So, by count Obama is running more "negative" ads ... because he's running more ads.

Of course, by count Obama is also running more non-negative ads than McCain.

(Hell, Obama might have more supporters on Santa's naughty list than McCain does ... and no doubt has more supporters on Santa's nice list.)

I certainly agree. I saw that clip of Bachmann and immediately pulled out my credit card. I didn't know much about her challenger, but I knew they deserved support in the face of that kind of crap.

Definitely a "macaca moment".

It's crazy to think that a group of people who have been marginalized wouldn't just automatically gravitate to a candidate who's apart of another group that has been marginalized.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you clearly don't understand the dynamics of oppression.

Again and again throughout history, people who have been marginalized have often quit eagerly marginalized others when they could.

Actually, your reaction to Mr. Dyson's first answer says more about you than his first answer says about the rest of the interview.

... then she and Gingrich and the rest of them could complain about the "liberal activist judges" who laughed them out of court.

This is totally understandable. The press seems to have become a little less inclined to blatant stenography for the right and lazy false equivalences. People have become so used to that -- while still hearing a constant drumbeat of "liberal media" -- that any movement toward actual reporting seems like a huge leftward swing.

This is exasperated by the fact that the McCain campaign is -- as near as I can tell through my admitted bias -- running a much nastier, much more dishonest campaign, with a much weaker actual platform than Obama. It's hard to report on that and not sound liberally biased.

On some level, they think the media is supposed to make the candidates look equally appealing ... or make it clear how much better their candidate is. It's what they've gotten used to seeing.

It makes it easier to find out who the dangerous idiots are.

(On a larger scale, it also exposes the misunderstandings -- to use a polite term -- that can benefit from our own speech.)

Find an Obama supporter who is a real plumber who is really named Joe who doesn't have unpaid taxes, who can handle basic math, etc, etc.

... she just disappoints me, though the disappointment is at least as much directed at McCain. Even limiting himself to female choices -- even to female choices potentially appealing to the Christian Right -- he could have done far better than this.

As an Obama supporter, the choice of Palin turned out to be a good thing. But as an American, I find it insulting.

What's the difference between making that race-based assumption about Lieberman's endorsement and making it about Powell?

Because in Lieberman's case, it's evidently "playing the race card" and "assuming that any white who'd vote against Obama is racist".

Assuming that Powell will vote for Obama because he's black is, of course, just as acceptable as thinking the same thing of any (and all) blacks. (After all, why else would anyone vote for a black man for president?)

They've already subtly hinted at it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the McCain campaign hints more strongly that Obama's campaign is being funded by terrorists. (Maybe they'll propose a minimum allowed contribution ... say, $1,000.)

But, but, but,

we need to investigate Obama's donors to see if they're anti-American!

Heh.

Seriously, though, I've donated to Obama's campaign because I'm pro-American.

And while punishing Lieberman would please the party's base ...

"Punish" is the spin of his enablers. I don't want him punished, I just want him out of the damn way.

It's like the people who whined about his opponents wanting to take away "his" Senate seat. It's not his seat; he's just sitting in it. The seat belongs to the people of Connecticut.

My exposure to Ms. Bachman is pretty limited, but "congenial" isn't a word I'd use to describe her.

(A tiny bit of that bonanza for Elwyn Tinklenberg is mine.)

Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney proved in 2008...

...that you can now run as a serious candidate for president of the U.S. regardless of race, gender, or religion.

As long as, of course, you are rich and powerful.

While I agree with your point regarding class, I think you're stretching it with the "regardless". While race, gender, and religion may no longer be automatic disqualifications, they're certainly still factors.

I've no doubt that -- all else being equal -- Obama would be doing a lot better if he was white. (Yes, even though he's getting a boost from understandably-enthusiastic blacks.) And Clinton would have had an easier time of it if she was male. (Yes, even though she got a name-recognition boost from being Bill's First Lady.) And I'm sure Romney would've done much better if he was a Christian.

Also, what do you suppose would be the prospects of a pagan running for President? Or an agnostic or atheist? Heck, how likely would it be that they could even get elected to an high enough office to make a run for the Presidency be taken seriously?

Shit, Obama's losing votes because of a vicious rumor campaign that he's secretly a Muslim!

kb1566 is right on point. Per Curiam does not necessariy mean actual unanimity; just that any justices not in agreement see no benefit to going on record as such.

Well, okay, but as far as I'm concerned it's still unanimous. It's not my problem if they don't want to make their disagreement official.