Hello, nice avatar and interesting analysis. While I agree with much of what you said, I disagreed with the strength of your objection (or perhaps calculation is the better word) regarding Obama.
Your argument regarding his viability in a general election, particularly due to racial issues, is an assertion. Black candidates have found footing at previously unheard of elected positions all over the country. More importantly, blacks have now served at essentially the second highest non-elected office in our nation: secretary of state. Even good ol' boy conservatives considered Powell a potential VP, and more moderate conservatives potential Presidential material.
I think race has disappeared as an issue to a large degree, particularly for charismatic/powerful/famous people seeking or within prominent positions. And I think that has little to do with intentionally putting aside prejudice. Its just that familiarity removes that issue, and charisma/power/fame breeds familiarity. They wouldn't have gotten into the possibility of obtaining a prominent position without having previously removed themselves from the "out group" category.
While there certainly may remain sections of the US which would not want a black person as president, I don't think a solid case has been made that it would be big enough to effect a general election.
As change is a big theme, promoted by both parties, Obama is the only symbol of true change... and that's without addressing race.
Clinton, as she campaigns, already admits to having been in the White House. Her arguments seem to be more about projecting back to the past. And if she does win Bill will be back in power. If she were to dispute this then I'd have to ask how she can claim to have been in power while Bill was president? It is really same old same old with her, and even if competent she has fumbled the ball enough to lose some dems and independents, as well as having overt negative effects on reps in general.
McCain, though sometimes a maverick, is largely a part of the system that has been working for some time. He might siphon some independent votes from Hillary, but not so likely from Obama. I doubt he'll pull in dems.
Obama has been attracting members from all parties. I was astounded to learn a march in step/born and raised republican I knew is considering voting for Obama. I know its anecdotal, but I've been hearing similar stories and it is something I have not heard for either Hillary or McCain, where their appeal is generally limited to traditional party affiliation.
So I guess this is to say, I think a Hillary McCain battle will be the same old election scheme, with the general election turning on basic base party affiliation turnout . An Obama McCain battle would involve more of a shakeup, with the potential for greater crossing of lines (and I believe more from rep to dem, as well as ind to dem).
Personally, I would vote for Obama over McCain, but I might consider Nader over Hillary.
Edited by Silent H, : lil fixes
h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
™ Version 4.2
