If you're one of the people who doesn't understand the difference between noting that Obama is black and claiming that he's "the black candidate", then it's not surprising that you don't understand what the fuss is about.

Noting that Obama is black would be a simple -- if puzzling -- statement of fact. Claiming that he's "the black candidate" is simultaneously dismissive of Obama's campaign and of any blacks who vote for him, as if their votes are somehow not as real -- or at least not as seriously considered -- the votes of whites.

(If you do understand the difference, and are just being disingenuous ... well, that'd be disappointing but not particularly surprising.)

cythera45, there is a huge difference between being a black candidate and being "the black candidate". The first is a reference to a candidate who happens to be black, the latter implies a candidate who is only a candidate of and for blacks. I can't read Bill's mind, or the mind of Hillary's staffers, but from the context it sure as hell sounds like they meant the latter.

(Oh, and I have no clue why any of that sounds like paranoia to you. Is that a weird way of saying that you think I'm "oversensitive" or something?)

"Many democrats are too craven to go on FOX." -- The Notorious W.E.S.

Yeah, and most of them are too cowardly to speak at a KKK rally, either. What's that all about?

I got Two Pair Of Pretty Good Jeans The other day at Wal-Mart for 25 bucks total. -- The Notorious W.E.S.

Why are you afraid of shopping at Sears?

No sense in preaching to the converted. To address the "KKK" comment in a previous letter - Yes, we should go there, to make our voice louder.

-- bignose

There's no sense preaching to people with their fingers stuck in their ears and chanting "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA", either.

It's been a few years since I watched Fox News at all, but unless they've changed a lot, Obama would be wasting his time there. I'm all for "reaching across the aisle", but only to people willing to reach back. Obama's doing just fine with that without Fox.

I wonder if the Clintons now finally regret their support for Lieberman in the 2006 CT senatorial primary.

Carol H: Well, then Obama should regret it too, shouldn't he?

I'm guessing that he and Ned Lamont may have spoken about this ... given that Lamont is Obama's campaign co-chair in Connecticut.

It is one of the many peculiarities of this campaign season that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategists have decided that there is an advantage to be gained in attempting to position her as the progressive candidate, in comparison to Obama.

"Peculiar"? The word I would use for Clinton strategists trying to position her as progressive is "hilarious".

Mind you, I wouldn't generally call Obama progressive, either ... except in comparison.

But on this business of avoiding FOX he's dead on. It's a television show, for Heaven's sake. If you can't deal with Bill O'Reilley how can you face down the gun lobby or the telecom industry? -- Jordan Orlando

And what about the Simpsons? It's only a television show, for Heaven's sake. If candidates aren't brave enough to face Homer Simpson, how can they single-handedly track down bin Laden?

"All this borderline hate speech leveled against someone who's not running ..." --Anonymous

"Hate speech"? I didn't realize that liars -- oh, sorry, I mean "differently-truthy-Americans" -- had become a protected class.

... and spend the next few months campaigning on behalf of McCain.

"If Hillary Wins ... She can use executive orders to correct some things." -- The Notorious W.E.S.

There's a world of difference between "can" and "will".

"[McCain] has so casually disrespected [Limbaugh, Coulter, Dobson, et al] and their opinions over the years, showing up routinely on the wrong side of so many of their issues, from climate change to gun control to campaign finance reform to the marriage amendment to the Bush tax cuts to judicial nominations, that endorsing him now would look like a wholesale abandonment of principle."

[laugh] "Abandonment of principle"? What's to abandon? Why would they need to abandon their deeply-held dedication to manipulating their fans for profit?

So what would an ad from this group look like?

I mean really. What could an ad from you folks look like that isn't as one sided and propagandistic than a 24 trailer?

How about a teenage girl nattering on with the headline, "Aren't you glad your government isn't listening to this?"

-- shooter242

Actually, I was thinking of something like showing a series of regular people reading from the Bill of Rights, intercut with with some pants-pissing neocon chickenhawk whining that "Rights don't matter if you're dead". Finish it up with some classic Patrick Henry: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

That's pretty one-sided, I admit, but this is one of those times when there's a lot to be said for taking the side of traditional American values.

You go, Limbaugh! Insult anyone who's not a party-line-voting Republican, and drive 'em straight into voting for Obama.

I wonder if Limbaugh is hoping his ex-fans will start coming back if there's a Dem president.

Aycharaych: "The MSM routinely trots out the like of Falwell, Robertson and Hagee when they wish to get the "Christian" viewpoint."

Sure, more-or-less like they trot out someone from AIPAC when they want the "Jewish viewpoint" ...