Well, Hillary eked out a win in Indiana, but it won't be enough. Two percentage points just ain't gonna cut it, babe. Obama's victory in North Carolina, by contrast, was by a whopping 14 percent. While we here at mennonnsapiens could never endorse for president someone who bowled a 37 (we still don't know how that is even possible), we understand that everything in a campaign season is relative. You go into the general with the candidate you've got. If it is to be Obama versus McCain, Obama it is.

As The Times took a moment to remind us yesterday, the next president will likely have the opportunity to nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice (John Paul Stevens is 88) and maybe two (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75), and if they're lucky, maybe Scalia will get hit by an asteroid or succumb to a flesh-eating virus, or something. All the other arch-conservatives on the court are still in diapers (and not the adult kind). Aside from the mess in Iraq, which nobody's going to clean up any time soon, regardless of campaign promises to the contrary, the composition of the Supreme Court is the single most important issue in this campaign.

While meanies on either side of the Obama/Clinton divide demonize the other, neither candidate is perfect, or perfectly evil. Clinton's pugilism may have ended up being divisive, but look at what Bush has been able to accomplish with a 28% approval rating. While many judge him among the worst presidents in history, they are judging by standards wholly irrelevant to him, and to his administration's agenda, most of which, popularity be damned, he delivered on a silver platter with whipped cream and a cherry on top. He has been an extraordinarily effective CEO for his Have-More shareholders in this era of smash-n-grab politics.

I would only say to Obama fans, be careful what you wish for. The much-vaunted era of bipartisanship the Audacity of Hopers are planning to usher in is not only unlikely, it may not really be desirable. Some examples of bipartisan successes in the Bush years (and there were many): The War on Terror and the ballooning Defense Budget, wiretaps, and the absurd "economic stimulus payments" presently being mailed out. Sometimes bipartisanship is not the solution, it's part of the problem. 

Lucky for us, odds are Obama is using the current Commander-in-Chief's definition of "bipartisan" anyway.  When Obama, with childlike naïveté, says of the GOP: "I want to change them, I don't want them to change me," his arrogance nearly reaches the heights of The Decider himself.  Just like Bush, he's essentially defining "bipartisan" as everyone agreeing — with him.  But Bush had a pretty easy time of it, because lawmakers, who are paid nearly $170,000 a year and are thus all in the top 3% of income earners, stood to gain, themselves, from his agenda.  Obama's is not so appealing.  In this context, we don't so much need a painkiller as a shot of adrenaline.  Bipartisanship has a nice ring to it, but majority rules also does the trick.

I don't think we have much to worry about.  Any remnants of the grand dream of a political Age of Aquarius will surely evaporate in the coming months.  The general election will be nastier and more divisive than many imagine, and Clinton won't be there to kick around anymore.  If FOBOs think their candidate's been beaten up on in the primary, they ain't seen nothin' yet.  The Republicans wouldn't mind if it became a "referendum on race," and while McCain and the mainstream media will take the high road, you can be sure surrogates will be swiftboating away.

Look for more on Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and insinuations that should Obama be elected he’ll work for Reparations for descendants of slaves. This may seem laughable, but Obama has been asked about Reparations in the past. His initial response, when asked back in 2004, during the race for his US Senate seat, as reported in the Chicago Tribune – “Obama spoke about how slavery had left a stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated. Still, he said, he opposes ‘just signing checks over to African-Americans.’” – was equivocal enough to give the conspiracists who thrive in the hysterical hothouse of a Presidential election season something to chew on.

He has been asked since, of course. And his answers have gotten more specific. In February of 2007, he said, "The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training." In a debate among contenders for the Democratic nomination in July of ’07, he proposed “fixing public schools would be reparations to African-Americans for generations of slavery”.

This is an eminently reasonable stance, and an admirable policy goal. Infinitely more useful than Republican Presidential hopeful Alan Keyes’ proposal in a Republican debate to exempt African-Americans from taxation for a generation or two. But the truth is, any mention of Reparations at all – even the word itself – will be divisive and potentially deleterious to Obama's bid in the general election. So look for “Reparations” popping up a lot in the coming months. And for the next mutation of the Wright controversy to focus on Wright’s Reparations activism in a big way.

Debate on the question of Reparations may be the elephant in the room.  It is certainly part of the "open and honest conversation on race" everyone agrees we need to have. An election year is probably just not the best time to have it.