Wait a minute. Then how in the hell did there ever get to be a "Bush Administration"?

Simple: because in late 2000 five Justices of the SCOTUS decided stop the Florida recount without providing a remedy (jettisoning decent legal reasoning in the process), and because a small majority of the US electorate jettisoned common sense in late 2004.

Ultimately we can thank the Republican Party for both outcomes.

I don't recall what Ron Paul said to the David Duke challenge, but Romney certainly paid some price in terms of the questions he got from media for refusing to repudiate the whackier aspects of Mormonism and its racist past came up repeatedly.

The central point exactly.

"Obama did."

That's rather debatable -hence it's still news.

Its only 'debatable' if you didn't listen to his speech. Otherwise its a done deal.

Again, Obama did what neither Ron, Mitt or John have had the integrity to do.

Accept it and move on to your next hatchet attack.

First you equate instapunk with Rush Limbaugh. That is more than a stretch.

Not when you compare their exhales side by side.

Then you complain the Tim Russert asks Obama to address the comments of Belafonte.

You did what Russert did, only worse.

Wait, Glenn was interviewing Limbaugh? Or was he interviewing 'instapunk'?

Or was he just making a separate point entirely?

I believe we were discussing the whacko-demagogue pastor,

We were actually discussing several such 'whacko-demagogue pastors' (none of whom were named 'Jeremiah Wright'), the tendency of the media to mis-portray what are objectively accurate if perhaps inartfully worded sentiments when uttered by an African-American clergyman, and the equally prevalent tendency of the media to either ignore or minimize the more violently provocative and dare I say avowedly racist statements of Caucasian 'clergymen' who endorse the presumptive Republican nominee for President.

You, in contrast, simply want to mis-focus on the second and reinforce the prevailing meme that those select few sentences from Rev. Wright bely an animus that irretrievably stains Senator Obama. In that sense you're little better than instapunk, Reynolds, or Limbaugh, who naturally prefer such a manufactured controversy over genuine engagement of the issues.

Get a grip you silly woman.

Take your own advice before its too late.

I'm sorry, no hope of what exactly?

Being treated as equals and as human beings, perhaps? That they be afforded the same educational and financial opportunities most Caucasians take for granted?

That strategy doesn't seem to working out so well.

Its not a 'strategy', its an emotion. One reinforced constantly by the intellectual laziness and lack of empathy - which is truly incredible to behold sometimes - you demonstrate every time you post here.

No, we weren't. Onde-loon's post was addressed to me,

And I was referring to Glenn's original post. Do try to keep you mind on the subject under discussion; neither you nor I are the center of universe here or anywhere.

I know it's convenient for you frothing lefties to smear vaseline on the lens and try to blur everything in to one big moral equivalance, but like it or not the spotlight is on Obama at the moment, and it has nothing to do with prurience or puritanism but a real concern as to whether Obama has some kind of sympathy with the man's views.

The same should be argued for McCain's embracing of Hagee and Parsley, which was the original issue in the first place.

(Wright's statements misportrayed)Misportray? Rubbish. The comments speak for themselves. They don't need media adornment. Obama's number came up, simple as; he's had months of media bootlicking. Your attempt to imply media racism is behind this is a typical baseless smear from a lefty desperado.

Words taken in isolation, without full context, isn't a case of 'racism' but of poor reporting and the willingness by those such as yourself to find exception and controversy where there realy isn't any. Your attempt that I imply 'media racism' is a typical baseless attack from a...well, I'm too polite to state what you are.

And, like it or not, presidential candidates are,in part, judged by the company the keep. Generally I've been quite impressed by Senator Obama's choice of company, but Tony Rezko and Pastor Wright give one cause for doubt.

Again, the same holds true for McCain. And given he actively sought the endorsement of Hagee and keeps close company with Parsley, neither of whom could be described as 'mainstream' or even 'sane', doesn't that give one equal cause for doubt?

"I'm not a woman"

You sound like one.

Be grateful I'm not, otherwise your manhood (if you have one) would be in considerable danger right now.