what the hillary-obama contest is all about

let´s not be hypocritical; these elections are not about who´s got the best "message."
we who support obama know that he doesn´t have a program. those that support hillary are in disagreement with two of every three things that she proposes.

in addition, the electorate is not even interested in knowing or comparing the programs of the leading candidates. the candidates themselves are uninterested in elucidating us on this respect: the democratic candidates´ debate (perhaps an opportunity to discuss the comparative, although hypothetical, viability of programs) was just as superficial as a beauty contest.

nobody´s debating any programs. everybody´s discussing candidates. and these elections are not about what the candidates PROPOSE--they´re about what the candidates SYMBOLIZE.

you want to know what are voters really basing their vote on? they´re just sorting a list of their most preferred candidates based on the comparative weight they attribute to the following (rather shallow) criteria:

- hillary stands for "first female president;" yet she also stands for "establishment," "dynastic," "non-diverse" and "wonk".

- obama stands for "first African-American president" and "charismatic;" yet he stands for "male" and "a risky asset" as well, since no one really knows just what he´s planning on doing once he´s elected, and no one really knows whether his "vibe" is always going to be there to excempt him from being treated just like any other politician.

I have to admit that I have a prejudice against dynasties, even when I do admit that, in the beginning, "it takes a family (to break a glass ceiling)." yet that prejudice against dynasties in combination with my preference for cultural and ethnic diversity, make up for my decision.
and that´s as shallow and honest as I can get to be!

of course, I have more weighty reasons to support obama: for instance, I believe that an obama victory will be followed by positive microeconomic effects, especially among culturally diverse households, as well as more intercultural solidarity; not to mention, a different attitude towards america and its government all around the globe that may be more effective and less costly than bush´s "war on terrorism."
but in the end, none of these reasons are related to barack's proposals.