The history of American politics has been about those with good intentions having to compromise with knuckle-dragging bigots in order to keep worse things from happening.

That is why the U.S. had slavery for the first ninety years.

This is another such compromise. We're talking about Georgia, remember--a state where triple-amputee war veteran Max Cleland was beaten by a Republican labelling him a friend of terrorists.

Obama needs as many Democrats in the House and Senate as he can get--otherwise he'll be a lame duck president. (Remember, Republicans only need 50% plus one to get stuff done, but Democrats need a filibuster-proof majority.) To do that, he needs to make some ugly compromises. Just as FDR did to get the New Deal, just as Washington and Jefferson and Madison did to get the Constitution passed.

Imagine if Obama backed the progressive (btw in the conservative south "progressive" rhymes with "Communist") black candidate against the right-wing white guy. Imagine how the Republicans would spin that in Georgia, and imagine where that would send Georgia's electoral votes.

Am I defending Obama? Yes, I am--if "defending" means recognizing that he has chosen the lesser of two very evil evils. I don't like what he chose to do but I am reasonably confident that he felt he had to do it to prevent something worse from happening on a strategic level. I also--and this is key--I also am quite confident that he is really, really unhappy about having to make that choice. Those of us in private life have the luxury of sticking to our principles. Let's cut the guy some slack.

"The idea that congressional Democrats are going to even consider health care, energy, or "entitlement reform" policies that are increasingly hard to distinguish from those of George W. Bush is laughable."

Yes, in what crazy fantasy world would the Democrats just roll over and do what a Republican president wants them to?

Unfortunately any humour is completely overshadowed by the panic that arises when we consider how often utterly spurious accusations have been taken seriously. The equivalent New Yorker cover in 2004 would have shown John Kerry buying purple hearts from a vending machine.

It only takes 538 people in Florida to not get the joke, and then where are you?

As many other posters have commented, the "bias" in Obama's favour is nothing compared to the free-ride-and-footrubs that the right wing has gotten for the last thirty years.

For the first time in a long time I feel like the good guys have a chance, because the right wing zealots have become so complacent in their privilege and the non-right-wing non-zealots have finally learned that just having their hearts one inch closer to the right place is not enough.

I have no illusions about Obama--he has made ugly compromises and I've been disappointed by some of the things he's done. But unlike most of the candidates I've seen in my lifetime, I get a real sense of character, intelligence and competence. To me, that's a the difference: All politicians have to make ugly compromises with the bad guys, but for too long the U.S. has been ruled by people for whom rolling over for the bad guys was no compromise at all.

Every day there's a new hit piece on Obama and in past election cycles, I would cringe because I knew it would go unanswered and unchallenged, no matter how spurious the accusation. Now I can relax. Someone takes a shot at Obama, and the next day he hits back--firm and articulate and calm and statesmanlike. BAM!

So I guess you could call it the righteous joy of the long-disappointed, seeing your team finally start punching its weight. The right wing (not conservatives, there's nothing conservative about them--they are radicals and revolutionaries) have had everything in the media go 100% their way for decades and now that it's only going 85% their way, they scream and shriek and stampede like cartoon cockroaches before a can of Raid.

So run, you little fuckers. Run and hide.

I SAID RUN!!!