Only blatant racists would ever tell a stranger that they would never vote for a black candidate. However, most racists don't think of themselves as racist. It's not that they would never vote for a black candidate, it's just that a black candidate has to live up to nearly impossible standards. The racism is found in people's refusal to vote for Obama because he isn't flawless. Most of this inherent bias is inherent, and most people don't even realize they're doing it.

These are the same people who are incensed when you identify this kind of racism. Nobody wants to think of themselves as racist, and asking people to face their internal biases can sting a little. Hence the blowback, and Obama has to be careful not to make people feel bad about themselves. The reaction will not be to vote for him, but rather to find even sillier things to nitpick, and more inane reasons to vote against him.

I'd say this marks the two year anniversary from the intense chilling effect on political speech the internet has had, and the reason why national politicians are so unwilling to deviate from carefully scripted and focus-grouped talking points.

Certainly the "macaca" comment was fairly blatant in its racism and stupidity and Allen certainly deserved his fate, but I wonder if we're really better off by having politicians who are so unwilling to go "off script" because of the risks associated with instant global dissemination of every word they utter. This is of course immediately followed by the never-ending echo chamber of media outlets whose reporting consists of playing "controversial" tidbits on an endless loop, elevating the seeming importance of off-the-cuff comments, which, when combined with the new truism that anything that can be twisted, manipulated, and misconstrued, will be, creates an entirely new political environment where candidates have to be absolutely flawless with everything they say. I'd say we're not better off.

"She recognized that Rezko was a below the belt attack, and refused to make it, even though I'm betting that Penn wanted her to do so."

So this article is libelous?

Hillary Clinton Brings Up Tony Rezko For a Second Day in A Row

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

For the second day in a row, White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has prodded chief rival Sen. Barack Obama about his relationship with a former career political patron and friend, Tony Rezko, who is facing a Feb. 25 federal criminal trial in Chicago on public corruption and fraud charges involving state of Illinois teacher pension funds.

On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign, in a memo, said Obama "has thus far failed to return all contributions associated with Mr. Rezko, which included money that was given through straw donors or obtained from Illinois taxpayers."

Clinton was referring to political donations Rezko solicited, or bundled, for Obama's U.S. Senate -- not presidential -- campaign fund.

Of the 5% of the population that even knows this event took place, 99% of them will completely forget about it in the next few days when Obama announces his running mate. Sure, we can talk about how Rick Warren is a megalomaniacal sleazebag, but what person with a functioning brain didn't know that already?

Still, Obama didn't make a mistake by appearing there - a mistake would have been dodging the event, fueling even more absurd muslim speculation. Remember, he's not trying to convert Republican drones, he's just trying to dampen their fervor.

Oh, and asking an evangelical to vote for a pro-choice candidate is really more like asking a muslim fundamentalist to vote for a woman insofar as both examples involve prejudicial belief systems outweighing common sense.

I think Maher's comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But even if he was being totally serious about Hillary as VP, isn't he saying what you've been denying all along, Joan? That the Clintons bring a certain ruthlessness to the table in which no trick is too dirty, no attack is too slimy, and no potential political weapon goes unused?

The beginning of this post seems to chasise McCain for being slimy. Then the end seems to endorse an opinion that Hillary should get the VP not because she's the only one slimy enough to go toe-to-toe with McCain in a slime-off.

Hey, if giving Hillary the VP nod will win the election for the Dems, I'm all for it. I just feel like she would energize the GOP base in a whole new way - the incremental gains in votes she'd generate could be far outweighed by the incremental losses in votes she'd cause. But of course nobody has any way of knowing this.