It tells us that he is able to overcome the race issue, sure. It tells us that he knows how to fight back against an attack, definitely. But I think there is something deeper here that can be said about Barack Obama at the sunset of the Jeremiah Wright scandal: that he has the ability to shape public opinion, something that the Clintons do not have. The Clintons exploit public opinion, Barack Obama shapes it.
Let me explain my terms. Barack Obama's speech on race relations seems to have been successful. A vast majority of adults not only thought he adequately answered questions about the Wright scandal, but that they agree with his views on race in America. Who knows if there are statistics to tell if this was true beforehand, but Barack Obama has managed to get almost two-thirds of the public to identify with his ideas about race in America. This, to me, is impressive because it reflects Obama's ability to make his views on a particular subject the conventional wisdom on the subject. Perhaps what Obama did with race could be applied to the economy or foreign policy? Maybe, maybe not, but there is an antecedent to suggest that he could do this.
The Clintons, on the other hand, have never shown any capability to actually shape public opinion: they exploit it. If new, big government programs are desired, the Clintons will be there. If balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism are called for, the Clintons will be there. They'll be there in surpluses and recessions, hewing to public opinion. Ultimately, though, Bill Clinton was so inept at shaping public opinion in his first term that he couldn't save his health care plan, and really the only times he's successfully done it is when he's had some really unappealing enemies (Gingrich, Starr) that lent themselves to the treatment quite easily. Hillary Clinton seems to be less apt at the art than her husband was, and John McCain will not easily be turned into a villain. People like him, the press likes him, lots of Democrats like him...he's not an abrasive asshole like Newt Gingrich, or a power-mad crusader like Ken Starr. He's seen, right or wrong, as an honorable man. There is nothing in the histories of either Clinton that suggests a capability to tear down somebody like that, and there is no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will shape public opinion in the campaign should she get the nomination. Her progressivism is highly correlated with the public opinion of progressivism, and there's every reason to believe that she will become more conservative if the climate becomes more conservative. She will not try to shift public opinion, she will run with it because she has never shown the ability to change it. Barack Obama has demonstrated that ability with the Wright speech. It makes him a far, far more appealing candidate from where I sit.
All in all, the Wright speech feels like a game changer. Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama yesterday, and he was probably closer to the Clintons than most. I think that the speech has resolved the fears of many people that Obama would be unable to fight back against this sort of attack, and he handled the race issue quite deftly. There seem to be few question marks left for Hillary to use as leverage to get the superdelegates to hand her the nomination. I'm guessing you'll start to see the establishment fall into line for Obama. My take on the current impasse among the superdelegates is that they don't want to act too hastily to give the impression that they're short-circuiting the election process, but that they're starting to realize that nobody's going to be taking them off the hook for this call. When the dust settles, Obama ought to offer Clinton a big job in his administration in return for her speedy exit from the campaign--maybe Chief of Staff, maybe Secretary of Defense, maybe the Court--and if she doesn't pull out soon she gets nothing. Something is better than nothing, after all.
