I predict that if the media deigns to notice the racist undertones of the McCain's campaign attacks, it will be couched thusly:

"Is the Obama campaign trying to play the race card?"

(This despite the fact that the Obama campaign probably won't point it out, not even through surrogates.)

I note that some folks are hoping that Obama's campaign can elicit a McCain meltdown. I admit, that would be a lovely sight to see and might turn many people off of McCain. On the other hand, depending on the details, I could also see it being played right into the uppity nigger narrative. "That nice older (white) man was being so patient with that boy, but eventually he got pushed too far. Maybe that'll teach the boy to respect his (white) elders. It might be too late though -- it works better to teach them manners when they're young."

It'd be phrased differently, of course.

Has anyone polled the punditocracy? Because it only matters who they think is being arrogant, you know.

... is playing the "playing the race card" card.

What legal pressure can be brought to bear on ABC News to reveal those "sources", and who is in position to do so? Does it have to be a prosecutor at some level, or is this something that can be instigated by a citizen's group?

One of the connections to the truth behind this is dead, but others exist. The story can't be allowed to die with "Oh, the only relevant person killed himself, I guess we'll never know what happened, what a darned shame."

Just asking.

Didn't Obama change his mind about his campaign money?

No.

Was it successfully spun that way?

Yes.

BUSH = McCAIN = OBAMA is there really any differences here?

Only to people paying attention to more than the headlines (or to more than the pre-packaged talking points they've been given).

It's absolutely relevant to her credibility - the implication of arrests for drug paraphenalia and DUI is that she's either an alcoholic, a junkie, or permanently stoned.

Where did you get your attitude on drug use -- Refer Madness?

While having two DUI convictions certainly implies very questionable judgment -- and are arguably worth noting in this context -- the implications you take from those convictions are a huge stretch.

Oh, and I have dealt with those "types of people, and I'm not "one of them". But, you know, nice try.

Right. Whereas Clinton waited until it did matter -- to her -- before pushing for a full seating. Before that, she didn't give a shit, and her supporters on the rules committee supported not seating MI and FL.

Oh, and from the McCain camp there's naught but the sound of crickets about the fact that Repubs will penalize five states for holding early primaries.

And if the intent is to be inclusive of congressional independents, where is Bernie Sanders on MTP?

Simple. MediaCorp likes Lieberman, but the only people who like Bernie Sanders are, well, not to put a too fine point on it, but they're only people. (And they're dirty socialists, which even makes it worse ... even the tens of thousands of supposed Republicans who voted for him are probably closet socialists.)

One further point: How many news stories on mass murderers include statements from family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers "stunned" by the behavior of the "really nice, helpful, normal guy" they really didn't know so well after all?

Sure, they may not have known him as well as they thought. But the same applies to Ms. Duley, even if she's being honest about her professional opinion.

Judging someone's mental health is a tricky business, even for people with far better qualifications and much more experience than Ms. Duley, even when they've had far more exposure to the subject than Ms. Duley seems to have had with Mr. Ivins. Her opinion should not be given nearly the weight that most media reports seem to be giving it.

The Supreme Court gave us Bush in 2000, which is bad, but they saved us from the Vice Presidency of Joe Lieberman.

Um. Compared to the Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney?

Lieberman's pretty bad, sure, but Cheney's in a whole 'nother league.

People have described me as "hard-working" and "quiet", too. Perhaps I should be locked up, just in case.

(Yes, that logic is flawed. As is yours.)

In Dr. Ivins' case, nobody but Duley knew.

If she did. That seemed to be her professional opinion, but that doesn't mean she was correct.

People are criticizing Obama for a choice that he's only rumored to be making.

Way to pre-emptively whine, folks.

Your Credentials...

as a member of the MSM is now secure with your smear of a woman who did nothing but report someone who was harassing her.

Since when does "smear" describe reporting publicly-available facts about someone? Actual, proven, legal facts, as opposed to -- for example -- the allegations and more-or-less professional opinions Ms. Duley has provided about Mr. Ivins, and MediaCorp has oh-so-dutifully reported.

As far as I can tell from actually reading the speech, Obama neither supports nor endorses additional offshore drilling.

In particular, see this paragraph:

Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don’t believe that’s a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it’s necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good – particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

When someone calls something a "drawback" and notes correctly that it's not a "meaningful solution", that doesn't sound like a supportive endorsement to me.

But I'm not a pundit, nor am I someone who gets my information from skimming headlines, so maybe I'm just handicapped by being over-informed.