"You can't win the presidency without shoveling a hefty load of horseshit, and it's about time we accepted it." This is wrong and ethically unsound.

The reason Democrats have lost is because they have been afraid to fight, not that they were afraid to fight dirty. They end up dirty anyway, exactly because of the kind of spinning and double-talking you're advising them to do, because they are afraid to pound directly in the face of the last stupid argument advanced against them.

The classic revelation of this came in what you might call a trivial vehicle, an episode of "West Wing". A Dick Morris character scolds the President's team at election time, something like this: "For years the Republicans have lied about you, insulted you, have attacked you, and all you do is curl up in the corner and say, 'Please don't hurt me'."

It's why Democrats let Republicans label civil rights (the cause of defending the Constitution of the United States for all its people) as a "special interest". It's why Democrats in Congress are afraid to vote to cut off funding for the Iraq War, fearing that the Republicans will say they are hurting the troops instead of actually saving their lives. And the Republicans heap contempt on them for it: "Go ahead," they shout from the floor of Congress, "vote your convictions and cut off the funding -- if you dare." Of course they don't, so the troops continue to die and the Democrats look pathetically foolish.

That is what has to stop, and I'm finally seeing evidence of it. When Joe (the Bloviator) Biden, the perennial kiss-ass, me-tooer of the Beltway, stands up and says that Bush's nasty crack about appeasement is "bullshit" and then Obama clobbers him, you get the feeling that times are finally changing.

And it can be done without Obama turning into one of them. And by "them", I have to include the Clintons.

. . . unless it was written by people in the lifestyle, or very closely supervised by same. The tendency of straight people is to regard swinging as a purely hedonistic activity, selfishly pursued. That's wrong.

The fundamental concept requires honesty between the partners, and generosity over jealousy, the latter subsiding once one realizes that the fundamental commitment to the couplehood is solid. The only two remaining issues are style and degree of emotional openness to others, which vary widely.

But the cement that holds it all together is the awareness that human beings are not a sexually monogamous species, but they bond closely as couples. The logic is overwhelming that "swinging", or polyamory, as some of us call it, is the design for sexual interaction among human beings that nature intended.

If the writers of "Swingtown" don't understand these things and make cheap entertainment out of the subject, they will be making the same mistake the straight filmmakers did with gays before "Boys In the Band": they will perpetuate misunderstanding, intolerance, and a lot of bad legislation.

It's amusing that the universal initial response from the Bushies -- evidently after an emergency conference call with Karl Rove -- is that they are all "confused" about McClellan's present persona. "This isn't the McCellan we knew!" And more recently, "Why didn't he speak up back then?", a fatuous question coming from anyone associated with the Bush (Silence is Golden/Do As You're Told) White House.

Interviewers of these people should all be asking the simple followup, "Yes, yes, but is it true?", and report on the answer to that.

But, as usual, American journalists seem to have a terrible time keeping their eye on the ball.

First, I completely understand Obama's felt need to resign from his church. He can speak to his own motives, but if it were me, I'd be saying privately to the church, What were you lunatics thinking, with this last craziness? Do you WANT me to lose? And publicly, I would say that no responsible candidate for the presidency can properly remain associated with an organization that just continues to use divisive, outrageous speech, and out of a church to boot.

But having done that, he also needs to deal with the "he sat there for 20 years" argument that the right continues to make, like a mantra. Everybody seems to be missing the point that at present there is NO EVIDENCE that Rev. Wright or anyone else said outrageous things from that pulpit over 20 years. For all we know, the sound bites they got are the only ones that exist -- two or three minutes out of some 20,000 minutes of preaching during that time.

And I would have an Obama spokesman point out that even the "God damn America" line was, in context, a paraphrase of what God was saying in the Bible about nations who violate his precepts -- a point I think is pretty valid for those who take those precepts seriously.

One thing is for sure: the Republicans, more desperate than they ever have been in modern times, are going to use the worst kind of outrageous smears and slander to attack Obama. Goebbels will smile up from hell at what they're going to do. It needs to be hosed with truth and beaten down with reason at every utterance.

There are a few reasons those idiotic rumors survive, low IQ of the repeaters being a big one. But the main one is that they are a subtext for saying, "There is no f***ing way I am voting for this guy." It doesn't really matter why, because they aren't going to change no matter what proof you shove under their noses.

Of course, those who grab onto false rumors as justification for their vote are hiding their true concern. The biggest one is race.