Hat tip Art Levine: from the Pew Poll:

White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

The Pew poll also hints that these folks are among the most likely to go to McCain.

Now some might argue that this party-switching among this group is (in part) Hillary's doing because she did not speak out strongly enough against the smear campaign (you know, the whole "as far as I know" and all that. Maybe, but I tend to think that the people who are receptive to this kind of smear are people looking for reasons not to support Obama in the first place - these aren't people on the margin.

All that movement "he's ahead, she's ahead" - almost certainly random (i.e., measurement error).

They are tied in the national polls.

Until you see a series of polls outside the margin of error, then there is nothing to report.

Identity politics has been a subtext (and a often a supertext) of the race between Clinton and Obama. This is, in effect, the only way to interpret the age / gender / racial voting patterns so far. Depending on the underlying demographics, they become more or less pronounced from state to state, but they are omni-present.

Underlying this is the following intuition: people like to associate with and vote for candidates with whom they identify, i.e., people they perceive to be like them. Obama is fundamentally similar to three demographics: blacks, men, and the affluent middle class. His campaign, until the Wright affair came up, was able to make him appeal to all of these groups, without making his black identity too salient to white men or white folks of the affluent middle class. The Wright affair made his black identity salient. While Obama also identifies with the affluent middle class - just as strongly, only a (very?) small minority of white people have much familiarity with black culture. Hence, showing aspects of that culture is scary - it reminds people that Obama, in part, is not like them.

The campaign had to address this. Obama is affluent, male and black. He is now explaining to us why this is an asset. In a sense, the takeaway from Obama's speech is "I am also like you and that's because I have shared experiences with all of you". It is a complex and nuanced message - and it will take some time to see if it was well received.

Given that Obama is the more talented politician, Clinton's only strategy has been to make Obama either corrupt (didn't work so well), inexperienced (working a little bit, but not very well), or not like you (working well). This is why it is good for the Clinton campaign to make the discussion about race. The more we think about Obama's blackness, the more white people think "OMIGOD! he's not like me!" - and also why Obama rushed to change the subject today with his foreign policy speech.

Clinton, for her part, actively pushes identity politics. For example, in her stump speech she often mentions how great it is that the two Democratic finalists are a woman and an African American. The reason she does this is because there are more women than blacks - and hence she is then simultaneously reminding more voters that she is like them and Obama is not - then the other way around. This is a highly cynical, scorched earth, strategy.

If Clinton is nominated, it will be because a plurality (or at least a perceived plurality) of voters were afraid of voting for someone not like them. The same holds for McCain in the general. Obama's path to the presidency requires him to neutralize the race issue.

A footnote: I recognize and respect that not everyone is influenced by identity politics - but enough are that Obama's losing ground in the polls.

Howard Dean was on NPR today (see the update at the bottom of the post). He was unequivocal that the delegates would not be seated by the DNC and that, in effect, the delegates would not be seated if Obama is ahead because Obama's delegates would control the committee that would vote on seating them. A do-over is possible - although there are no negotiations presently.

Note: I listen to NPR, I drive a prius, but I do not drink lattes.

There currently is a TPM headline on the main page:

"Gallop: Clinton Takes the National Lead"

If we click through to the story, we see the qualifiers and a link to the source of the story. It turns out that Clinton and Obama are tied, according to the Gallup poll.

Why the tabloid headline? Its misleading, and also - as revealed on the Gallup website, factually incorrect.

How about a more accurate:

"Gallop: Clinton and Obama in Statistical dead heat"

Let me just preface this post by pointing out that I am an ardent Obama supporter. So much so that I canvassed yesterday in DC - (like that made a difference!)

This recent post gave me pause:

I am also an Israeli (I hold dual citizenship) - I spent 13 years in Israel and have strong emotional ties to the country. Even though I know in my head that the smears are hogwash, they do get under my skin. My thoughts race away: "What if they are true? Why does Obama belong to a church whose leader has such questionable opinions?" The Clintons have a very strong record supporting Israel, its hard to imagine Obama as more supportive then them - and the smears just brings out this logic.

I think these attacks will affect the Jewish electorate, which generally breaks over 80% democratic. I have no idea if they much matter to anyone else. Does anyone have any thoughts?

A shakeup is almost certainly a sign of management failure. But this management failure may reflect a poor choice of strategy, poor implementation, or both.

Clinton in the past has exhibited symptoms of Bush-esk failures in accounting for dissenting views. But that was almost 15 years ago, and the benefit of doubt would suggest that Clinton may have learned from her mistakes. Now, based on this account, I am not so sure...

Initially, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, Maggie Williams, was brought in to run the campaign even though Solis Doyle was still there. The result was confusion and awkwardness for the staff, who weren't sure who was really in charge.

But even more problematic was the campaign's money crunch. Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her reelection and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.

"We were lying about money," a source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."

In turn, Clinton didn't tell Solis Doyle that she was lending her own money to keep the campaign afloat. Solis Doyle found out third-hand. And when she asked Clinton about it, the senator told her she couldn't understand how the campaign had gotten to such a point.

Before I argued that there was not yet enough information to determine if Tuesday's results mean that Obama hit a ceiling or that he has momentum, but simply ran out of time to connect with voters.

Matthew Yglesias analyzes the exit polls and concludes that Obamentum.

There is some talk that Obama hit a wall. Maybe. He also may have run out of time. Before Super Tuesday the consensus was that it will be difficult for Obama to erase such a large gap. This consensus was mostly correct in the large states. For example, he did not erase the entire gap in two key states: Massachusetts and California. However, a substantial number of individuals voted early in California, and Obama was behind by 30 points in Massachusetts three weeks ago. He made a lot of progress. Moreover, arguably, these states are where the "not enough time" logic held the most sway. That said, there simply is not yet enough evidence to adjudicate between the "wall" interpretation and the "not enough time" interpretation of the Super Tuesday results.

There will be enough evidence by March 4th, when Ohio and Texas vote - especially if Obama performs well in the coming month (Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconsin). If Obama wins in Ohio, and makes inroads among the Latino voters in Texas, then it will look like the Super Tuesday results suggest that he really did not have enough time. If he fails to sway Ohio and Texas voters then the Super Tuesday results suggest he hit a wall.

I am no fan of Clinton, but I was taken a back by this http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/would-hillary-make-good-president.html Is that old news?