For the third time this election season, the Democrats have stolen a House seat from their Republican counterparts. This time, it happened in Mississippi, where Travis Childers beat Greg Davis to send a Democrat to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since 1994. Bush easily carried this district in 2000 and 2004, but that was before his popularity numbers plummeted.

Davis and the RNCC had run negative ads featuring the Reverend Wright and Barack Obama in an attempt to solidify white support. For the second time this year, the tactic failed.

In the towering wake of yet another defeat in a contest in which the GOP poured a great deal of resources, NRCC chairman Tom Cole fired off an S.O.S. to any Republicans who'll listen:

"...the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for."

In other words, the GOP needs to re-invent itself. Come up with some catchy, forward-looking buzzwords. Maybe even tinker with a proposal or two. All that negative change just isn't working out. Go figure.

UPDATE: You just can't make this stuff up. What has the Republican brain-trust decided on for a new slogan?

"The Change You Deserve."

Aside from being strikingly similar to Obama's "Change You Can Believe In," the funny thing is that slogan was already adopted by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals for their anti-anxiety drug Effexor. Perhaps the GOP can kill two birds with one stone on this one. Pass out Effexor to all their candidates up for re-election, and borrow the slogan as well. Wyeth makes out like bandits and everybody's happy! Or at least until the drug wears off, anyway.

From a strict policy perspective, this formulation is, of course, absurd. As Clinton, McCain, and Obama will all tell you, the differences between Clinton and Obama pale in comparison to those between Clinton and McCain. Really, it isn't even close. Virtually every single substantive issue that Clinton and Obama support, McCain does not, and vice-versa. McCain offers huge corporate tax breaks, Clinton and Obama do not. Clinton and Obama want to make sure that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, McCain does not. McCain has even voted to ban funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest. On the Iraq war, McCain will not hasten a pullout. Clinton and Obama will. Clinton and Obama have health-care proposals whose goal is Universal care, McCain does not. And on and on.

So why the cognitive dissonance? Well, most of the people who employ the "Hillary or McCain" retort do so for far less sensible reasons than actual policy distinctions.

This Democratic presidential campaign has featured an unprecedented level of magma-hot coverage, most of it focused on tangential issues like gaffes, fluff, smears, pandering photo ops, and manufactured "scandals." Based on media coverage, the Reverend Wright affair is the granddaddy of them all.

Based on several factors, most decisively and recently Tuesday's Democratic Primary results, more and more voters are rejecting these less-than-relevant issues in favor of substance. Smart is back.

According to exit polls in both states, 48% of voters in each felt that the Wright issue was important, versus 50% who did not. Among black voters, the percentages were about the same, with 45% saying yes, it is important.

Senator Obama won North Carolina by 14% and closed an election-eve polling gap of 7% down to a razor-thin 2% margin in Indiana. If you factor in the "Limbaugh Effect," he wins Indiana by 5 points.

Looking at both sets of numbers, it is clear that if there is any "Wright Effect," it cuts both ways, and Obama's handling of the issue has become a net positive for him. Buttressing this view is another recent poll, in which 60% of voters approved of Obama's handling of the controversy, with only 23% disapproving. It is very likely that the disapprovers were never going to vote for him anyway.

In fact, it seems that Wright's re-emergence did Obama a favor, as his approval on the Wright issue climbed significantly since a March 27 Pew study following the first round of coverage, when 51% approved and 42% disapproved. Recent attempts to sink state candidates by linking them to Obama and Wright have also failed. If this issue keeps coming up, Obama could end up so popular that he starts bringing it up himself.

Meanwhile, especially in Indiana, the Clinton campaign made a fiercely aggressive play for voters on the issue of a gas tax holiday, concurrently opening up a lead there that peaked at 7%.

When Senator Clinton couldn't produce a single expert who agreed with the plan, against a unanimity of opinion among economists that the plan was, at best, ineffective and at worst a total disaster, she ran harder on the issue. Her campaign bragged about how they were connecting with uneducated, white, blue collar voters.

Now, most Americans don't like to be treated like they're stupid, and they damn sure don't like to be called stupid. Clinton's gains in Indiana evaporated, I believe, because when voters saw that the plan was unsound and unlikely to pass, yet Senator Clinton continued to push it, they felt their intelligence was being insulted. All the talk about simple folk eagerly gobbling up their best-case 5 buck a week tax crumbs, while their highways crumbled and thousands of construction workers were thrown out of work, made many of them feel condescended to, especially when asked to believe that the oil companies would eat the windfall tax offset without raising prices.

Is Reverend Who-emiah Whatzit still a problem? Now that the nomination is all but settled, and Hillary Clinton can turn her Eye of Mordor to John McCain? What she did to Obama was patty cakes compared to the whipping she's going to put on Mac and whatever poor, unfortunate soul becomes his running mate.

She won't even have to fight dirty. On her signature issue, health care, she's going to knock McCain's books out of his hand and stuff him in a locker.

On McCain's signature issue, National Security, she won't even have to go to the 100 years quote, she can just get a giant Magna-doodle and write 2 columns, real big: SUNNI and SHIA.

Where is Obama going to be during all of this mayhem? Praising McCain, thanking him for his service to our country, and explaining things like "the economy" to him.

They're going to mop the floor with him, then get started on the windows. And that's just on the substance!

Do I think the Yakov Smirnoff of political firestorms is a problem anymore? Really?

Based solely on the data, it is clearly not. Maybe there's an even more divisive figure that Americans want their next President to disassociate himself with: Our current one.

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views. Last week's edition took on who's to blame for the ever-climbing cost of gas.

Today the topic is Obama's Rev. Wright issue. Is he past it?

Check out today's posts:


Tommy Christopher writes:

This Democratic Presidential campaign has featured an unprecedented level of magma-hot coverage, most of it focused on tangential issues like gaffes, fluff, smears, pandering photo ops, and manufactured "scandals." Based on media coverage, the Reverend Wright affair is the granddaddy of them all.

Based on several factors, most decisively and recently Tuesday's Democratic Primary results, more and more voters are rejecting these less-than-relevant issues in favor of substance. Smart is back.

Continue reading Obama Over the Wright Hump

------------------------------


Mark Impomeni writes:

Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Continue reading Obama's Answers Create More Wright Questions

Sen. Barack Obama finally tried to distance himself from his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, last week after Wright made an appearance at the National Press Club. During the question and answer session following that appearance, Wright repeated and amplified many of the incendiary comments, first brought to light in March, that he has made in various sermons from the pulpit of his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He said, among other things, that he believed the government is, "capable of doing anything," when asked if he really believed that the AIDS virus was created in a conspiracy to harm blacks, that Louis Farrakhan, "is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century," and that the September 11th attacks were the direct result of American foreign policy. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you," he said.

A little more than 24 hours later, Sen. Obama held a press conference to react to the Wright appearance. Obama said that he was, "saddened," and, "outraged," by Wright's comments and said, "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago." This was a dramatically different reaction to the same Wright comments than Sen. Obama provided in his now famous speech on race, delivered in Philadelphia in the wake of Wright's sermons being reported in the press. But Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Not surprisingly, the Rev. Wright hubbub has resulted in all manner of web parodies, most pretty awful. Just plug his name into YouTube and let the cringing begin. But here's one that is inspired, with the part of Barack Obama apparently played by Homer Simpson (you don't think Obama would like to wrap Wright up in a carpet and drag him away?). Without further ado, a cartoon short to give you a laugh before our primary night feature presentation:

Good morning, and welcome to Videos of the Week. This week, I put all the funniest videos at the end, so hang in there. We have Ron Paul, "The Empire Strikes Barack," some studies on pandering, Miley Cyrus, new friends like Rachel Maddow, old friends like Reverend Wright, and some guys "Throwin' some game at a hot girl." And whatever you do, don't miss the last video.

As I thought about writing the column this week, I was struck by an interesting confluence. The 3 candidates for President were all hotly debating a gas tax holiday this week, with John McCain favoring an outright suspension, Hillary Clinton at least seeking to counterbalance it with a windfall profits tax, and Barack Obama opposing the idea as ineffective pandering.

This week also marked the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished." Our first video features John McCain confirming what we already knew, which is just what that mission really was. As our soldiers continue to die in Iraq, and the price of gasoline is driving many Americans right into the poorhouse, you can all judge for yourselves just what it is that we've accomplished. When you empty your bank account to fill your gas tank, think about who is better off now.

None of the 3 candidates did anything to stop it. John McCain wants it to continue. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize it. Barack Obama spoke out against it, to his credit, but when given the chance to cast a vote, he continued to fund the war right along with his two colleagues. None of them has a record to be proud of on this. Going forward, you have to ask yourself who is going to get us out of this mess? Who is going to put an end to the real gas tax?

If the latest polls in North Carolina are any indication, Obama just might weather the current storm. Here's Zogby:

Five days before the important Democratic presidential primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama of Illinois enjoys a substantial lead in one state and remains tied with Hillary Clinton of New York in the other, a new Zogby daily tracking poll shows.

Obama leads by a 50% to 34% margin over Clinton in North Carolina, while the two are tied at 42% support each in Indiana.

...

Asked if the statements of controversial Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright made voters more or less likely to support Obama, 15% of North Carolina voters said they were less likely to support him, while 4% said the comments made them more likely to support Obama.

Big lead in North Carolina + deadlock in Indiana could make for a big win next Tuesday for Obama. What that will mean is that the biggest crisis in the Obama campaign so far, which resulted in Obama disowning someone he previously said he couldn't disown, resulted in a big zilch in the polls. At least among Democrats. In the general election, it's a pretty fair consensus to say that Obama is damaged, perhaps fatally. I'll go along Victor Davis Hanson's opinion that the Democratic electorate is too far along with being emotionally invested in Obama:

Bottom line: unless Obama was caught on tape nodding as Wright screamed his obscenities at the United States, or an angry and spiteful Wright produces some letter, e-mail, etc. that reveals a kindred soul in Obama, or Michelle gives another speech "from the heart" about how hard she has struggled and how in return she has had no pride in this country, or there is another off-the-cuff, but recorded sneer at the white working class (50/50 chance on all four counts), I think he will weather the current storm and get the nomination. Obama evokes pure emotion and raw politics now, and logic, honesty, and accountability have little to do with his nomination bid.

Back in 1999, Indiana superdelegate Joe Andrew was appointed leader of the Democratic National Committee by none other than Bill Clinton. But today, Andrew will formally announce that he is switching his support in the current presidential campaign from Hillary Clinton over to Barack Obama. Moreover, he is urging his fellow Hoosiers to do the same and vote for Obama in the May 6th primary. On his decision, Andrew told the AP:

"He [Obama] has shown such mettle under fire. The Jeremiah Wright controversy reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party."

That sound you hear is a few thousand pundits and Clinton supporters scratching their collective noggins. Jeremiah Wright helped make up his mind to vote for Obama? So much for conventional wisdom.

What about other 230 undeclared, undecided, and presumably undead superdelegates still out there? Well, according to AP's tally, Obama now trails Clinton in the "super" category by just 19. There's no doubt that Clinton's impressive 9-point win in Pennsylvania, coupled with the Reverend Wright escapades have given other superdelegates pause. Yet, for all of Clinton's momentum, Obama continues to chip away at Clinton's superdelegate lead. Just yesterday, Obama picked up three to Clinton's two. Factor in today's news and that's a net gain of three for Obama.

Pull back a bit, and the trend becomes even clearer. Since Pennsylvania held its primary, Obama leads Clinton 11-5 in superdelegate endorsements. Since Texas, he leads by a count of 35-14.

Contrary to implications in an LA Times story from yesterday, it appears the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with setting up Reverend Jeremiah Wright's appearance at the National Press Club. From a Clinton spokesperson via email today:

Tommy Christopher: I need to confirm that no-one connected with the campaign had anything to do with booking Reverend Wright at the National Press Club.

Clinton Spokesperson: We had nothing to do with the event at the National Press Club.

Barbara Reynolds denies even being a "Longtime Clinton Booster," as the Times piece put it. See the video below. The Left Coaster debunks the Times and NY Daily News stories even further.

In any case, there is an unfortunate irony here, in that Hillary Clinton and Barbara Reynolds were unfairly smeared in the service of a story about another smear.

I also spoke with Bill McCarren, General Manager of the National Press Club. His comments, and some analysis on how an unfair story like this gets published, after the jump.