financial situation may be iffy. At some point, hopefully soon, donors are going to decide it's pointless to throw good money after bad.
Notwithstanding Clinton's vow to go to the convention, I think her issue now is not whether to get out, but how to get out without looking like she was badly whupped, and where she goes after this.
The Senate might not seem as exciting to her as just a job, as opposed to a stepping stone to higher office.
If she plays her cards right from here on out, gets behind Obama and doesn't come across as a sore loser, well, it would probably be for the greater good if Harry Reid were replaced.
This is true.
At the same time, Hillary must start working on these as well. She must prepare her followers that she may lose. And she must begin to adopt a dignified, positive campaign.