Bradley effect? Why?

Okay, Robert Novak is the latest to raise the Bradley Effect question. (Basically, lots of people said they'd vote for Tom Bradley as governor of California back in 82, and then didn't, presumably because he was black.) I have a problem with applying that to Obama's losses on Super Tuesday.

Why? Not because I refuse to believe that there are Democrats who won't vote for a black man. I'm sure there are. No, it's because this is a Democratic primary, and if I didn't want to vote for Obama, I could quite legitimately tell pollsters that I intended to vote for one of the other candidates, and if they actually had the nerve to ask me if it was because Obama was black, I could laugh and say, "Heck, no. I'll support him if he gets the nomination. But Clinton/Edwards has my primary vote because I like their positions better. (Or Kucinich is my protest vote. Or Gravel.)" I wouldn't be facing the choice of telling them I was deserting my party over the candidate's race.

There's no need to tell a pollster that you're going to vote for the Democrat when you don't mean to, because he's black. That problem will raise its head (if it does) in November.