The Pastor Returns

"In Louisiana, a TV ad attacking Obama's healthcare agenda as 'radical' proved so threatening that the House candidate it targeted, Democrat Don Cazayoux, distanced himself from Obama on Thursday, issuing a stern statement saying that he 'has not endorsed any national politician.' . . .

"Now, many Democratic leaders are trying to determine whether they are on the verge of nominating a candidate who, in addition to asking voters to accept him as the first African American president, could be vulnerable to being cast as too far out of the mainstream."

Now for the can't-close-the-deal debate. Lots of chatter about the New Republic likening Obama's chances against McCain to that of George McGovern more than three decades ago. The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias cries foul:

"One -- in a lot of ways 'McGovern!' is the 'Munich!' of campaign journalism, probably an analogy we should all just agree to do without. The circumstances of the 1972 campaign were very much circumstances of 1972 . . . and it's exceedingly unlikely that anything like that will happen again.

"Two -- it's important to remember that by far the biggest source of uncertainty about the November presidential election has to do not with the Democratic primary campaign, but with objective reality. I don't believe that the situation in Iraq or the economy will look radically better in November than they do today, but in principle either or both might. Something like that would make John McCain -- a popular and skilled politician who gets good press -- extremely hard to beat. But if the economy continues to be weak and Americans keep dying in a war that offers no light at the end of the tunnel, it's very hard for McCain to win."

Tom Bevan has thoughts at Real Clear Politics:

"The press' new fixation with the question of whether Obama can 'close the deal' or not is one of the most under appreciated byproducts of Clinton's win on Tuesday: it changed the narrative. Unless the Obama campaign can find a way to change it back, it's going to be an exceedingly long two weeks until Obama gets another chance (not to mention his last chance of the primary) to show he's a closer and end this thing by sweeping Clinton in North Carolina and Indiana."

In National Review, Michael Novak is surprised at the Hillary buzz:

"It always amazes me how swiftly the narrative can change. Seemingly in an instant, serious commentators reverse the direction of their analysis and change their tone of voice, while their excitement level shoots upwards. Monday, it was all: 'No matter what happens in Pennsylvania, Obama has the election all locked up.' Wednesday morning, it is 'What a great, gutsy victory it is for Hillary. Hillary is really a fighter. She won labor-union households, those over 40 years old, white men and white women, churchgoers, hunters--and most of these by high margins. She won Catholics by 70 percent. These are the groups a Democratic nominee must win against McCain in November.'

"Some are even now working out the arithmetic to show that it is possible for her to win the popular vote by the last primary, June 6. Possible, but not likely."

I dunno--every channel I watched said it was impossible or virtually impossible for HRC to catch up.

The right is refining its assault on Obama, such as in this WSJ piece by Karl Rove: