Your objections should derail him, but my point, as I thought I made clear, is that the electorate is increasingly vulnerable to demagoguery. People don’t think much anymore, they are easily swayed by Obama’s appeal to “rise above the partisanship,” to “see the nuances” “instead of black and white only.” It’s part of the chickification of the culture—women (and gelded NPR-listening men) think men are too combative, to competitive etc. and that their superior female wisdom will save the world. When they hear an attractive man spouting “I’m not like those other guys (men) who are such hardbitten policy wonks, I’m more nuanced, etc.,” they feel (not think) that here truly is someone who can lead us out of the wilderness of men bashing each other over the head with ideas all these centuries, which is what leads to wars and poverty and corporate greed, dontcha know.
Perhaps we are not yet over the demagogic hill, but I fear we are. That’s why Obama’s dangerous. By comparison, Hillary does politics like those evil, competitive, testosterone, warmongering men do politics. Even when she tries to talk out of both sides, triangulate etc., people see through it. When Obama does exactly the same move (his real policies are exactly like Hillary’s), he’s adored for it by the chicks (and gelded man-chicks) who make up much of the population today.
That cuts both ways, if you get my point. Theres some unfair generalizations one can "imply" about Barack that can motivate an anti-Barack constituency, that wont show up in polling. (Virginia candidate Wilder can probably attest to that)
I think the major thing working against him is his shallow experiences , weak networking, and a total (not triangulated) weakness on policy positions, which will probably kick in to much of the numbed-out public during the last week in October, IMO.