The reporting on this topic has been using the euphemism "the issue of race" to sugarcoat this story for months. Watch TV, listen to the radio and read the papers. You repeatedly hear about how "the issue of race" is playing out through the election season. But the press is not talking about people's opinions on race issues such as affirmative action and slavery reparations. What they are talking about is the fact that some percentage of Americans are racist. The press needs to change its language here. We cannot allow a voter to walk into the voting booth and vote against (or for) Obama because of the color of his skin and feel like they are making a statement on a race issue. These voters are RACIST and should be labeled as such.

I hope that having this conversation with more accurate terminology and labels might help individuals fully explore their inner feelings and possibly change them if they find them to be ugly enough. But to do this, the press needs to stop giving racists a free pass.

First: Why do the news organizations continue to sponsor meaningless polling? Whatever the timing, methodology and accuracy of these polls, our president is chosen through the electoral college. The popular vote itself is meaningless...polls of the popular vote are even more meaningless. (The news organizations were similarly wrong in the primaries -- particularly the Democratic primary -- when the winners or each state received "credit" for that state. This should not even have been reported...it was the delegate count that mattered.) What bugs me is that we all (should) know this but people in the media feel it's not worth muddying the waters with a slightly more complicated story even when it's the only story worth telling.

Second: What is wrong with America? We're talking about a long term relationship with a president that will span 4 or 8 years. How do voters manage to alter their predictions for long term performance based on a couple nights of unchallenged propaganda in prime time? I guess we get what we deserve.

I remember watching games and often being stumped by a friend or family member who would come into the room, ask "what's the score?" A friend and I discussed this phenomenon wondering if not knowing the score of a game you were investing your time in was acceptable. On one hand, what's more important than the score? If you can't keep that basic piece of information on the top of your mind, what exactly are you getting out of the game? On the other hand, maybe there were other things to enjoy in the details and flow of the game.

Also, I noticed that CBS is making use of the extra screen space in its HD broadcasts to now include additional down and field position information simultaneous with the scores provided in the crawl. While I applaud the creative use of the HD real estate, someone's going to need to figure out exactly how much information from other games is too much.

Your conclusions may be accurate but your data doesn't prove it. Doesn't the demand go something like "equal pay for equal work"? Take a look at the Forbes list and look at the job titles. There's no control for the "equal work" part of the equation. It's a hodgepodge of executive positions having little in common other than gender and high pay. Common sense (and any executive compensation professional) should tell you that it is meaningless to compare the pay of people in different roles. Even if we were looking at a list of exclusively CEOs we would need to ensure that the companies were of comparable size and industry before we jumped to any conclusions about a gender gap in executive pay.

Now, we know that there are fewer women than men in senior executive positions at our largest companies. That is a real gap that can be demonstrated by looking at the facts. That the 100 highest-paid women are paid less than the 100 highest-paid men is likely a result of this phenomenon. However, the Forbes list does not allow us to logically conclude that a female executive is paid less than a male would be in the same role.

Should retailers be wary of accepting WaMu credit cards?

Lost in the hoopla over what Palin does and doesn't know about The Bush Doctrine is that Gibson might have actually been trying to get the debate going. I'm not sure what his intentions were but, if Palin knew what he was talking about, she would have had to respond with some opinion on the validity of the policy of preemptive attack. That could have marked the re-kindling of the debate on the policy.

Worst case: Gibson intended this as a gotcha moment...a chance to see how thorough Palin's flash card sessions were.

Likely case: Gibson intended to get a response to a policy that many Americans probably would take issue with. It turned into a gotcha moment and he jumped all over it.

Best case (we could have only hoped): Gibson intended to get a response, realized Palin didn't know what he was talking about. Gibson decided to explain/define the question to allow Palin to get a 2nd try and then followed up with a real discussion about the pros/cons of this policy. (Like this kind of thing ever happens on TV.)

Would Wonder Woman have been able to sell her invisible plane on eBay?