Why the Press Turned on Obama

"A Fox News poll released Wednesday found that 61 percent of Democrats describe Clinton as 'tough,' but only 23 percent say that about Obama."

How big a deal is tomorrow's voting in Indiana and North Carolina? Noam Scheiber examines the contrasting theories in the New Republic:

"May 6 matters. If Hillary does no better than a narrow victory in Indiana and Obama wins comfortably in North Carolina (6 points or more?), I don't see any impetus for superdelegates to rethink the race, and it would basically be impossible for Hillary to win. If, on the other hand, if Hillary wins big in Indiana (say, 8 or more) and Obama does no better than squeak out a victory in North Carolina (say, 2 or fewer), with attrition among African Americans, highly-educated voters, and young people, then I do see some impetus for rethinking.

"The alternative is to argue that May 6 doesn't matter--that Obama can get beat handily in Indiana and roughed up (possibly lose) in North Carolina, and that it'll have zero practical effect on his chances. Now, I still think it would be tough for Hillary in that case, since the supers will be reluctant to overturn the pledged delegates. (Some might have to take the additional step of switching from Obama to Hillary, which would make them much more reluctant.) But to suggest this scenario wouldn't give Hillary an opening seems implausible me. The supers, the media, the voters would almost certainly interpret that result as damage inflicted by Wright. And that's damage that can't be laid at Hillary's feet, meaning it isn't likely to trigger an ugly, unresolvable backlash."

Newsweek notes the beer factor: Obama announced the other day that he's having a Bud.

I criticized Bill Moyers for his overly friendly Jeremiah Wright interview, and PBS ombudsman Michael Getler, who cited my column, agrees in part:

"I do feel that there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft, considering the volatility of the charges. For example, after replaying at length a Wright sermon delivered the first Sunday after 9/11-- in which Wright invoked America's role in slavery, taking the country from the Indians, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libyan leader Gaddafi's house, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Iraq, plus state terrorism against Palestinians and black South Africans to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were 'America's chickens are coming home to roost' -- Moyers asked: 'When people saw the sound bites from it this year, they were upset because you seemed to be blaming America. Did you somehow fail to communicate?' As Howard Kurtz wrote in The Washington Post afterwards: ' Thought he was blaming America? Where did anyone get that idea?' It would be hard to formulate a more delicate way to put a question to Wright about that sermon without challenging any of its content.

"Moyers did seek to draw Wright out about his 'God damn America' statement, and he called Wright to task, still rather gently, about Louis Farrakhan. But others of those inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged and those that did come up didn't really get addressed until well into the hour-long program. Some comments, such as the HIV accusation, didn't get addressed at all, nor were other questions asked about whether, for example, the U.S. should have invaded mainland Japan at the cost of countless lives, American and Japanese, rather than dropping two atomic weapons."

Moyers defended himself on his program, saying there is a "double standard" for black ministers:

"This is crazy and wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

"Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship . . . All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America , where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race."

For list junkies, London's Telegraph has designated the 50 Most Influential U.S. Pundits, led by:

1) Karl Rove

2) Chris Matthews

3) Sean Hannity

4) Rush Limbaugh

5) John Harris and Jim VandeHei

6) Matt Drudge

7) Tim Russert

8) Jon Stewart

9) David Brooks

10) Mark Halperin

I clock in at No. 34, making me more "influential" than Mary Matalin, Paul Krugman, Bill Bennett, Fred Barnes, Paul Begala, Dee Dee Myers and Newt Gingrich. I wonder if I can use that in my advertising!