UPDATE, April 29: In Winston-Salem this afternoon, Obama forcefully severed himself from Wright. Will it work? Read my take here. 

He's baaaack. 

Unless you spent the last three days in a cave--the kind without Wi-Fi--you're probably aware that Barack Obama's spurned former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., has received roadblocked media coverage for what some commentators are calling his "revenge tour"--an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers on Friday, an NAACP speech Sunday and an appearance at the National Press Club this morning. According to the chatterati, this is a big problem for Obama. "Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama," writes Time's Joe Klein.  According to Ben Smith of the Politico, "if you had any doubt about whether Jeremiah Wright's new high profile was in the service of the Obama campaign, his cheerfully combative performance...should put that to rest." Adds MSNBC's First Read crew: "[Wright]'s hurting [Obama] and hurting him very badly. Frankly, it’s as selfish of a move as we've seen in some time."

In terms of public relations, I agree that Wright's second fifteen minutes of fame doesn't particularly help Obama. This morning, for instance, the retired Trinity pastor defended his views on Sept. 11 by saying that "you cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back to you"; responded that "I believe our government is capable of doing anything" when asked if he really thinks that the U.S. spread the HIV virus; called Louis Farrakhan "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century"; and arrived with bodyguards from the Nation of Islam. Repeated ad nauseam on cable news--unlike the vast majority of Wright's remarks, which were reasonable and nuanced--these aren't the kind of details that endear the pastor (and, presumably, a parishioner of 20 years) to the white working-class voters of Rust Belt America or the Jews of Florida. Plus, he keeps calling Obama a "politician. "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said he would not get elected," Wright said of Obama's denunciations. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability ... based on polls." The implication--that Obama is only distancing himself from Wright because it's expedient--isn't flattering.

That said, in terms of actually securing the nomination--and not just reigniting the media's obsession with race--I'm not sure how much Wright's reappearance actually hurts the Illinois senator. It's easy to forget amid all the hubbub, but only the party poobahs and elected officials known as superdelegates can crown a nominee at this point. The question then becomes: Does Wright remind the superdels of why they shouldn't vote for Obama--or why they might have to?

On the one hand, you have a growing number of ads cropping up in Southern downballot races that use Obama, via Wright, as a bogeyman. "Travis Childers, liberal Democrat endorsed by Barack Obama," says the latest spot (above), over ominous, clanging-metal music; it's the work of a GOP congressional candidate in Mississppi, Greg Davis, who barely survived the first round of voting in a heavily Republican district. "But when Obama's pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9/11, Childers said nothing... He took Obama's liberal endorsement over our conservative values." And then there's John McCain, who, despite an early refusal to play the "guilt by association" game, has grown increasingly comfortable ripping Wright in recent days. "I saw yesterday some additional comments that have been revealed by Pastor Wright," he said Sunday in Florida. "So, I can understand. I can understand why people are upset about this." One possible effect of such reminders is to trigger latent prejudices and spook white voters--which is precisely the unspoken assumption underlying Clinton's claim that Obama can't connect to the working class. Superdelegates at risk in local races might be reluctant to associate with him and expose themselves to such attacks. Or they might simply worry that Wright will keep the senator from winning in November.

But there's another factor at work. The harder the superdelegates are pressed to make a decision involving race--whether implicitly or explicitly--the more hesitant they will be, I think, "to cave--or to be seen caving, to anyone's racial biases, including voters'." In other words, the more that race and Wright are linked to the arguments against nominating Obama*--i.e., electability--the more chancy it is politically for superdels to side with Clinton; that choice then becomes "racism" over "hope" for a significant number of Democrats, namely Obama supporters. (NB: I'm not saying this is right. We're talking perceptions here.) And I suspect that the risk of being seen as bowing to bigotry overwhelms (or at least cancels out) the risk of suffering "bogeyman" attacks, which would, after all, only play in states Obama stands no chance of winning (like Mississippi)--while spurring a sizable backlash everywhere else.

In the end, then, Wright won't transform Obama into more electable general-election candidate or a friendlier top-of-the-ticket pick for downballot pols in contested blue-collar districts. We knew that a long time ago. But at this point, he could very well make it harder--fairly or unfairly--for the party bosses to choose Clinton instead. Talk about moving in mysterious ways.

*And yes, as some commenters have noted, it's the media doing most of the explicit linking--which is not to say that a connection isn't really there. It's a vicious cycle.