I am black, and I am sick, sick, sick of the numerous articles, columns, etc. with theories about whether or not whites will vote for Obama. I DON'T CARE!!! and PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE!!! Throughout all of these articles is a deep rooted bigotry that assumes that only whites can have biases that matter. Has anyone noticed that blacks have stopped voting for White Republicans?? And that there are very good reasons why we don't vote for many white politicians?? Did this lack of enthusiasm for white John Kerry have a bigger impact on the 2004 presidential race than "Swift Boats"? Did anyone care that blacks don't like John Edwards southern drawl, but find Bill Clinton's acceptable? If there is going to be this "deep analysis" of white peoples' polling, doesn't black folks matter, also? Who can ask the proper questions or reach a large representative sample of of black voters??

The current system is not working on contentious subjects, unfortunately.

The lunatics, and the astroturfing pros drown out any sensible comment in a sea of babble.

Either a moderating system like Slashdot's (which might require coding more impressive than Salon can afford) or the less perfect, but still very useful Twit filter employed by TableTalk.

Anything to cut down the noise. The trolls are covering everything with crap.

A Joan Walsh column that isn't all about Hillary Clinton, and doesn't mention either of the Clintons even once! Thank you!

Now, to the substance, one of the advantages of the hard right's ascendancy in recent years is that their hatred is now considered mainstream and moderate.

That means many things, one of them being that this is now a much ruder and louder country than it used to be.

But it also means that hateful people no longer feel the need to hide their bigotry. The so-called "Bradley Effect" where white racists lie to pollsters may be inoperative in an age where TV commentators, like the entirety of Fox News, and even other Democratic candidates, like the Clintons, can make varyingly naked racist appeals and feel not the slightest amount of shame about it.

It means that, in 2008, people will gladly tell pollsters that they'd never vote for the black man, simply because he's a black man. It is no longer the hatred that dare not speak its name. Many people are saying exactly that.

All that said, all it really comes down to is that the bigoted white minority is, despite the tireless efforts of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, much smaller than it used to be. They can fan the flames of hatred, but only with an ever-shrinking flock of true believers, while the mainstream of American thought has more or less evolved beyond it.

Race is a significant issue in the presidential campaign, and tiptoeing around it isn't going to make it go away.

No matter what people tell pollsters, here is the sad reality:

Some whites will never vote for a black man; some blacks are angry that Obama is surrounded mainly with white advisors, and dismiss him as not being black enough. Some Hispanics will never look favorably upon a black man leading the country...and the list goes on. Note that we haven't even gotten to the issues yet.

No matter what stance he takes, Obama will be attacked for it. Here is an undeniable fact, though: Obama is the future face of America, the America where white people will be a minority sooner than later. We as a nation better start reconciling ourselves to that fact--embracing it, moving forward with it. Diversity makes us better, stronger, and richer. Obama is the incarnation of that promise.

I don't mean race, I mean the even more basic premise here, the one that no one dares question but just repeats ad naseum, the one that says that opinion polls taken now mean anything about how people will actually vote (or even mean something about how they would vote if it were today) and that according to these polls, the candidates are "tied" in some way.

First, opinion polls months before have historically shed little light on outcomes in November. John Kerry was ahead. Ross Perot was ahead.

There's little doubt that some of the people who won't vote for Barack Obama will do so because of race. It seems likely. To quantify that somehow into A) precisely how many, and B) of that group, how many of those will say that now and then be won over by November once they get used to the idea-- I'm sorry this is all beyond any reasonable calculation I can imagine anyone getting right this far out.

It's just frustrating to watch us all trying to gather these complex things up into some pat statement, as if we can put values on these things. He "should" be ahead by exactly this much, because we think that "it's a Democratic year" and then since he's only 4 points ahead, well that's not enough, so ah okay, that's race then, and...

Yeesh. Who knows?

Electoral counts are far more interesting, here's one I saw today that has McCain with no chance of winning 270 even if he got every single state listed as "undecided", at this point.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195956

Should I be rejoicing? Should we be writing lots of columns about this "landslide electoral victory" that's on its way?

Well, maybe. But it's just a guess, at this point. And oddly, no one is doing that, only the hand-wringing about "Why are they tied??" instead, which is based on far shakier and far less meaningful data.

This matters by the way, because it creates a narrative, and the GOP just loves this one, the "OMG Obama is doing worse than a Democrat should this year!" It's the expectations game, they've been admitting, for a year, that "this isn't the GOP's year", just saying it right out loud. Ever wonder why? Partly because now that they've laid that groundwork, they can now say "Look! McCain is outperforming expectations!" and thus the "maverick" nonsense gets pumped up again.

Yep. Playing us like a two-dollar banjo, and we're all too willing to get played. I think it will come out all right this time but it would be nice if we weren't quite so eager to be instrumental in their little orchestra all the time.