this isn’t how it works naturally. we don’t have a “personality gene” that causes us to look at how much character a given politician has. this is MANUFACTURED by media institutions, by political elites.

au contraire mon frere…, this IS how it works naturally. I believe that the natural inclination toward selective gestalts is greatly amplified in the media driven hall of mirrors.

by-and-large, we construct our social networks on the basis of personality and characterological gestalts that we only partially ever attempt to rationalize or articulate. this applies to friends, mates, acquaintences, celebrities - why not to political leadership?

but when it comes to choosing between people in the same party? there it gets tougher. because our choices are usually truncated–clinton and obama really aren’t that different. and because the way the election is pitched is usually as a battle of personalities rather than policies. hence more of a focus on personal issues.

this isn’t how it works naturally. we don’t have a “personality gene” that causes us to look at how much character a given politician has. this is MANUFACTURED by media institutions, by political elites.

And I’m wondering if there is a difference for you between individuals who base their voting decisions 100% or mainly on the character of the candidates,

or if it is just one in sea of factors that people use (I think most people fall into the latter category)?

as far as policies here is the difference between policies and character. we know when policies are implemented and when they are not, hence we can act when a given candidate SAYS she’s going to do X and do Y instead. we can see objectively how a given policy influences our own lives and the lives of those around us. character is something you can’t measure, something that doesn’t have a direct influence on our lives.

and i understand how people make their decisions. but the goal here isn’t just to accept the status quo, but to get people to think and to change. because “character based voting” just doesn’t cut it.

Of course, we can’t really know Obama intimately, most of us don’t know any of the candidates personally. Even their policies are just proposals there is no gaurantee that they will happen either). ( I remember George Bush criticizing the Clinton administration’s over stretching of the military back in the 2000 election debates). So we can only make a choice based upon what we do know about them. A lot of people take it a step further and look at what that information indicates about their character.

To me (and many others), Sen. Clinton has used tactics and said things that indicate a scorched earth approach to winning, that doesn’t jive well with me (I was undecided till mid-to-late February, mind you). I don’t see Obama pulling those kinds of punches (generally) and honestly speaking Clinton is one of the easiest targets to aim at. That to me indicates something about his personality/morality that I have yet to see in her. At the same time, for some Hillary Clinton is a courageous fighter/underdog. Obviously they vote/support her because they like this trait.

No one wants a President whose morality/personality is repulsive to them, so we do factor that stuff in when making a decision. You can argue about whether or not it should be important, but the reality is that character or peoples perception of it influence the way they vote and we just have to live with that.

like any of us can really know someone like obama?

There are a proliferation of theories about why it is that liberals and the Left attach themselves to those certifiably discredited by wag of the Right. None of them need be very sophisticated - it’s just a disbelief that anyone reasonable can take such cranks seriously. Race is a very simple theory in the case of Reverend Wright, and I think when people say it’s race, it should be taken very simply as well.

his argument is till tough to call. His argument is based on the premise that Mccain would beat either, I’m not sure about. None of them are the perfect candidate, and it will be tough fight, I wouldn’t go as far as to call it for the Republicans.

Also, he totally dismissed the whole Obama’s attractiveness thing, which I think was wrong. It’s my understanding that he’s not just running as a candidate that is attractive to conservatives and independents, but he actually is getting people from these bases to come out and vote for him or at least consider it.

I guess I am with Harris-Lacewell, gotta have faith.