The Wright Reason

If tonight's Indiana and North Carolina results keep Hillary Clinton's hopes alive, as they may well do, much of the blame will be heaped on Jeremiah Wright's outrageous performance of a week ago.

But Obama's inability to win over blue-collar white voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania predated that, and the nagging question is how much the Wright blight is an excuse rather than a reason for rejecting him. With all the hope Obama has aroused in younger and better-educated voters, how much counterbalancing fear has he been unable to quell in less secure segments of the electorate?

No amount of shirt-sleeved stumping in coffee shops, at gas stations and in union halls may be enough to dispel the sense of his "otherness" to voters who feel their security threatened by foreign competition and other outside forces. Will they trust their familiarity with the Clintons over the promises of an African-American not as well-known to them and with shady associations to boot.

If Obama falls short tonight, it may signify more than the embarrassment brought on by his former pastor and his tenuous ties to a former Weatherman.

As David Brook points out, the "contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business...You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate...

"Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way."

The underlying irony is that voters' fears may be drawing them to Clinton's combativeness rather than Obama's promises of peaceful progress. If that turns out to be the case, it will be a sad reflection of what we failed to learn from the Bush years.