You wrote: "As a matter of fact and public record, since 1995 Obama has had a close working relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Why are you, and virtually every other liberal writer, acting as if this doesn't matter?"

Your use of the words "fact" and "close" got me going to post the link and text below. I took the first proof I got on the search, followed by many other choices to prove same. And by the way, the education reform board these two men served on was initiated by an organization that is profoundly Republican-based; and these two served with decidedly Republican others on that board.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/22/ayerssmear?source=sem-pm-fts-ay-search-nsw&gclid=CPjPjKmtr5YCFQEuxwodS1N2Kw

"The Truth about Barack Obama and William Ayers

Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques. Here’s the truth: the smear associating Barack to Ayers is “phony,” “tenuous,” – even “exaggerated at best if not outright false.”

William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990’s. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: “No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago …”

Smear groups and the McCain campaign are trying to connect Obama to acts Ayers committed 40 years ago – when Barack was just eight years old. Here’s what the New York Times reported on the connection:

But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Barack has publicly denounced Ayers’ radical actions from the 1960’s: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

Excellent quote (with lots o' literary references in the dialogue). And to think Dennis Hopper is a Republican now. From "Easy Rider" to "Apocalypse Now" to retirement fund commercials...maybe he took his film roles too seriously.

(oh, and let's not forget "Blue Velvet"--perfect viewing for fine family values)

He knows exactly what he's doing. He knows who he hired to take over his troubled campaign. He knows what his inane running mate is spouting. He knows the ugliness seeping through his and (mostly) her campaign rallies. He knows about the despicable RoboCalls. Etc.

Just as I know the difference between "denotation" and "connotation." That said, I hereby weigh in on the hugely overblown discussion about the descriptor "erratic." IMHO, I find "my friend" the great Senator from the great state of Arizona to be erratic, with no ageism directly intended nor implied. I have a niece who's been erratic almost since the day she was born, and now she's 35. I've been known to be erratic, and I've got a couple of decades to go before 72. I have a bi-polar friend--she's often erratic. Yadda freakin' yadda. Nothing innately wrong with erratic; just that I don't really want that to be a primary character trait of our POTUS.

Anyway, to Glenn Greenwald, good article.

To your post (p. 2)...if I were making editor's choices, you'd have a red star. Well said. Thank you.

"I'VE BEEN SAYING IT FOR 10 MONTHS NOW"

Yes, and we've been hearing you for 10 months now.

Beyond the funds raised, I tend to think it's less about "swaying the vote" and more about "energizing the base."

So, Reps get Sarah and Hank, Dems get Bruce and Billy. I like my end of the deal a whole lot better ;)

Your point is well taken. There are many things that go on in this world where I question the dollars expended--say, for a celebrity wedding, or a corporate pleasure junket, or, how about Ms. McCain's $300,000 outfit when her hubby accepted the nomination--and I think of how far those dollars could go toward people who are hurting--bad. This isn't new for me, as in just during this election cycle. As far back as I remember, that's been my vantage point. I don't begrudge anybody wealth, particularly hard-earned and/or against-the-odds wealth. But I do see a lot of wasted money in this world that, IMHO, could be put to much better use.

I would ask, though, that you check out the foundation for which the dinner was held and gauge whether you believe that they have "done good deeds." If they can get the so-called fat-cats to hand over checks to help those truly in need, I can get behind that, white-tie soirees included.

I don't know if you saw both candidates' "roasts" in their entirety, but in fact, Obama did reference (yes, more subtly than directly, as appropriate to the nature of the occasion and type of prescribed speech) that people are out there hurting. He provided some serious commentary despite the venue.

And on a last note, I empathize with the days of physical illness during this campaign. And anger. And sadness, if not depression. Even flat-out fear. It's hard to dredge up a sense of humor on those days.

Still, I believe in the interjection of "comic relief." (Like that long-running Reader's Digest column: Laughter Is the Best Medicine.) Today, I'm back to the serious stuff of life. Last night, I got to laugh because of this event and the SNL special. I needed it.

Was Obama announcing his REAL middle name--Steve.

Barack Steve Obama.

Nyuk! I want a t-shirt!

"I never want to hear about Joe the Plumber again. Ever."

Ditto.