I wouldn't count Hillary out yet, for a number of reasons.
And I wouldn't anoint Obama yet either, for many reasons - the least of which is that he hasn't been sufficiently vetted by an adoring media. Democratic warhorses - "superdelegates", for that matter - must face the fact that Obama
Is a boilerplate left-wing liberal, which doesn't play well in general elections
Isn't a uniter, and has done nothing in his public life to suggest he is
Has dubious connections to seedy campaign contributors and radical politicians (i.e., foreign policy advisors)
I am not counting Obama out, and he is in the catbird's seat, but Democrats like winning, and if they think Obama's bubble could pop when he gets legitimate scrutiny, they may like the tougher, better known commodity of Clinton.
This is kind of obvious, which only makes the point more validating, but isn't the fact that he's black a uniting quality?
Uniting in the way that black people and white people will be voting for him together? And yes, Hillary is a woman but race is simply more uniting than sex. Unless, of course, we're trying to unite the gay community.
That doesn't make sense - your point taken on its face, black people and white people have been voting for the same candidates for years. That wouldn't change.
And, of course, the "unity" Obama speaks of is political unity, not race unity directly.
This still doesn't make sense. If people are divided by race in a way that needs to be fixed, what makes you think a black candidate is suddenly going to make whites who don't like blacks vote for him? If they aren't "in unity" with other black people, why would they suddenly overcome whatever obstacles they had and vote for a black man?
The "unity" Obama speaks of is post-partisanship unity, not so much racial unity. And, as such, given his resume, post-partisan unity is nothing he is interested in, nor could he achieve (even if it was desirable).
Would any of this trickle down to the average poorly informed voter? Could you translate any of your 3 points to a 30 second campaign add, and since he is obviously the media's golden boy, do you think he will ever fuck up seriously enough to cause them to turn on him? He seems to have his media game down pat and doesn't deviate from the script much. I doubt he will ever have a Howard Dean moment.
I'm hoping that was sarcasm, as that view is a little extreme.
If you look at the demographic breakdowns, it is clear that Obama is benefitting for being black much more than Hillary is for being a white woman.
Obama is routinely getting 70-80% of the black vote, and while I am sure there are plenty that are voting for him because they like his policies, (I don't understand why, but that is another subject), it is hard to argue that many aren't voting for him just because of his skin color.
If you look at white women, they have been split between the two candidates.
In a general election, I think it would start to balance out more, i.e. plenty of whites would vote against him just because of his skin color, but I am still willing to bet that overall he will benefit because of it.
Think before you post. Say there is a large contingent of people who would not vote for someone because he is black.
And? Why would Obama change their minds? If they already have that racial bias in place, Obama's candidacy isn't going to change that or motivate them to change their minds.
There may be a large number of people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate, there be a miniscule amount of people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate - and Obama's candidacy isn't going to move that number of voters - whatever it is - around.