I for one simply refuse to acknowledge anyone who from this point forward talks about media bias against Hillary. It's bunk. The Media are only concerned in prolonging this ratings bonanza...that much is clear.

you are absolutely correct. the idea of the "media" being biased toward one candidate, in the sense that they are actively rooting for one candidate over the other, is abusrd. the media is in the business of generating revenue. negativity sells. scandal sells. controversy sells. if there is no negativity, scandal, or controversy, they make one up (see, e.g., tony rezko and the native kenyan dress). up until this point, it was easier for the "media" to crap on hillary because she has a much bigger toilet than obama, i.e. far more skeletons in her closet and a much larger demographic of people who despise her. so they fed the hungry masses with meat cut from her flabby-thigh's-worth of "experience."

but that only lasts so long, and hillary wisely started crying foul that she was being blasted while obama was being treated with kid gloves. what's that you say, hillary? we have a controversy on our hands!!! fantastic, says the media!!! we'll run with this completely contrived "controversy" that we're too nice to obama and too mean to hillary!!! she used that strategy as well as outright lying about obama to gather her 11th hour (re)surge.

and the hilljack voters, ones who remarkably had not made up their mind until last week, fell for it in droves. not to mention all of the texas republicans who had no reason to vote for mccain following herr limbaugh and voting for the most beatable candidate, hillary.

but she doesn't give a rip. she doesn't care if she gets votes from people who are uninformed, misinformed, underinformed, or just plain stupid. she just wants their vote. that's a leader we want, america! someone who is not interested in the good of the country, and only interested in the good of herself. way to go!

interestingly enough, one could substitute "hillary clinton" for "barack obama" in your ending rant and have just as valid of a point, which means you didn't make one.

hillary has chosen classic clinton attack strategies. she is not just attacking him, but she is blatantly insulting his millions of supporters as delusional, pie-in-the sky dreamers who are too naive to understand the real problems we face. when she trots out her nauseating new little sarcasm routine, she's purposely tapping into the classist warfare that exists between blue- and white-collar democrats. while hillary scores well among the less educated, working-class democrats, obama is the choice of the educated, elite democrats, who the lunchbucket dems resentingly think are arrogant assholes who think they know what's best for everyone.

meanwhile, the more educated democrats are flabbergasted that people are buying into clinton's base-level, fear-and-paranoia based appeals, and furiously insulted that she has the nerve to attack their sensibilities, when it's her supporters that display a lack of true understanding of the complexity and nuance of the issues, particularly on foreign policy (which is why the red phone ad worked so well).

so while clinton herself is attacking obama's supporters, obama is saying nothing foul of clinton's - he's sticking to her. he understands that if he wins the nomination, he needs full party support to beat mccain, as hillary will need as well. but hillary is so desperate that she's resorted to betting that there are more blue collar dems than white collar dems, and is pitting the party against itself as a last-ditch effort to stay in the race. she's not stupid - she knows she's turning off obama's supporters in a big way. but she's gotta do whatever it takes - the tenacity of the cockroach. she figures enough will still bleed blue in november that she can get away with it.

when clinton supporters rail on obama's experience, they only show their ignorance to their own candidate's inexperience. when they rail on obama's empty-rhetoric, they show their ability to parrot simplistic arguments that have no basis in truth. and when they question his patriotism and have sneaking suspicions that he may be somehow affiliated with islam, they display their bigotry.

i'm not saying there are no possible legitimate reasons to vote for hillary - rather, i'm saying that of everything i've ever read supporting hillary, i can count on one hand the number of reasoned, principled arguments that did not include one of the above-listed misgivings about her opponent. and i'd need a warehouse to fit everything i've read that relied exclusively on one or more of them.

although none of them holds a candle to the type of inanity seen in ProudTexasGirl's post above. congratulations. you've set a new low water mark.

which part of my post played fast and loose with the facts? i thought i was offering an analysis rather than the type of "obama sucks, hillary rules!" arguments advanced by people like ProudTexasGirl.

That's all I could think of during it, and the answer, at least in my mind, is a resounding "NO".

Has a presidential candidate ever been so candid and honest about race in America? Is anything he said untrue? I can't get over how the cynics want to brand him as a racist or somehow disingenuous.

You just witnessed our next president. And no, Wes, I did not faint. I smiled knowing that someone as intelligent, reasoned, principled, with great perspective and understanding, is about to be our next president. Couldn't have come at a better time.