It is Obama who is unelectable. Period. His favorable poll numbers have dipped five points in the last four days and they have been steadily dropping since February from 56% to 47% today in the Rasmussen daily polls.

I do not for one minute believe that the racial baiting began in the Clinton campaign. It was started by Obama's people when they threw slings at Bill Clinton about making racists comments in South Carolina. This accusation was outrageous then and still is. Obama is not innocent and nice like his supporters believe. He is just as cutthroat as any politician ever dreamed of being but he is sneaky about it and the media have helped him immensely. Without a doubt, he is the most divisive candidate to ever hit the Democratic Party. His candidacy has managed to split the party in half. It will gall me terribly if I have to vote for him as the Democratic nominee.

The Rev. Wright's incendiary comments have destroyed the trust that Americans hold in Obama. Obama's popularity is now down and I think it will stay down. Even if Dem's forgive Wright's political poison, McCain will not let the voters forget.

As far as Hillary winning the election, I am not sure but she is seen as the more experienced of the two. Plus, she has a long history with Democrats who view her more favorably than Obama. They are more likely to stand by her than Obama when McCain slings his mud...and sling it he will!!!

Whatever the electoral maps and polls say, I do not think Obama can win in November. He has taken quite a hit with Rev. Wright's incendiary comments and when that is added to Michelle's declaration about America whether it was retracted or not, he has lost favor by some 6 points in Rasmussen's poll today. Even if he is able to make Democrats forget about it, McCain is certainly going to remind voters over and over again when the election heats up in the fall. Rasmussen shows that McCain would win over both Clinton and Obama. This is not new...McCain has held this spot often on the daily polls when I have kept up with it. If one thinks about the fact that Obama is viewed less favorably by Democrats than Hillary, it becomes apparent that he doesn't stand a chance!

Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that Democrats like their candidates...that may have been true, but is it now? I am not so sure. The weaknesses of both candidates have always been there but have not always been so apparent. The race/gender issues are still in the forefront and may defeat us in November. I do wish Edwards hadn't dropped out! Al Gore who always looked good should come to the rescue. I'm dreaming but I wish he would.

I am a little bit tired of this story. Granted Ferraro was awfully embarrassing for Hillary. Also, her comments were entirely personal to Obama and she plainly showed stupidity in making the demeaning comments, but there was perhaps a little truth in her assessment of his meteoric rise. This is meant in a completely detached observational sense.

Let's face it, it is incredible that Obama with two years under his belt in the Senate thrusts himself into the presidential primaries and makes a big splash primarily due to his gift for oratory. I say this because if he could not speak well, he would not have advanced at all in the nomination process. Along with speaking talent and wonderful charisma, he has an interesting history, an outstanding educational experience from Harvard, nice looks, an affable personality, plus an ability to make friends in important places. Obama's success is phenomenal even with all the positives just stated. In his case, the fact that he is black has been an advantage as strange as that sounds because if he were white, he would not have stood out as much. The political arena abounds with accomplished individuals who team with personality but few of them have so many positive qualities in their resumes and even if they did, they would not attract so much notice. Obama has gotten to the pinnacle overnight, so to speak. A white junior senator with many of his accomplishments, even superb oratorical skill, would have been appreciated but told to get more experience before going for the big enchilada. I could be wrong about this but I doubt it.

What I didn't like about this article was the comparison between Ferraro and Obama. Not that it wasn't correct, but it was a comparison and there is an old saying which I believe is true...all comparisons are odious. "Odious" because it was too judgmental even if true!

Chris Hedges lights up the topic of New Atheists with compelling examples when he talks about the American versions. I did not understand exactly where Dawkins fits into the movement. It has been some time since Dawkins has written for Salon and all I remember about him is his impatience and contempt for religious thinking...I was not aware that he held a political agenda which might propel him or like-minded scientists to espouse eugenics or other "evil" endeavors. The word, evil, has been so bandied about by the Bush Administration, that it has become hypocritical.

Hedges aptly states that hardcore fundamentalism, either scientific, political, or religious can place a person outside a moral structure and lead him into the darkness. I think everyone has to guard against that, including Hedges, himself. Some of us who are agnostics or atheists can get pretty intolerant and can wallow in bitterness, anger and even paranoia. It is all too easy to fall over the edge into bigotry while we remain convinced that we have the highest motives.