in that it takes a coherent set of ideas to label oneself as such, and she doesn't have any. I'm most shocked by her agreement with Couric that there is a 'right to privacy' in the constitution, because the supposed lack of such a right is a bedrock principle of conservative legal thought and the primary legal argument against Roe-v-Wade. She doesn't know that.

...you don't win the argument by saying, "Uh-uh, and here's why." Nor do you win the argument by saying, "uh-uh, you're the stink-head." You win by saying, "well, you like to have sex with farm animals." That is, you should neither devote energy to denying or deflecting the insult. You just ignore it and launch your own offensive. My guess is that's what the campaign will do.

Obama's campaign can both attack McCain (a better response to McCain's attacks than playing defense), AND talk constructively about the economy. They have no need to chose between the two options.

For one, as just posted, you don't seem to know what the Bradley Effect is. But, nice way to set up an "Obama is a loser even if he wins" meme. If Obama were almost exactly who he is but white and named something like "John Edwards," then he would be up in the polls by about 20 points. Personally, I find it amazing that America seems poised to elect a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama," no matter the margin. Yes, I think the narrow margin is a sign of persistent racism, but the imminent win does make me "really proud to be an American" (for once!).

Those with lots of fingers pointing at them say, "let's not point fingers."

Those who say, "Let's not dwell on the past," have just fucked up royally.

Those with no ideas say, "hey, weren't you the guy with the terrorist friend?"

Kerik= convicted felon who made money off of 9/11

Ayers= convicted of no crime and has worked tirelessly for decades to improve public schools in Chicago

Equivalent?

I think it's just called "The Bush Presidency."

I have been thinking about getting a goat, so if push comes to shove I can make my own chevre. And plant some hops so I won't go lacking for microbrew. I'm also trying to get my kids proficient at performing alt rock in the living room. I can get through this.

I wouldn't go too far with that line of argument. The left has its history of turning on it's own (Hitchens, Lieberman...) when they find some common cause with the right. I think the left has been generally correct in its critique of such individuals, but it doesn't exactly reflect a culture of inclusion. What do you think would happen to an editor at The Progressive or The Nation if they endorsed McCain? I think they would rightly be booted out.

Having to read all these endorsements in All of Them Papers she reads everyday.

why aren't you pointing out that McCain has snagged that hard-to-get endorsement from Kissinger?

(seriously, that's the 'balanced reporting' that came from NPR this morning)

Buckley, Krauthammer, Will, Noonan, Parker, Brooks (who have all criticized the McCain campaign) AREN'T black. Where does their hatred of white people come from? I'm so confused.

Maybe because they lost it for too long. They still seem to define themselves as powerless without the help of their 'enemies.' From Clinton on they've pre-emptively compromised even when there was no need to. I don't recall the republicans thinking they needed 60 votes in the senate to get anything done, or Bush thinking he didn't have a real electoral mandate to make dramatic change. If the democrats keep acting like they have no power, the power that they are not using will be taken away.

and I want to make 10 times what you make and not pay any higher taxes, because I don't care about infrastructure, national security, the economy, or the environment. I'm just kind of a selfish bastard, and proud of it."

Would a little honesty kill them?

the percentage of African Americans and Latinos who join the armed forces? The percentage that regularly attend church? I may be wrong, but I think it's higher than the average in rural, white, America. Just sayin'.

...must've needed a HELL of a lot of lipstick.

...were most likely republican. Having lived in philly for years, I know that most white working-class phillies fans are. And Malkin? I can't believe she went to Oberlin.

Don't forget Ohiopolitico's constant criticism of Obama for NOT supporting "Universal Healthcare" when he was running against Clinton, but now opposes him because she's a low-taxes, small-government voter. She (he?) has been a republican plant from the get-go.

This is the logic behind the argument that official tolerance for gay rights/gay marriage is an assault on the religious freedoms of bigots.

I have no problem with Obama deploying whatever strategic moves help in that direction. The key is packing the behind-the-scenes positions throughout the executive branch with competent progressives. They do all the real work. If it helps them to go about their work without constant rightwing obstructionism, then I'm not opposed to centrist figure-heads being placed in-front-of-the-scenes. Stragegically, if putting a republican in as EPA head (for example) provides cover for change that would have been otherwise opposed, what's wrong with it?

Really, now. McCain supporters are going to need those a lot more than Obama supporters.

No irony. Honest truth.