I realize that there's been no independent evaluation of Obama's San Francisco comments yet, but I think that people may be misreading them entirely. In fact, I think the first part is directed at angry liberals who blame guns and religion for their woes.

Let's look again...

Now that Obama's remarkable speech on race has settled in a bit, it's interesting to take in the wide range of reactions. Most have been quite heartening, from the accolades of the mainstream media to frank discussions across the blogosphere. Some reactions are amusing -- I've lost count of how many racist grandparents have been suddenly "outed" by relieved liberals. And of course, the extreme right wing has denounced the speech, whether bemoaning it as liberal pabulum or tagging it with more pernicious labels.

There is one response, however, that is as predictable as it is unfortunate. Predictable because of the sheer venality of its argument. And unfortunate, because of where it's been largely centered: white liberals who consider themselves above racism. And there is no better proponent of this unfortunate argument that Clinton supporter Lanny Davis.

It is blindingly obvious that Hillary Clinton will take this to June. I may be a passionate Obama supporter, but I cannot deny her right to play political hardball. Although chances are good that Obama will win more states, gather more pledged delegates, and capture the popular vote, Clinton has the "Big State" argument, and she still has control of numerous flywheels and cogs in the Democratic machine. The cards may be stacked against her, but she can still win the game.

To do this, Clinton must circumvent the existing math by changing the variables of the equation. And there's only one way to do that, and it takes her right through the heart of the Obama camp, and leaves behind a path of scorched earth. The question is, can Clinton take this path and still keep her party intact?

Paul Krugman's latest NYT column is another glimpse into his strangely inverted universe. But however misguided his column may be, it offers several insights into the flawed logic and tactics of the Clinton campaign itself.

First, let me say that I've never enjoyed Paul Krugman's writing style, but I've always felt that Krugman had many useful things to say. Nor will I presume to second-guess him on economics. But recently, this former Edwards-supporter turned Clinton cheerleader has simply gone off the rails, and is in danger of doing harm to the party he so proudly defends. And not merely because he's thrown his hat into Clinton's ring rather than Obama's. While I may be an Obama supporter, I always welcome an articulate and reasonable defense of Hillary Clinton. What I find objectionable is that Krugman's defense of Clinton simply upends reality: reading his anti-Obama columns fosters a queasy sense of inversion, as if gazing into a warped mirror.