I think anyone who thinks they know whether Hillary or Obama is the more electable is wrong. People may be stupid, but they are not predictable on stuff like that. Whoever wins in 2008, it won't be on the issues. The single largest predictor of how people votes is party registration (around 38% of votes are cast on that basis). According to surveys about 6% of votes are based on candidates positions on the issues. The rest are on really fuzzy hard to determine things, like "leadership", "people like us" "character" and so on.

And given that who does the best campaigning (along with media bias) plays a large role in determining people's views of such fuzzy things, not really easy to predict. So I would not have the Meta discussion as to who is the better campaigner. Both Clinto and Obama have really good campaign skills. They both have differing styles, and don't think you can predict easily which will work better. They both have pluses and minuses as far as personality. I don't think you can predict which will play better or worse. And as far as media bias: the media will play the Muslim, not-really-black-but-black-enough-to be scary card against Obama. They will play the over-emotional castrating bitch card against Hillary. The will portray the Republican candidate as Saint McCain against the evil Hillary or Obama. So slanders and invocation of racism and sexism will have to be overcome by either candidate, and I would hate to try to predict which can do better.

Both Obama and Hillary have records on issues and public positions they have taken during the campaign - including proposal on their web sites. Obviously we are Buffistas and will talk about what we talk about. But I think the discussion will be both more productive and more fun if we talk about who will make the better President rather than who will make the better candidate. Cause there is real evidence for taking positions on the former,not so much for taking positions on the latter.

However, I was also deathly afraid of my parents, and that might not be the parenting direction chosen by Buffistas.

Nothing wrong with a little healthy fear. There is a serious lack of it at our house, however.

Truthfully, I was afraid of my folks, too, but my artistic drive won out in the battle between creativity and fear. Fortunately, my folks were so impressed with my work that they let me off easy.

School's finally back on so I'm saddling up the tauntaun and taking Owen to school.

Another lady predicted that he would get elected and then assasinated, because "they wouldn't let a black man be president". Which, after I thought about it, didn't seem all that unlikely.

Every black person I've spoken with about Obama firmly believes this. Most of the women say that he shouldn't be running at all because he'll be leaving his little girls without a father as soon as he's inaugurated.

He's had a Secret Service detail from very early on. When they announced it my Mother was heard to mutter, "hope they vetted the hell out of those guys."

Yeah, I don't think its a rash assumption at all that his life is seriously at risk.

I just kinda kept thinking about all the black people with the names of slaveowners, etc. Like Washington, Jefferson...

Just feeling the need to point out that the prevalence of those names among African Americans is largely tied to the names chosen by former slaves following the Civil War. Which isn't meant as any Saint Jefferson defense or anything, just that the name question has a more varied and interesting history.

Another lady predicted that he would get elected and then assasinated, because "they wouldn't let a black man be president". Which, after I thought about it, didn't seem all that unlikely.

FWIW, the only people I've encountered making this argument are conservative wingers. Which, okay, I guess they'd know. But somehow I kinda find myself questioning their motivation in making it.

...and with that, I'm off to vote. Maybe I'll decide who for by the time I get there.

[Chicagoistas - last day for early voting is today, FYI.]

Just feeling the need to point out that the prevalence of those names among African Americans is largely tied to the names chosen by former slaves following the Civil War. Which isn't meant as any Saint Jefferson defense or anything, just that the name question has a more varied and interesting history.

Interesting. I did not know that.

Ugh. I can't get over how angry and stupid I feel. Geez. I really would have registered if I had known.

Also, why is this eating at me? Seriously. I'm going to be inconvenienced for a couple of hours and it feels like I'm paying to go to jury duty or something.

FWIW, the only people I've encountered making this argument are conservative wingers. Which, okay, I guess they'd know. But somehow I kinda find myself questioning their motivation in making it.

I've seen it mentioned as a fear/concern on some of the African-American political blogs.

It wasn't a typo, it was a thinko.

Oh, flea, I am so madly in love with this.

Most of the women say that he shouldn't be running at all because he'll be leaving his little girls without a father as soon as he's inaugurated.

Augh, that's heartbreaking. And I can't say that I firmly believe that they're wrong. I have heard political junkies on other websites float the idea that whoever wins the nomination should immediately pick the other as a running mate, because it'd lessen the chances of an assassination attempt -- most of the people who'd be crazy enough to try to kill one of them would likely regard the other as even worse, and even among the outright batshit crazies the numbers of those both crazy enough to attempt a double assassination and competent enough to come close to succeeding are very, very tiny.

It depresses me even more that every time I read the comments thread on virtually any major news site, this train of thought seems perfectly wise and rational.

But I think the discussion will be both more productive and more fun if we talk about who will make the better President rather than who will make the better candidate. Cause there is real evidence for taking positions on the former,not so much for taking positions on the latter.

The "horse race" aspect of the whole Clusterfuck To The White House drives me insane. The list of past adequate-to-great presidents who would've made shitty, shitty candidates under the present system is ridiculously long, and the list of recent poor-to-middling candidates who probably would have done a fantastic job as president is getting longer by the day. The two have so damn little to do with each other, and yet everything, everything hinges on the least relevant one.

I get the angry, but don't feel stupid. This sounds like a total assy gotcha maneuver by the city.