At least you got the state right, which is a plus in your favor.

But your presumption that there must be democrat election officials because the polling places receiving fewer machines were in African American neighborhoods is poor logic. In fact, poor people and African American can and do live in republican-controlled counties. And their general concentration into one or two areas of the city or county works in favor of those who want to suppress their voting rights.

Using old-fashioned and non-PC terms, they tend to live in ghettos, the other side of the tracks, the projects...lower socio-economic, depressed aras. And, thus, the vote suppressors can target them for initimidation using fewer thugs to harass, set up roadblocks in fewer areas, research fewer precinct lists to find voters to challenge and/or purge...and target some polling places to receive fewer machines than they had in previous elections.

Citing the book source I used before, thirteen (13) polling places in Columbus, which were initially assigned 4 machines, only received 3 each. Four, which were assigned 5, only received 4 each. One that had 7 assigned only received 5. All the others on the list were assigned and received three each. This material was provided by an outside party (the moving company that picked up and delivered them to the polling places) and shows a 2-page list of machines (with the actual numbers!) scratched off their lists. Their invoice shows picking up 2,787 voting machines, but delivering only 2,741.

I'm not "presuming" these numbers. These are facts!

And I don't think any voting-rights advocate should "get over" Ohio. It's a model we should all study and learn from to make sure this kind of vote tampering and fraud doesn't happen in the future.

Yes, Bush/Cheney STOLE Ohio in 2004 -- through a variety of means. Or, perhaps it was simple incompentence of all of those election officials (headed by Kenneth Blackwell) and, if so, they should all be removed immediately and sent to the pen. Maybe then can share the prison facilities with Bob Ney!

The 2004 recount cited in Grieve's article is one of many other lawsuits and charges filed in Ohio. It's just the tip of the iceburg, so if you don't want to see what unravels then stick to Fox News for your "info-mation."

I find it ironic that not only is a Black woman writing about Senator Obama not being Black enough but so many people have been touched by "Colorblind" enough to write some 300 letters!

After Reconstruction, and up to the time of the Black-is-Beautiful/Black Pride movement, there was a whole population of descendants of slaves who looked down upon others of their race who were "too black." The lighter their hue, the more acceptable they were in upper class Black social circles, particularly in the south. Prominent families discouraged their daughters or sons from dating dark-skinned individuals. Professional and social organizations (even children's groups) were created, in part, to weed out unacceptably dark men and women. They were just as exclusive as the most exclusive whites only country clubs. And many of these groups - and this mindset - still exist. Books written by Lawrence Otis Graham and others tell the story.

The ironic thing is that most of these high society snobs, who looked down at descendants of slaves who maintained pure African blood, got their "socially acceptable" light skin tones because of questionable mixed parentage. In other words, they are hypocrits.

Thus, the argument made about Barack Obama not being "black enough" or not descending from slaves is likely a backlash to the above kind of thinking.

As to his not coming from an African slave heritage, it should also be noted that not all slaves came from Africa. And not all people of dark hued complexion nowadays trace their heritage back to that period of time due to legitimate immigration of people from Africa, Arab countries, South America, the islands and, yes, even from Europe. Perhaps the term African American should be eliminated.

I would bet that most Americans whose families have been in this country for several generations are of mixed heritage. I know that I am. So is Barack Obama. Having said that, perhaps now we need to move away from this issue and discuss whether or not he's ready, mature enough, and whether he should or should not throw in his hat for the 2008 presidency.

Sorry, Joan, you don't get kudos for raising the "balls" issue on this one.

As an aging feminist, who went through the ERA battles facing down the Phyllis Schlafly's and dealing with insults from teenaged macho boys to advance the cause of women in this country, I can't agree with Walsh in "Do you have to have balls to have balls?"

Webb was the perfect person to make the democratic response to Bush's State of the Union--not because he has certain male adornments, but because he's the ONLY one (male or female) who has taken Bush on face-to-face, up close and personal, and not for the benefit of the cameras, or in a senatorial-like speech with careful words.

More important, they were the words of a man with conviction. He wrote the speech himself. He didn't have numerous speechwriters doing drafts, running it past a multitude of bureaucrats for comments and approval, and then fine-tuning it with the public relations and political affairs staff. And he didn't indulge in BS and half truths.

Frankly, I've made it a point to not watch the State of the Union since the Bush gang took office. But I watched this one for two reasons: 1) I wanted to see Nancy Pelosi sitting in that seat once held by Dennis Hastert; and 2) I wanted some context for watching the Democrats response given by Jim Webb.

Both were great!