The race card in the race to the White House?

Hi friends, well, I don't like to talk about serious politics in my secret blog, I like machines, hardware and all that stuff, but I'll make (another) exception and will try to talk seriously.
Our friend (?) Jobso (or fake Steve), published an article criticizing another article (this time from a real person), about the race factor in the primary elections of the Dems.
I somehow agree with Susan Estrich, in that Obama does better in the polls and in caucuses than in general elections, but I don't totally agree with the race argument. Maybe some people lie in the polls because they are indeed racists and they don't want to confess, so they say they will vote for Obama and then they don't... But I have another explanation on why he is doing it better in caucuses. It has been stated that Obama has received support for most of the young people, and that his fans are real supporters (sometimes even hooligans ;-) ). They have been playing very well the "Establishment Candidate" against Clinton, making look anybody supporting Hillary more or less like a GOP ally, and they show that very fiercely in the caucuses. So, they manage to intimidate their rivals.
Then, to attend to a caucus you have to spent more than half a day discussing and showing your preferences, so if it is a working day maybe the only ones that can afford that are young students, people that are supporting Obama (sometimes just because someone told them that he is cool).
But, when you have the whole day to vote, when everybody can go to express their preferences, oh surprise, it is Hillary who wins, no matter what the polls said the days before.

Hillary and Magic Johnson

What scared me is that we, as usual, are forgetting the point of the elections. We should be careful reading the programs, and then electing the proper candidate for the country, not based on how cool he/she is, or the race, or the sex, but the program, the ideas, and how they are going to achieve their objectives. Obama and Hillary are very similar in objectives: they both focus on social protection and the extension of health care for everybody. But while Hillary states that this should be compulsory for everybody, Obama wants to make it voluntary. Well, insurance companies don't like at all Hillary's proposal, because they now can choose who to accept and who not to accept for an insurance, and they just accept those who they think are not going to be ill. If Hillary wins, it is not that they are going to stop making (an indecent and huge amount of) money, but they will have to accept everybody, and they'll have to take care of ill people, so the margins may be a little bit diminished. I insist: they will still make indecent amounts of money (more if everybody is insured), but they don't like the idea to win just an infinite amount of money with no responsibility at all. So, who is the system's candidate, she, that will extend the insurance to everybody, or he, that will make it an option: it is, will not change everything?

Think about it.

P.D.: Ashok also likes the immigration system reform that promises she has made, as he always mentions something about his spouse there in Bangalore waiting for him to come back. Maybe I'll outsource him anyway if Hillary doesn't make it.


P.D.2: This is why I like Hillary, because she is like Sun and the customers: they all say "wow, how wonderful are the Macs, how shinny, how glossy", but when they have to run a real business, they trust in our machines, and they send their IT frigtards to do the shopping for them to feed their datacenters. So, if you need someone reliable to run the Country, who you gonna vote?