Linda, whatever faults one can find in the Times poll and related analysis, the paper seems to have gotten the main and most important point right, which has greatly disturbed the Obama camp: less than a third of whites have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama. And the campaign’s efforts at pushback demonstrate that they are aware of the badness of this news. (When Hillary Clinton brought this phenomenon up there was hell to pay, but the facts are the facts.)

Do only 31% of whites have a favorable opinion of Obama because of his race or are blacks (83%) rallying to him only because of his race? Or is there some of both going on? When the actual voting numbers (as opposed to general approval numbers) are examined, Obama gets support of 37% of whites vs. 89% of blacks. That was the polarization which the Clinton team, first indirectly and then directly, harped on.

And there is good reason why the Obama camp is so sensitive. After Reverend Wright, Trinity United, and Father Pfleger the mystique of a post-racial candidate evaporated. And they don’t want further erosion, or the perception to take hold that Obama isn’t a candidate with wide appeal. Whether Obama can construct a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, young voters (whose enthusiasm is waning, we learned), and urban elites remains to be seen. But arguing about a Times article, and thereby highlighting the sore point, probably won’t make things any better. (Maybe they should listen to Jon Stewart on rapid response.)