An interesting argument with a fundamental flaw: it assumes that every undecided voter is in that column because of race. It discounts the possibility that other factors are always in play. In 2006, many white/white races unexpectedly broke for Democrats on Election Day -- hence the surprise takeover of Congress, especially the Senate. Both Strickland and Cardin could easily have been the beneficiaries of this momentum...which had nothing to do with race. As for Ford, he was a black Democrat running in a GOP stronghold in the heart of the Confederacy against an opponent who was not averse to using racial innuendo in his campaign. How does that extrapolate to the current swing states? One might argue that today's undecideds are influenced by legitimate concerns such as Obama's inexperience...and McCain's age and his running mate's marginal qualifications to succeed him if required. Will race be a factor? Of course. But it surely will not be the sole factor in how the undecideds break on November 4.

I'm sure many people voted for Obama's promise of change thinking he meant from right to left. But many more believed he meant from incompetent to competent...from dumb to smart...from mean-spirited to well-meaning. Just as Bush failed trying to govern this centrist country from the right, Obama would fail trying to govern from the left. Just as Bush failed in his effort to impose his ideology on America, so would Obama. Thankfully, Obama appears to know that...and that is reason to have hope in his Presidency. Punishing Joe Lieberman is something Bush would have done. Good for Obama for not doing it, and for ignoring those who would have his head for being compassionate and practical instead of vindictive.