Michael Barone notes the damage done by the Wright controversy to Obama's current popularity.
It's starting to look like Barack Obama is paying a political price for the hate-filled rhetoric of his longtime pastor and spiritual mentor (Obama's description), the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Realclearpolitics.com's latest polls show John McCain leading Obama 46 to 45 percent, even though Obama was ahead in 14 of 16 polls taken between February 1 and March 2. Currently, Scott Rasmussen's poll has McCain leading Obama 48 to 42 percent; a week ago, he had McCain insignificantly ahead, 45 to 44 percent. Rasmussen has Obama's favorability declining from 52 percent on March 13 to 47 percent on March 17. He also shows Wright viewed favorably by just 8 percent of voters, while 73 percent consider his comments racially divisive. Note the varying responses of blacks and whites to Wright's remarks.
Rasmussen's figures no longer support the argument that Obama is a stronger general-election candidate than Hillary Clinton, at least right now. And he seems headed for a weaker showing in Pennsylvania than his 54-to-44 percent loss in Ohio.The RCP average in Pennsylvania is 52 to 36 percent.
I wouldn't count on McCain's lead to hold, if Obama is the nominee. Moreover, none of these polls has yet had time to absorb the public reaction to Obama's big speech. But I am not sure that that reaction, which was solidly favorable in the mainstream press, will help much. I was watching Chris Matthews yesterday as he and his Obama-besotted guests discussed the speech. It reminded me why I stopped watching Chris Matthews. He appeared to be weeping on camera as he declared that Obama's speech was greater than Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech, and one after another his guests spoke like new converts to a strange religion. What is wrong with these people? Obama's speech may have been brilliant, or not; but it was a politician doing damage control, not a MLK seizing immortal greatness at a pivotal moment in history.
My colleague, Professor Schaff, argues that Obama is American radicalism with an appealing face. I think that is probably right, but I would add that that sort of thing is largely self-correcting in modern democracies. Francois Mitterrand was elected President of France as a socialist, and tried radical socialism (by French standards). It was a disaster, he reversed course, and thereafter governed as a moderate (by French standards). Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to bring Canadian health care to America, and instead gave us twelve years of Republican control of Congress. Obama's radicalism would probably present more problems for his administration, if he is elected, than it does for the Republic.
But first he has to get elected, and all this evidence of racialism on the part of his Church and his weepy media disciples isn't helping. I don't know whether Obama recovers from this, but he has clearly got some recovering to do.
Recent Comments