Is for for everyone to do things like canvass in the Northeast with Philly for Change. But, what is the solution? Is there any other option besides ignoring it?

is suggested in the story ..."by stressing lunch pail economic issues...." It's a tough road - because offering real economic alternatives to Republicans opens up his campaign to right wing media charges of "socialism." But those charges are going to happen either way.

So the question becomes, does the white, Northeast voter described in the article see Obama as representing any kind of economic alternative to the Republicans? I doubt it. I think that Obama's campaign has done one thing right - in their focus on getting out the vote in minority communities; it is a refreshing change from previous Democratic national campaigns. But it would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama's campaign had the stones to create a less self-conscious populist identity.

With many of those folks no amount policy platform will overcome their racist tendencies, but for those who aren't just flat out bigots, if they aren't identifying reasons why they should be considering voting for Obama it ain't going to happen.

that the American public, including people like the Bauers, can somehow get over their biases, but clearly more than optimism and Obama's charisma is needed. Philly for Change is also focusing on Philly Against McCain. Not only are they identifying the lunch pail issues but they are clearly and unrestrainedly identifying the specific ways that a McCain presidency would do great harm to the country. I can't say whether folks in the Northeast will vote for Obama but given the right pitch, they may be exasperated enough to vote against eight years of what they've had.

In addition, the northeast is becoming more and more diverse (though they may not vote that way yet) so as D.E. points out, there's a lot of potential there as the Obama campaign continues to register new voters and focus on the turnout.

Look, for the history of this country, racial politics has been ugly, and for around forty years, it's been pretty ugly in multiple directions. There are a lot of votes to be gotten by pitting one neighborhood or one race or one ethnic group against another, whether it's Irish vs. Jews vs. Italians (say, up until 1945) or Blacks vs. Whites vs. Hispanics vs. Asians.

The basic assumption, particularly in cities like Philadelphia, is that political power and access to resources are zero-sum, and that what matters is who controls the machine, not whether the premise is fundamentally destructive or flawed.

If you look at Af-Am city politics in the past forty years, you essentially have three phases: integrationist mayors like Carl Stokes of Cleveland; polarizing mayors like Coleman Young in Detroit; and modern, "post-racial" mayors like Harold Washington in Chicago.

Now Harold Washington and Barack Obama are not post-racial in the sense that race is no longer an issue, or that racial politics have been overcome. They are post-racial in the sense that they refuse the terms of racial and city politics as they've existed in our country hitherto, creating new coalitions, stressing the connectedness of our communities, paying attention to and seeking to reform the mechanisms of politics and patronage and elections, and generally offering a more comprehensive and concrete vision of what we need to do together to make our country better.

When you read the comments by people who volunteer that their reasons for distrusting Obama are motivated by race, with the exception of the paranoid "secret Muslim" crowd, they're almost always framed in terms more appropriate to local politics: "He'll give too many blacks jobs." "He just wants to take our money and give it to poor people in the cities." A good deal of this is hallucination -- the President of the United States is going to reach down and hand out jobs based on race? -- but it does reflect how people have framed discussions at the state, city, and county level of racial and urban politics.

This is a good part of the reason why, when you look at the states that Obama lost to Hillary Clinton, most of them had large urban centers with high minority populations and great swaths of largely white suburban and exurban regions. In areas where the black population was either much smaller or much larger, Obama won in a landslide. The states and these cities have a big chunk of the electorate that thinks of racial politics as zero-sum, as locked in the back-and-forth between the white ethnic and black insurgent politicians of the 60s and 70s.

It's part of the job of progressive politics in Philadelphia to break that hold locally -- part of Obama's success I think reflects that increasingly, fewer citizens of all colors feel that way anymore -- and Obama's to help show that that's not what he's about either, and has never been what he's about.

It no doubt came in part from a McCain press release but I noticed it in the same issue they covered Dan's efforts on electronic access to voting results.

Arizona Sen. John McCain’s Philadelphia campaign office is located in
the Northeast for a reason. That’s where he’s expected to do best in
the city.
The Democratic presidential candidates have swept every ward in the
city in the last four elections, but that could change this year.
Polling shows that McCain, a Republican, is likely to beat Illinois
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in several Northeast wards.
Last week, the McCain campaign office officially opened at 3506
Cottman Ave. in Mayfair. Supporters expect the candidate to do well in
the Northeast because he’s more moderate than past Republican
candidates and Obama has some liberal views on social issues.
Vito Canuso, chairman of the Republican City Committee, notes that
Obama was clobbered by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the
Pennsylvania primary in middle-class areas such as the Northeast.
Democrats are dreaming of winning Philadelphia by up to 450,000 votes,
which would make Obama tough to beat in Pennsylvania. Canuso thinks
McCain can win the state’s 21 electoral votes if he keeps his losses
in Philadelphia to under 300,000.
"If McCain can stay close, that’s all he needs to carry the state," he
said.
Among those at the July 31 grand opening were Republican candidates
Marina Kats (13th Congressional District) and Matt Taubenberger (170th
Legislative District), along with Scott Sigman, a likely GOP candidate
for district attorney next year.
The director of McCain’s Philadelphia effort is Joe DeFelice, a
Mayfair lawyer.
Al Schmidt, executive director of the Republican City Committee, is
confident of McCain’s chances in Philadelphia and nationwide. Schmidt
notes close polls despite Obama’s massive spending to win the
nomination and what he believes is a news media bias in favor of the
Democratic candidate.
The campaign office is located in the 55th Ward. Chris Vogler,
Republican leader of the ward, predicted that McCain would win in the
55th and the neighboring 64th Ward. He thinks voters appreciate the
veteran senator’s experience and will reject Obama’s lack of a record
in his less than four years in the Senate.
Republicans are counting on culturally conservative voters such as
Winchester Park’s Rita Ungaro-Schiavone.
Ungaro-Schiavone, the founder and retired CEO of the Aid For Friends
charity, likes McCain’s pro-life position and his support for offshore
oil drilling. She is concerned about Obama’s relationships with
controversial Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and points to
a National Journal study showing him to be the most liberal member of
the Senate.

I think the article lays out McCain's strategy re: race quite clearly if you read between the lines.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

The video quality stinks, but, now I remember what the "he is only half" strategy reminds me of:

Can I not vote for Obama and not be a racist?

As far as the unions go, problem for Obama is nowadays in a union Ironworker's household if the wife works too they stand a good chance of being part of the evil rich in Obama's tax schemes. To be in the top 10% of earners in America they only need to crack $108,000AGI.

If you vote for McCain you won't have to worry about your Union wages because McCain and his friends at the ABC and Right to Work Committee will do everything they can to destroy union wages and benefits. He opposes Prevailing Wage laws and is in favor of Right to Work (for less) laws. The Republican party as shown by their convention speeches Romney "tyranical union leaders", Guliani "right to work" comments) are the enemies of labor. Any union man that votes for McCain is voting against his own interests.

Lou Agre IUOE Local 542