The Bradley Effect was not promoted by Obama and supporters. It was clearly pushed by the pollsters themselves. They were the biggest names on the talk circuit the day/week after NH. Zogby himself was on John Stewart, and reps from all the pollsters came out in full force on TV and in newspapers (There was a prominent editorial indicting the good people of NH in my Plain Dealer the next day, written by one of the pollsters himself--forgot which one). We all know why, don't we? They needed some rationalization for their bogus results. Their otherwise best-case scenario, and the probable truth, that many voters made up their minds at the last minute, COMPLETELY UNDERMINES their worth. Why would anybody use polls in the future if they aren't any good until the second the voting is done? Then we might as well just use exit polls, which is just a tiny percentage of their business?

As an Obama supporter, I was horrified at the Bradley effect talking point. It did not in any way, in terms of strategy, help him out. It marginalized him as the "black candidate" and brought up the whole racism thing, an angle Obama and supporters had been actively resisting. There's no question his approach to run as something other than a black candidate has worked for him. The Bradley effect would have thoroughly undermined the entire premise of his candidacy. I bring this up as just one example of an assumption by Wilentz that is suspect. He does it all over the place. For a little insight into the mind of an Obama voter, I wondered for a tiny little bit if it wasn't the Hillary camp that was promoting the Bradley effect. I rejected it out of hand when I saw it was the pollsters themselves pushing it and realized why, but I say that to demonstrate how completely nonhelpful it was to Obama's campaign.

You might be right on that one. They were way too long, so I didn't read them! (insert "chagrin" emoticon here). :)

- Here is a skit from SNL back in Nov. that reminds us there was a time Clinton was ahead and seemingly "favored" by the media. Brian Williams was the host and was supposedly preparing the field of Dems for a debate (which in real life he hosted). Anyway, thrown in there were several lines about how they put Clinton in the center b/c "we in the media have already decided we want her in the White House" and so forth. The implication is clearly that the media were predisposed to Clinton at the time (the whole inevitability thing--remember?)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRFns9l44WM

(Sorry you have to see this through the filter of O'Reilly)

- "whiny" is NOT a sexist word. I would and have easily used it for men who are whiny.

- I agree the "going first" comment by Hillary in the debate came off bad. She just doesn't deliver prepared lines like that well (Remember the xerox thing?) so she should stop trying. On the actual going first concept: while I agree with some who say it can be an advantage, it was a clear disadvantage with the Putin question. That was out of left field, and it was prickish of Russert to press her for the guy's name. I doubt Obama would have done any better (or even as well) with that. Of all the questions in all the debates where he has essentially said "I agree with Hillary on this," I think that is the only one where he may have had to agree for lack of knowledge. (Not that I know that for sure, just that it was obscure). On the others, his agreement was a refreshing and unifying way to demonstrate that they are in fact similar on policy. When Hillary is given opportunities to agree, I find that she parses to find some distinguishing factor b/t them (like on Cuba or even the "meeting with world leaders thing," which if you remember really came up b/c she was looking to differ with him. Until that point, they had both been criticizing Bush like crazy for only meeting with friends. By focusing on their difference there--and perhaps contriving one in the process--she created straitjackets for both of them.) As a follow-up to that point, I can't stand when moderators force candidates to differentiate themselves, as so many of them do. Instead of asking where each one stands, they often ask "How is your plan different from X's? This drives me crazy. Let them each tell their own, and let us do the interpreting, comparing, and analyzing, thank you very much. Anyway, for all the talk about the advantages of going first, I think Hill clearly took the hit for the Putin question, to be fair.

Who the hell cares when you're in the throes of it?

I have a real problem with this post. What a silly question: Who's right? on the semantics of an issue as complex as recession is as reductive and divisive as the kind of gotcha questions that Tim Russert pulled on the candidates in the last debate.

I think George W. Bush is the worst president in my lifetime, and I think Barack Obama is the best candidate for president in my lifetime. Those seemingly bald assertions have emerged as the truth in the last several years, and I don't say them lightly. So on the face of it, when I'm asked "Whom do you believe?" the answer is sort of self-evident. But I'd rather not play this particular game when there are actual substantive issues out there, like how to handle the so-called recession rather than what to call it.