I originally thought that Obama's unity, post-partisn, reconciliation schtick was just that, schtick.  Through the months I've come to the conclusion that he may actually mean what he says.  Candidates usually do mean what they say.

Setting aside for the moment Obama's economic policy team it's instructive to examine his attitude regarding his public responsibilities.  Specifically the Roberts nomination. Obama was impressed with Roberts intellegence and wanted to vote to confirm.  Obama said that if he were President he wouldn't want anyone to oppose one of his nominations for ideological reasons. Obama was stopped by his top aide Pete Rouse who told him that a vote for Roberts would come to damage him politically and then Rouse admonished Obama by saying "this is not some moot law school exercise."

We're not talking about some young kid fresh out of school.  We're talking about a US Senator.  For Obama there was no consideration of what Roberts might do on the bench only that he, Obama, was impressed by Roberts peronally. I could inject something here about elitism but I'll resist.

That's only a fragment.  But it's a telling anecdote.

Given Obama's economic policy team I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of Republicans on an Obama White House staff and I wouldn't be surprised if Obama left any number of Bush appointees in various Federal agencies. Unity and all that. Now at this point some people would remind me of Republican Cabinet Secretaries in Democratic administrations. But then I'd remind them that at least since the Kennedy administration, Cabinet Secretaries have had ever decreasing roles in policy matters.  The exception has been the Bush II administration but only because of Bush himself and the old Rumsfeld/Cheney partnership.

It's more important to consider staff positions below the Cabinet Secretary level and especially the White House staff and the Bureau of Management and Budget.

People should be aware of the Obama team's economic conservatism.  A conservative economic staff is ill prepared to deal with the scale of economic problems that could confront the next President. Having a Democratic administration take the fall for an economic catastrophe is not in the nation's or the Party's long term interest. And make no mistake half measures to combat a serious multi-year recession will be fixed sqaurely on the party of the President that failed to take bold action. That's what happened to Hoover.  It wasn't the financial collapse it was the perception of inaction and insensitivity.

Link

And the Republican crossover is estimated as about 9% of the vote for Obama, with a concerted effort by conservative media/blogs here calling for that.  (This was well before the Limbaugh calls for crossover for Clinton, not until Ohio and Texas.)

It always was going to be a tough state for her, too.  What was said about Iowa and Mississippi is as true in Wisconsin for women in politics, the last state to send a woman to Congress, and that was only in the last decade.  

But now, after the primary with the Reverend Wright and Ayers and Dohrn (who is from the Milwaukee area) and in this gun-toting (even Feingold is on the NRA side!) and churchgoing state, Obama is slipping fast here.  I think Clinton could win it with campaigning here, but in the closest state last time -- Kerry won by less than a half of one percent -- I wouldn't count on either one to win it this fall.  

That was based on past presidential voting records.

Lots of Chicago connnections in the north part of the State.

Remember, this was a caucus state that Hillary did not contest on Super Tuesday, in IMOP, that does not accurately reflect what she could have accomplished.  Hispanics are a factor, which she does much better with and now with her stance on guns and Obama's stance, she is better situated.  And don't discount the religious angle - Obama is really leaking this vote as per Paul L's. analysis shows.

Oh, and Latinos.  They fear the Democrats will secure Latinos--a growing and powerful block--for a decade or longer if Clinton wins (e.g., comprehensive immigration reform, economic stability, universal health insurance, etc.).

Hers were not.

I suppose she earned her smack-down from the Times because of "I'm Not Bitter" t-shirts.  :)

But I tell you the white liberal guilt of the intelligentsia and upper income classes is beyond imagination.  Where I live we have a public schools system that at the time my kids went there, was 65% minority, mostly black.  Well, the same people who are now transcended would not let their kids go to the schools because their kids were special.  These people are now telling me I am racist for supporting HIllary?  When my daughter was in classes where she was the only white kid and the principle would beg me to leave her in cause she could not have an all black class?