I ignored your astroturfing premise because I find it very far-fetched. Interesting and creative, but far-fetched.

I still can't wrap my head around the argument that Obama benefited from racism being injected into the primary more than it cost him. Are you saying the 30% or so of Clinton supporters who said they could never vote for a black man were offset by 30% of Obama supporters who were energized by people paid to post on Salon, Kos, and Huffington in order to convince people that Hillary's a racist, and that meme was able to take shape because people were mad at her for authorizing the Iraq war? My head is spinning.

Are you also saying that "he's not a Muslim ... as far as I know", "hardworking Americans, white Americans", and the whole "elitism" meme used by Hillary as last-second hail mary's were not intended to inject race into the primary? I agree that winning dirty is completely dishonorable, which is why I only made those concessions in my last post "for the sake of argument." I honestly don't believe that the Obama campaign intentionally used the electorate's racism as an offensive weapon, and I honestly believe the Clinton campaign did.

Let's not forget that there's a subtle difference between using race and racism. It would have been impossible to not mention that Obama was the first black candidate ever with a legitimate shot at the nomination. Should they have pretended this wasn't historic? Should they have avoided all mention of the fact that he's black? Did this create such mass white guilt that he was able to defeat the Clinton machine? It's just far-fetched to me.

If anything, I think the Obama campaign held back. If some of their supporters went overboard, well unfortunately that's outside of their control.

But to say the Obama campaign used racism while denying that the Clinton campaign ever did, at least to me, is the height of self-delusion. Using your valid point that any use of racism is indecent and unfair and dirty, then the Clinton camp is just as guilty as anyone, if not more.

The sad truth is that our electorate is motivated by racial appeals. There are few more powerful internal influences than ingrained racial prejudice and bias. It's impossible to avoid entirely, but the best way to make sure it doesn't take over is to keep the debate focused on the issues and not on the character of the candidates. But the only way to accomplish this noble goal is to have an informed electorate, a luxury we do not enjoy in this country.

Nobody's hands are entirely clean here. But turning to the general, it's hard to argue that Turd Blossom and the GOP is not licking their chops at the chance to make this election a referendum on race. Let's not make the perfect into the enemy of the good, and let's put this ship back on course by electing Barack Obama.

I appreciate the conversation. Look, I don't care who you vote for. I think everyone should make up their own mind. I just really, really, really want to stop the spread of false and misleading information. Your vote in Texas is far less important than your letters here - you are rather prolific on these pages, and I think they're better with you in them. But I just cannot accept the argument that Obama's a race-baiter and everyone else is just an innocent bystander caught up in the crossfire.

Talk all you want about Obama's FISA vote, or his health care plan, or his energy policy. That stuff matters. Who said what about whom and when and where did they say it - that's the garbage that does not matter. And having to choose the lesser of two evils is part of life. I doubt that your house and car and clothing is *perfect*. Why does your president need to be?

The First Amendment protects political speech, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment simply does not protect intentionally false statements of fact, even in the course of a federal election.

Ironically it was Obama who introduced The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (H.R. 1281 and S. 453), which would criminalize the knowing and intentional communication of false and misleading information about the time, place, or manner of elections, and the rules governing voter eligibility and voter registration. It would also ensure that voters affected by deceptive or intimidating practices are provided with correct information from a reliable source in a timely manner.

Apparently the bill has stalled, but wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to go after these bastards who publish knowingly false information about the candidates?

In what alternate universe do you reside? The point of the article is that despite running on competency, Hillary showed nothing but incompetency throughout the course of her campaign. I was saying this all along - if you want an example of their ability to lead, look at the campaigns they run. Hillary ran a disaster - it was hers to lose, and she lost it. Obama ran a well-oiled machine.

The same goes for the General. McCain is running a joke of a campaign, full of lies, blatant distortions, and misrepresentations. That's a pretty good idea of how he would run the country.