When Barack Obama came a-cropper in New Hampshire after looking sweet in the polls, suspicions were immediately stirred that the dreaded "Bradley effect" had kicked in. Named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost a big edge for California governor in 1982 on the final day, the "effect" is said to kick in for white voters who tell pollsters they plan to vote for black candidates--and then suffer a kind of racial panic when they're actually hoisting their ballot-punchers on Election Day. Nowhere was the "effect" more pronounced through the years than in Dixie--surprise!--where Virginia Governor Doug Wilder and US Senate candidates Harvey Gantt in North Carolina and Ron Kirk in Texas fell victim to the syndrome, and also to the tendency of white voting turnout to swell when black candidates are on the ballot, outnumbering the increases in black votes.   Exit polls eventually quelled the "Bradley effect" rumors in New Hampshire; Obama ended up with more of the white working-class vote on primary day than he'd gotten in the polls. And in the Southern primaries on Tsunami Tuesday, the "effect" was even more emphatically absent. Adding to his landslide in South Carolina, Obama trounced Hillary Clinton in Georgia and Alabama, and appears to have very narrowly won the border state of Missouri, the ultimate "purple state," where Clinton led in recent weeks by healthy margins.

The Alabama victory was unexpected, particularly because the state's most powerful black political organization had endorsed Clinton months ago. But Artur Davis, the state's own rising "post-racial" member of Congress, bucked them and got behind Obama early, spurring a surge of enthusiasm among black voters similar to Obama's overtaking of Clinton in South Carolina.   Clinton split the South on Tuesday, winning her semi-home state of Arkansas, along with Tennessee and Oklahoma. But in every case except Tennessee, where he lost by the expected 13 points, Obama's Southern vote was higher than his standing in the polls--inverting the Bradley effect. He scored 15 percent better than predicted in Alabama; seven percent higher than Missouri polls were showing; eleven points better than he'd polled in Georgia. In Georgia, Obama won 43 percent of white votes--almost double the share he captured in South Carolina.   That certainly doesn't mean that white Southerners--or the rest of white Americans--have somehow gone colorblind overnight. (If only.) The ultimate test of white voters' ability to look past race might come next November, when Obama--if he's the nominee--is likely to make a run at states like Georgia, where Clinton would almost certainly not even attempt to campaign. But Obama's Southern support--coupled with his impressive white vote in red states in the Midwest and Interior West--does indicate that one longtime manifestation of racialized voting just might be disappearing. And it's one more reason to believe that, unlikely as it once would have seemed, Barack Obama is the Democrat with the best chance to break through in Middle America and win the White House with a genuine mandate. Maybe we'll someday call that the Obama Effect. 

Comments (26)

1. Maybe we'll someday call that the Obama Effect.

   Nice piece Bob.

   There's something happening here, and what it is is fairly clear. Obama has been a master of disguising what he specifically intends to do as president --not that there's anything wrong with that per se. But Bill Clinton was correct when he said that we're rolling the dice by choosing Obama.

   I'm okay with it --for now. I don't see what other realistic option we've got at this point.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2008 @ 03:45am

2. Perhaps unfortunately, Black voters will vote ninety something percent for the Democratic candidate no matter who it happens. Support for Obama based on ethnic identification will do nothing to swing these heavily red states.

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 02/06/2008 @ 07:00am

3. Perhaps unfortunately, Black voters will vote ninety something percent for the Democratic candidate no matter who it happens.

   why unfortunately? blacks know which side their bread is buttered on. they get nothing but shit from repubs.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 08:59am

4. why unfortunately? blacks know which side their bread is buttered on. they get nothing but shit from repubs.

   It's unfortunate because any group is in a much stronger position when both sides try to fight for their vote. The Republicans don't court blacks because they think it's futile, and the Democrats pay only lip service to blacks because they think blacks have no alternative.

   What you say blacks get from Republicans is irrelevant. Blacks have voted reliably for Democrats for 40 years. They can lay the praise or blame for their current situation squarely on the Democrats door.

   Posted by FRR at 02/06/2008 @ 10:00am

5. Obama has been a master of disguising what he specifically intends to do as president --not that there's anything wrong with that per se.-----Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/06/2008 @ 03:45am

   If THIS B_KOOL met the B_KOOL of a month ago (when Edwards was still in it and had come in 2nd in Iowa)....would they agree?!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 10:25am

6. I'm impressed with Obama's win in Missouri, but not so much with wins in GA, AL, SC or any Bible belt state actually. In the general election I doubt very much if any Dem will win these states. The Electoral College (sadly) will cause attention to "battle ground states" and new voter blocks out west. Hispanic votes are the new battle ground. Can our party win in November without having a leader that wins this group? FL, CA, NV, NM have gone for Clinton. She can win them in November too. Can we pick up TX in the General? If not Missouri is key, and it cannot end up in mysterious turmoil on 11/4--like Ohio and Fla in years past. Constant vigilance for Clinton or Obama --win in '08.

   Posted by miketvee at 02/06/2008 @ 10:34am

7. If THIS B_KOOL met the B_KOOL of a month ago (when Edwards was still in it and had come in 2nd in Iowa)....would they agree?!?!?!?

   ~Maskot @ 10:25am

   That's one of the better questions you've posed, Maskot.

   In the case at hand, the answer should be clear to yourself --"of course they agree".

   There's nothing in what I'm saying in support of Obama know that precludes what I've said in support of Edwards previously. I like Obama for what I read in him, but I liked Edwards so much better for what he spelled out so clearly in his platform.

   It's been the central conundrum of Obama for the entire year that he's been running for prez --what exactly is his platform? It's also been his genius to play his cards in a way that such a broad swath of spectators perceive a winning hand.

   In fact, I'd be in favor of awarding Obama a World Series of Poker Championship bracelet.

   But then maybe we should first wait for the flop.

   P.S.

   Shouldn't we all be allowed to change our opinions though in any case, Maskot? Your assiduous squirreling away of choice nuggets by various bloggers here suggests that your most prized pleasure is attempting to "show someone up". I'd recommend giving that idea a rest.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2008 @ 10:46am

8. Hillary is still even with Obama, perhaps with some help from Diebolt. (It's amazing how much more accurate exit polls were before 2000!) But Obama has the momentum. and could well pull this out in spite of the Super-Delegates.

   If so we need to know that what we are winning by supporting him is not a commitment to peace, but an opening for peace. Obama, like the rest of the surviving candidates (except for Ron Paul and Gravel), is committed to maintaining US military domination of the planet, but he is making some pro-peace statements he can perhaps be held to, and he may be more responsive to pressure from the people.

   We need to keep up the "street pressure" for peace now, and after the nomination is settled, and after November. We need to find new and innovative ways of doing so. Anti-war sentiment is at 70%, but the anti-war movement is nearly invisible from Main St. Some way must be found to draw the millions into action and force media attention.

   One crisis we could face soon: if Bush starts a war with Iran, and he could, can we stop Obama from jumping onto the war bandwagon? If not, we will have been outflanked. We will have no one left we can support but the Greens.

   Posted by CAH at 02/06/2008 @ 1:26pm

9. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CAH

   you are criticizing Barry for something he might do? that's Bush's technique with Saddam.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 1:29pm

10. Everyone agrees the Dems cannot afford a risk right now, and Obama is a huge one. The Republicans will have a field day with a junior senator who has missed over a third of his votes in the short 2 years he's been in the Senate. I still find it fascinating how the supportes of this "great unifier" are the ones spitting such vitriolic hatred at a Democrat like Clinton. Obama's principles and policies are too aligned with hers to be ignored, and of greater importance, less specific than hers. Clinton supporters aren't commenting on Obama's looks, masculinity, or his underhanded and backhanded compliments towards Hillary. And yet she just keeps calmly doing her job, winning over conservatives as a NY senator-- a skill needed in November.

    Posted by Lola19 at 02/06/2008 @ 3:53pm

11. people care too much about platforms. platform promises made by demoblicans are normally an indication of what they won't do if elected. see willie clinton's 33% tax cut for the ultra rich in 1998(?), bigger than anything w ever dared to give them.

    in that sense obama constitutes real change and a challenge. he promises almost nothing --and that's change right there and hope too, since uncertainty generates hope in many-- and he challenges the system by telling it in its face that this whole thing is a mockery and that you can participate in the elections of a successful democracy (one "by the people for the rich"; those "by the people for the people" are called failed democracies) not only by using mafia-like party-political tricks and faits accomplis but also by stirring the nation's emotions. indeed obama shows us the richness of opportunities offered by the democratic process of promoting those who can serve the rich best.

    and hillary does not lie when she says she will be ready from day one: the rich were always her friends, her hubby governed for them and will be there at her side from day one, and madeleine "500,000 dead iraqi children is a fair price" albright and her boys will be there from day one too, to ensure a foreign policy coherent with western "values".

    Posted by erplus at 02/06/2008 @ 4:00pm

12. I am a moderate Democrat but I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama because I believe he will bring about the changes our nation so badly needs by reaching across the aisle and working with members of both parties. The bitter partisanship in Congress is making it impossible to get reforms in healthcare, the environment, immigration and our foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has ran a nasty, mean-spirted campaign against Obama, full of mud-slingling, character assassination and the politics of personal destruction. As President she and her husband will make the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush pale in comparison when it comes their vindictiveness, secretiveness and wanting to get back at their enemies.

    America has too many problems that need to be resolved and they never will be resolved if we demonize those who disagree with us. Obama has proven he can work with those whose views don't always equal his in a way to find common ground and get meaningful legislation passed that will benefit all Americans. He will hold true to his beliefs but will still be able to get majorities to pass legislation because of the type of leader he is.

    We don't need more partisanship in Congress, we need less. We don't need more lies, more mud slinging, and more dirty campaigning. Nixon is long gone, and Bush will soon be gone. If revenge and getting back at the Republicans is your motive, then vote for Hillary Clinton. If progress and change and laws protecting our environment, extending healthcare to more of our citizens, a fair and decent immigration policy, and a foreign policy that will restore American values without making us a pariah in the world is what you want, then you have one clear choice: Barack Obama.

    Posted by markkoch at 02/06/2008 @ 4:45pm

13. Hey!

    New voices, above. Always good to see ya'. Even if I disagree with ya' (Lola 19 ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2008 @ 4:50pm

14. I have to agree with Lola on the point of the vilification of Hilary. How can anyone possibly imply she is not qualified? The platform of 'change' is getting old and will be beyond that come November. The Repubs will eat him alive if that is his only position. Let's at least talk positively about both candidates and not give Rush any talking points by accusing Clinton of conspiring with Diebold...CAH. If she wins the nomination, we need to be behind her. Same with Obama.

    Posted by Smoke at 02/06/2008 @ 5:45pm

15. The Obama Effect is going to end up where the Carter Effect and the JFK Effect ended. And I'm not talking about the JFK myth that was created after his death. If JFK hadn't been assassinated he never would have won reelection in 1964. JFK's inexperience brought us the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missle Crisis. And those of you that don't remember or weren't old enough to know the inflation and high gas prices of the Carter presidency as well as the Iran standoff can count yourselves fortunate. JFK was elected by "momentum" for change. Carter (after the Nixon debacle and the Ford buyoff) was elected by "momentum" for change. Neither of them got around to specifics about just what and how they were going to change. People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    Posted by sara48909 at 02/06/2008 @ 6:29pm

16. If JFK hadn't been assassinated he never would have won reelection in 1964.

    and you base this on, what?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 7:22pm

17. JFK, war hero.

    Even while president, his approval ratings only once dropped below 60 percent.

    you don't have a leg to stand on.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 7:25pm

18. The Obama Effect is going to end up where the Carter Effect and the JFK Effect ended. And I'm not talking about the JFK myth that was created after his death. If JFK hadn't been assassinated he never would have won reelection in 1964. JFK's inexperience brought us the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. And those of you that don't remember or weren't old enough to know the inflation and high gas prices of the Carter presidency as well as the Iran standoff can count yourselves fortunate. JFK was elected by "momentum" for change. Carter (after the Nixon debacle and the Ford buy off) was elected by "momentum" for change. Neither of them got around to specifics about just what and how they were going to change. People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I agree that those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it but people also fail to take a longer view of things, mainly the mistakes of previous presidents carry on to future presidents. Both of your examples, Carter and JFK were doomed by the policies of previous presidents. The need for change wasn't the problem nor the candidates supporting it. The real problems were the policy decisions that came before them.

    Actually, you could really blame the CIA specifically for both of those events you mention, since they put both Castro and the Shaw of Iran in power....

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/06/2008 @ 7:34pm

19. A closer look at Obama at: Some Obama Truths [ObamaTruth.org]

    Posted by BBFmail at 02/06/2008 @ 8:18pm

20. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=DaCraftyB

    right on first paragraph.

    the second? Castro put himself in power. and the cuban missile crisis was his finest hour.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 8:21pm

21. There are many reasons Obama is defying expectations regarding his race, but one I've never heard discussed in this era of terminal political correctness is rather obvious to any astute, forthright citizen. Obama may be "Black" by the commonly held standard of complexion applied in politics and sociology, but if you focus on telegenic standards of deportment, apparel, enunciation, articulation, vocabulary, erudition, and persona, he's a highly non-threatening shade of "White".

    Surely many of us remember the way Time Magazine artificially darkened O.J.'s complexion on its cover when he was being tried for murder. This was done to subtly convey the pernicious idea that any high-profile black man accused of such a heinous crime must be "blacker", and therefore more threatening, than O.J.'s real life skin tone and handsome caucasian-like facial structure. After all, the guy had betrayed the trust of the mass (white)market, where he had "been permitted" to make a hefty living pitching rental cars, among other products, and trading on his NFL legend. Time Magazine denied they did this, but to coin an old phrase, "Who are'ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

    Jesse Jackson, whose primary win in South Carolina many years ago Bill Clinton invoked when Obama slammed Hillary last month in the same primary, has a thick southern accent--he was born and raised in, of all places, South Carolina--is a Baptist minister, and is famous for his unique brand of sermon-like, firebrand rhetoric. While very handsome, he also "looks" like the common conception of an African-American man in the media, TV and movies. His politics and cultural associations, and his relationship to Dr. MLK, have further cemented him in the public mind as a "black" politician, to the extent he was perceived as a politician when he ran for president. Mr. Obama may be seen and felt, by a very large cross-section of the electorate, as transcending his race; his entire persona---cosmopolitan speech with few if any "black" inflections (unless he "turns them on" for his stump speeches to black audiences, during which he may adopt a faux southern accent, which in itself speaks to my point), deep baritone voice, rhetorical excellence, physical appearance, personal style--supports the perception that he is more than just another "black" politician, but simply a well-educated, s American politician and candidate for president that happens to be a person of color.

    Of course, he had a white mother, which directly contributes to his causcasian-leaning appearance. Yet, he is not a very handsome man, say, in the mold of Denzel Washington or Blair Underwood or Mario Van Peebles, all film actors with decidedly finer features. If you watch Sidney Poitier in one of his earliest films, "No Way Out" from 1951, and compare his facial appearance to much later films when he was already a huge star, such as "In the Heat of the Night", or "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", you can clearly see a modification in his face, the result of likely cosmetic surgery. While many male and female actors of all races have work done on their features, Mr. Poitier was a romantic lead, not a character actor, and therefore needed to appear more acceptable to the vast white audience that had already begun to accept him in this category through his sheer talent, but talent alone was not enough. He had to "look the part" according to the white movie executives who controlled his career and his market persona. Since he was already a dark-skinned Bahamian native, they could only refine his structural features, which they did.

    However, Obama's features and persona are far more refined and "white" than, say, Al Sharpton or the late Barbara Jordan of Texas Shirley Chisholm of Brooklyn or Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C., or Jesse Jackson or any number of other black Congresspersons from all over the country. Spike Lee directed a film, "School Daze", specifically about the gradations of skin color among black college students, and the intense effects these differences have within that community. Another of his films, "Jungle Fever", focused on a dark-skinned black man, Wesley Snipes, who cheats on his "black" wife--whose skin color is nearly white but whose persona and personal style are particularly African-American--with a white, very "ethnic" Italian-American woman. Talk about layers of complexity and moral ambiguity!

    What is my point? I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm sensitive to race issues, spending most of my life and career in NYC. The pervasive role of race in our society and culture, especially in our politics, and the above-cited "Bradley Effect", is an indisputable phenomenon when black candidates appear on the ballot, and certainly when they run for office on TV, through ads, debates and interviews. They better look and act the part, in this case "presidential", so they are taken seriously by enough of the electorate to be credible, let alone competitive, let alone successful as a candidate.

    Dennis Kucinich is of course white, but did not come close to the bar of being "presidential", except to a tiny swath of voters and activists on the left. His next-to-invisible poll numbers were the result. Barack Obama, understood by everyone to be "black", is clearly presidential, and is completely viable as a strong candidate. At some point, when he is the nominee, you can be sure the other side will begin to subtly and not so subtly shade his background, intentions, and qualifications with the same insidious brush used against O.J. on that Time Magazine cover more than a decade ago, or against Kerry in the last campaign. There are of course those bigots and crazies who will go much farther in their attempts at raw vilification, and some who may even threaten the physical security of him and his family. We are, after all, a nation famous for our violence, racial and ethnic hatreds, and both overt and covert white supremacy. Obama and his wife deserve admiration for merely putting themselves in this position, just as Jackie Robinson did 60 years ago, and Colin Powell consciously did not.

    O.J. was guilty, but that does not diminish the race-baiting of the Time cover. Obama may be a man of color, but that does not diminish his growing status as a transcendent candidate that cuts across class, gender, political pov, and race. Fortunately, he looks and acts the part...if he didn't, and hadn't gone to Harvard besides, he'd likely be back in Chicago organizing community groups. Let's just be clear about this. Our sterotypes still inform our reality, especially in the crucible of racial politics, and if Obama's candidacy, let alone his presidency, can help transform that national character flaw, it will truly be historic.

    Posted by stonecutter at 02/06/2008 @ 9:03pm

22. Fortunately, he looks and acts the part...if he didn't, and hadn't gone to Harvard besides, he'd likely be back in Chicago organizing community groups. Let's just be clear about this. Our sterotypes still inform our reality, especially in the crucible of racial politics, and if Obama's candidacy, let alone his presidency, can help transform that national character flaw, it will truly be historic.

    ~Stonecutter @ 9:03pm

    Excellent piece.

    And here's a fine piece from the latest Newsweek, hot off the presses:

    When It's Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins .

    Excerpts:

    Because voters are not computers, willing and able to remember and analyze candidates' every position, they rely on what political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls "gut rationality," which provides one of the most powerful of the heuristics Lau cites. In his now classic 1991 book "The Reasoning Voter," Popkin uses an example from the 1976 Republican primaries, which pitted President Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan. While campaigning in Texas, Ford ate, or tried to eat, a tamale without first removing its corn-husk wrapper. He nearly choked on it. Mexican-American voters inferred from this--reasonably, Popkin argues--that Ford didn't know much about them or their culture, and that it therefore made sense to pull the lever for Reagan. The Gipper carried Texas overwhelmingly, winning 96 delegates to Ford's zero, thanks in part to the Latino vote. In the 1992 campaign, when George H.W. Bush looked at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton, the message that "gut rationality" received was that "Bush didn't want to be there," says GOP consultant Frank Luntz. " 'Voters felt 'He doesn't understand the country anymore,' which leads to 'I don't trust him'." In contrast, during the debate Clinton walked over to a questioner in the audience; as he looked into her eyes and spoke about the economy, she nodded and nodded. "No one remembered what Clinton said, but everyone remembered the visual expression of affirmation," says Luntz. "That one small move led hundreds of thousands of people to change their minds" and vote for Clinton...

    Campaign ads therefore aim for the heart even when they seem to be addressed to the head. One Clinton ad shows a skydiver in free fall against a background of headlines about the housing bust and stock-market gyrations. A parachute opens--and Clinton's image appears. The emotional goal is clear: stir up fear and anxiety about the economy, then present Clinton as savior. In another ad, Clinton talks about her economic-stimulus plan, followed by a voice-over warning that "we know you can't solve economic problems with political promises." By reminding voters that these are risky times, the ads are meant to make voters feel anxious and thus more receptive to the argument that this is no time to gamble on a relative newcomer such as Obama.

    When voters consider candidates' positions, they are drawn to the candidate who assuages fear, inspires hope, instills pride or brings some other emotional dividend...

    The many anxious voters taking another--and another--look at candidates may explain one of the more remarkable phenomena of this primary season: the many late-breaking voters. In New Hampshire, 18 percent of voters made up their minds on the day of the primary, says pollster John Zogby; in Michigan, 16 percent did. What sways those late deciders is more emotional than rational, says Obama strategist David Axelrod: "They're making critical decisions not just about the issues but about the character and personality of the candidates."

    Obama has staked his hopes on the appeal of hope, which tends to be a winning strategy as long as voters' fears and anxieties are not primed by, say, a terrorist attack or a sharp economic downturn. "The outrage and cynicism that the Bush administration has made so many people feel has led a lot of them to want to feel inspired again," says Westen. That is clearly something the Obama campaign is counting on. In his endorsement speech last week, Sen. Edward Kennedy scarcely mentioned Obama's positions on issues, emphasizing instead the country's yearning for "a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream … and who can lift our spirits and make us believe again," and calling Obama someone who can "summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country's best days are still to come." Although hope for the future is almost always trumped by anxiety about the present, it can sway voters whose fears are in check. That may explain Obama's success with better-educated, well-off Democrats, while Clinton appeals more to those who have only a high-school diploma and are struggling economically.

    In contrast to anxiety, enthusiasm tends to close voters' minds to new information. It makes voters stand pat, as it were, rather than try to learn more about candidates. The lack of enthusiasm for the GOP pack may therefore explain why that race has been particularly fluid: unenthusiastic voters are still actively seeking more information about the candidates...

    Explaining why voters make the decisions they do is hampered by people's poor powers of introspection. Exit polls ask people whom they voted for and why. But the explanations tend to be post hoc, and wrong, because people have such little insight into their own motivations, reasoning and emotions, says Eskew. "People default to things like 'He shares my values,' or 'I think he's authentic,' or 'I like his position on abortion," he says. "But those are rational reasons. The real ones, the emotional ones, are harder to articulate." But they are the ones that count, and the campaign that best harnesses the power of the heart is just about certain to see its candidate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue one year from now.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2008 @ 11:16pm

23. "... and hillary does not lie when she says she will be ready from day one: the rich were always her friends, her hubby governed for them and will be there at her side from day one, and madeleine "500,000 dead iraqi children is a fair price" albright and her boys will be there from day one too, to ensure a foreign policy coherent with western "values"." Posted by ERPLUS 02/06/2008 @ 4:00pm

    Alas, too accurate a summary of why Billary should not be reelected. Add to that the unaccountability of Bill on the loose as de facto veep, legally raking in tens of millions in fees & commissions, and you get the fuller picture. The US simply can't afford Billary.

    We've no choice but to go with Obama & then hope.

    Posted by sloper at 02/07/2008 @ 06:03am

24. 1) I think a lot of people are falling into the trap that Obama and Clinton are two different candidates. When you read ( yes, read ;) ) the issues, their perspectives and their stances, they are the same candidate with MINOR, MINOR differences. An Obama presidency will be no different than a Clinton presidency.

    2) The real question becomes, who can best take on the Republican nominee? (assume it will most likely be McCain)

    But don't kid yourself that Obama is a big change candidate compared to Hillary. If you really stick by that, you simply aren't doing your homework. Obama is a great orator and it's easy to get swept up in things. They both have pluses and minuses, but you've got to get over the hatred of Hillary, if you have it, and look at things objectively. Otherwise we'll go down the route of the Republicans and their hatred of McCain ... and it's just going to be a mess.

    I'll repeat again, there is no difference between Obama and Clinton.

    Posted by phnord at 02/07/2008 @ 09:48am

25. ...sorry, have to add to my previous comment. It's not a plug for Hillary. I think they will both make good presidents and BOTH will bring change compared to what we have. But the argument that Obama is different from Clinton is just pure garbage. It's easy to get swayed by the marketing speeches both candidates give, but you have to do the research and think objectively.

    Thom Hartmann said it best when he said you can make a great case for both candidates. Move on from the Hillary hatred for whatever petty reasons you have and really read into the candidates and decide who can take on McCain.

    But don't say things like "all we can do is go with Obama and hope." or "I'll vote for anyone but Hillary." That is the talk of people who don't do the reading and can't think for themselves.

    Posted by phnord at 02/07/2008 @ 10:09am

26. To PHNORD, To suggest Billary and Obama are the same is absurd on its face, but not for reasons one might suspect. It's true that the fundamental systemic monstrosity that is the federal government is not in the near term, if ever, going to be discernably re-directed if either one is president: "change" will be far more symbolic, more ephemeral, if it comes at all, than either promises right now.

    With a smoke-and-mirrors defense budget approaching $1 Trillion dollars "all in", the continuation of astronomical deficit-spending on war and "national security", which both of them seem to support, (albeit from subtly "different" angles), putting the nation in hock to foreign capital, the essential dominance of the military/industrial/congressional complex over all other aspects of our government and American life, and the continuing transfer of our dwindling public treasure into the hands of private corporate predators (a.k.a. "the free market" or "outsourcing") who, with the sustained help of Congress and this crazy-like-a-fox president, have turned our government and our "national security" apparatus, military and civilian, into an organized racket of such proportions and far-reaching impact that global "organized crime" by comparison is like a 3-card Monty scam on a NY street corner.

    When you get out from under the Herculean numbers and insider jargon, the vast, intertwined "business relationships", the spectacular, no-bid sweetheart contracts to favored cronies and mondo political contributors, the corporate and special interests entrenched like granite quarries in the bowels of the Washington money machine (a.k.a. "earmarks"), it really does not matter whether Obama or Billary or McCain or Alfred E. Newman is president (wait, we've already got him).

    So, why are they different? Come Jan 20th, One of them will sit astride a giant pink pig that just finished a makeover at Elizabeth Arden, before it flew back to Washington...without a plane. But Obama, unlike Billary or McCain, is "NEW". That newness is at the core of his appeal, and it's what makes him essentially "different" from the prospect of a Billary dynasty or a "Bush Redux" McCain presidency. It's what makes his race much less of a factor than it was 20 years ago when Jesse ran, or just a few years ago when Sharpton tried it, notwithstanding his far more sophisticated and polished "presidential" persona than either of those previous "black" candidates possess. It's what Teddy alluded to when he compared Obama to JFK, calling on the better angels of our nature, the aura of hope, aspiration, and the so-called American Dream, which seems to have slipped into nightmare territory during Bush's reign.

    Some call it "hope", others call it "charisma", still others call it "change", but what it really is, is NEW! I think the country, the world--after so many recent years, even decades, of lying, corruption, paralysis, polarization, cynicism, destruction, pre-emptive war, failed promises (Romney struck a chord with his littany of failed promises, but his narrow-minded, bigoted, absolutist Mormonism has done him in, even if he did change his outfit), and the specter of more of the same from retreads McCain or Billary--the majority wants to hand the reins to someone relatively new to the system, someone who projects an image of intelligence, competence, commitment to ordinary people, and may in the bargain unite rather than continue to divide, simply because of who he is, where he came from, how he got here, where he wants to take us.

    On some core issues they all three may be the same coat in different colors, but wake up and smell the coffee, issues are not why people vote for someone. Most Americans are incapable of dissecting or understanding the headlines, let alone the fine print, so suggesting they "read" is like pissing into a hurricane. Most have been conditioned by years of TV overstimulation pounding their senses and crowding out information, let alone knowledge (If you watch Anderson Cooper on CNN for 5 minutes, let alone the dumbed down, crime and gore-ridden local news in virtually any market, you will see a distracting crawl at the bottom of the screen, 3 or 4 multi-colored, spinning, strobe-lighted design images continuously occupying the background behind his talking head, MTV-like sound affects blasting off every few seconds, and enough leading-edge computer graphics and rapid-fire newspeak gibberish from "reporters" to make any attempt at learning something physically painful...this is just 5 minutes! Of course, he's not alone; Fox News is the paradigm for all this televised light-and-sound drivel passed off to a comatose viewership as "hard news". Walter Cronkite is spinning in his wheelchair. Dan Rather got out just in time.

    We are a nation sadly inhabited by large swaths of under-educated, tribally-driven and terminally distracted simpletons--Christian, Muslim, Jew, Agnostic--with little or no self-awareness, emotional education or insight into themselves or others, let alone the political and show business elite they are besotted with every day in TV, PC and print--simpletons not necessarily by their own choosing but simpletons nonetheless. Michael Herr wrote about the perpetrators of the Viet Nam war, "Even those that learn the lessons of history are still condemned to repeat them". We are more interested in the schadenfreude of American Idol (and schadenfreude anywhere we can find it)than in the direction of our government or the continuing loss of personal liberty under the ruse of "keeping us safe". We worship "education for all" in slogan only, but in reality only 10-15% of our citizens have enjoyed college; we're a nation which continues to publicly educate its children using an obsolete 1950's template, simultaneously sustained and strangled by teacher unions allergic to the "change" Obama is offering, and turning out kids woefully unprepared to build a career, raise a civilized family and build a responsible, productive life. We have reduced virtually every human pursuit, aspiration or issue into a "brand" to be relentlessly marketed and exploited through the omnipotence of garbage TV and the Internet, until the morality, ethics or personal responsibility has been leached out, and all that's left is empty relativism or victimization, and of course profit. This is the current and durable American zeitgeist.

    How many hundreds of times during his mercifully brief campaign did Giuliani utter the iconic Pavlovian trigger, "9/11"? Now that he's endorsing McCain, who if elected might keep us in perpetual war somewhere, anywhere, around the world, we can choose to buy into this paranoid, apocalyptic vision of global Christian capitalism and Pax Americana, or we can take a calculated chance on someone NEW, someone who offers a focus on human problems and needs, a change in priorities, a re-direction of (some) resources to remind us of our essential humanity and desire to do good in the world, to try and offset all this evil. That is Barack Obama, and that's his trump card.

    Posted by stonecutter at 02/07/2008 @ 1:38pm