I'll have to put you on my "do not read list" along with my cable news "do not watch list" if you continue in this vein, MJ. You're scaring me.

Label me more pragmatic:

This is one of the few elections seasons where every voter -- at least those identified as Democrats -- will have had the opportunity to vote twice, once in the state primary and once in the general election. Those voters so inclined to vote against Obama had their chance and could have voted him out already.

So, why lie? No reason. They can vote against Obama and are free to say why for whatever reason they want.

But my thought is that if all of those hidden "racist voters" were really voting their intentions, they would have done so in the summer and not waited until now to suddenly vote their fears.

I'm with Jonathan Alter, at this late date I doubt there is a huge hidden racist, Bradley-efffect waiting to happen.

I don't believe there's a so-called Bradley effect.
I think people who won't vote for Obama because he's African American are relaxed about saying they won't vote for him.

I think if McCain wins it will be because of Republican voter suppression - as witness all those people in NC who thought they'd voted for Obama but hadn't; and young people didn't come out in the numbers needed. I also think Obama will have lost a lot of votes because of his `spreading the wealth` around gaffe.

The "Sarah Palin is really Jewish" sounds like the same sort of hoax as the anti-Obama lying smear campaign. Completely phony and made-up, with the explicit goal being to generate chain emails to sway some stupid voters. Call it an anti-smear. But still (probably) a deliberate lie.

I suppose you read this article from Salon:

Bill Greener: Why Obama has to stay above 50 percent - Salon
Abstract: I think John McCain really does have a decent shot at winning, and that's not just because I'm a longtime Republican political operative. Despite what the polls seem to be saying, a closer look at the numbers shows that a Democratic victory is not a foregone conclusion. Why? Because if history is any guide, Barack Obama, as an African-American candidate for political office, needs to be polling consistently above 50 percent to win. And in crucial battleground states, he isn't.(...) There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get. The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried.

I won't be truly confident until the evening of January 20, 2009. But it was a little chilly in hell last week. My born New York Jew/former New Orleans slumlord/current South Florida country club tennis playing father-in-law who unabashedly ogles younger, attractive women early voted for Obama last week.

PS: referring people to a site where they can't read the Yiddish or Russian is very clever.

Likewise the foolish notion that she's named "Sarah" because of Jewish ancestry. Christians commonly use Biblical first names.

And here's her family tree from a genealogical web site:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/palin.htm

Finally, if she were Jewish (technically), wouldn't we have heard about it by now?