Yes, McCain is hypocritical but he is only racing to keep up with Obama.

Remember when Team Obama claimed Clinton made a racist put down of Martin Luther King? When they said, "Clinton didn't cry for Katrina?", or that "Clinton said states with black voters don't count"? Or that the 3 am phone call ad was racist because it implied no black could handle the responsibility?

Glen, I truly dislike the GOP and their convention discussion is, so far, brain-dead.

But the idea that the GOP is nasty and negative and Obama is all flowers and unicorns is nonsense. Obama ran the most negative campaign in the primaries by a major Democratic candidate in my memory. He and his Rove/Atwater, David Axlerod started personal attacks on Clinton and Edwards before those two even declared. The sexism (who can forget "Annie Oakley") and racist smears (See PBS' Moyers on the Obama lies about MLK/LBJ)) and then as soon as Obama was assured of the nomination he started on McCain.

Check out: Race Man. How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton, by Sean Wilentz, in The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

And Misogyny I Won't Miss, by Mario Cocco, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

And, of course, there is the wonderfully positive statement by the Obama campaign manager in charge of liasing to black churches: "We blacks don't owe the Clintons nothin'. They done to us blacks what they did to Monica Lewinsky," said while simulating intercourse on a church podium in front of young children. Gee, Obama never did recant that did he?

And, if you believe Obama didn't know about that, you'd believe that Obama isn't raising money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Chevon, Exelon, and is now doing a major fund raiser with the felon from his infamous (D-Punjab) press release.

The reason Obama can't simply articulate his plan is that it has morphed into something messy.

When Obama ran agasint Clinton, his economic plan was simply "Tax the Rich". I can get behind that.

Now, Obama's plan is: spend a whole load of money, cut taxes, run up a huge deficit, tax only the top 1% BUT have loop-holes for Venture Capitalists and Hedge fund managers (now that they've ponied up at the campaign trough), then pay for Social Security with a increase in payroll tax, but put a "doughnut" in for his yuppie base, then postpone the whole thing until after his terms are over so he can keep borrowing from Ss without paying for it.

Hard to fit that on a bumper sticker.

According to the Tax Policy Center that Leonard quotes in the NYT's piece, Obama's plan would increase the federal deficit by $3.5 Trillion BUT even that estimate includes $1.3 trillion in " unverifiable campaign-provided revenue estimate."

So, while they follow radically different paths to get there, McCain and Obama have virtually the same economic plan: Pay offs to their constituencies, coupled with tax cuts, then pay for the whole thing by going further into debt to China et al.

Maybe that is the bumper sticker: Free Lunch: Borrowed from China.

Obama slurred the Clintons as racist and McCain slurs Obama as un-patriotic. What's the difference?

When any criticism of Obama's paper-thin resume' or lack of accomplishments gets waived off as racist, what line of attack is left?

In fairness, GM had an electric plug-in test years ago. Honda is advertising a hydrogen car that it is virtually giving away to celebrities only; given its estimated $700,000 price I suspect it is even further from actual market than GM's Volt.

It's amusing how much the Obama supporters (Clinton trashers) here sound like George Bush. Remember when Bush said about the federal election fraud in Florida, "We won. The Democrats should get over it"? How can a candidacy allegedly about "hope" be founded on supporters with such animus? As for Schaller, it is one thing to have comments posted by flamers hiding behind their cable modems, it is another for a regular political columnist to descend to the same level.

All three are good, enjoyable summer-fluff shows. What's so wrong with that? (To Critical Posters: No, not everything has to be Othello).

But "The Closer" gnaws at me. As good as the Sedwyck is, her character plays a fundamentally fascist game. She knows the truth (before seeing any facts) and recognizes evil doers perhaps by their pheromones, and will do anything to punish those she sees as evil scum.

Why bother with laws, process, and morality when you know the One Truth and are morally superior to all others? Watching the FBI do this in real life to Richard Jewel, Bernard Maynard, and Dr. Stephen Hatfill kind of takes the fun out of fictional, institutionalized vigilantism -- I start enjoying her acting and the show, then get the creeps watching her character enjoy hurting people. There is something sick about her character's appeal.

Burn Notice is the spawn of McGyver by Bond. There is something goofily lovable about latter-day Bruce Campbell.

In Plain Sight is frustrating because the lead and the platform could do so much more. A great show could be built on this. I actually knew someone in witness protection -- there is so much more bite to this idea.

Just to let you know, you've got a broken link in the article you might want to fix.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/09/15/skthepilot201/

gives a page not found error.

thanks.

The incessant sexism in the media directed at Sen. Clinton, coupled with the Obama/Axelrod racist smear campaign dwarfs any votes Obama lost because of his race.