Thanks for making that point about the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not the nation. It's one I've made in letters to editors and comments on articles in places such as the Washington Post. I despise the stealth militarization of our government institutions.

It's not stealthed. It's obvious to anyone who can be bothered to check the radar screen. Or look out the damn window, for that matter.

No doubt about it.

I'm also guessing that at least some reporters will suddenly remember that deference to power is not a job requirement after all, though I don't expect them to also remember that facts are more important than "balance".

Campaign people, poets, and propagandists use a different dictionary---a dictionary of word associations. The caption "erratic" under an image of a doddering old man suggests exactly what it's supposed to suggest: uncertain, befuddled, confused, senile.

There may be something to what you say, but I'm curious. What word would you suggest they use instead that would be more politically-correct?

And today Klein called McCain out for his campaign’s robocall ...

Funny that Klein mentioned the slimy 2000 robocalls against McCain and neglected to note that the person in charge of that is now working for the McCain campaign.

This guy set up robocalls sliming not just McCain but McCain's family ... and McCain gives him a job.

I can't recall it, but I know what you mean. Anyway, the fundamental fact here is that the Obama campaign continues to use the word when there are other words available. So there is no going backwards here---just benign opportunism.

Seriously, which other words? What synonym of "erratic" couldn't be seen as at least a subtle dig at McCain's age?

I agree that -- at minimum -- the Obama campaign doesn't mind the age implications behind "erratic". On the whole, in context, that's fine with me. But if for some reason the Obama campaign wanted to be squeaky-clean and avoid ageism while still pointing out McCain's clearly erratic behavior, what word would they use?

I'm not a professional wordsmith, but I have a fair command of the English language, and I can't come up with a synonym that wouldn't be seen as having at least as strong an implied reference to McCain's age.

Bingo! (The current California governor and a certain sainted former one, as well.)

I love how Repubs pooh-pooh celebrity endorsements and celebrity politicians ... except for the ones they can scrape up. When was the last Hollywood-Babylon commie-liberal elected to a governorship or any other major office?

I don't know about North Carolina, but in at least some states, kicking someone counts as assault (battery?) with a dangerous weapon.

... I applaud this.

I remember a few years ago an older relative bitching about white men being "discriminated against". He wasn't pleased when I pointed out that it may seem that way, but what was really going on is that we were becoming less discriminated for.

Sure, neither of us was exactly rolling in privilege. But all other things being equal, we'd very likely have been worse off if we weren't white men.

"White" is only really meaningful in apartheid societies. Well, and maybe neo-Nazi rallies, I guess.

Genetically, "whiteness" (or any other race) is meaningless. Sociologically (and economically and politically), it's definitely not meaningless. It'll be lovely when and if we can ditch the whole thing, but right now ignoring it would make it worse, not better.

That whole Socratic thing about the "unexamined life is not worth living"? It applies to societies, too.

Oh, I almost forgot some more "real" American values: blindly and unquestioningly support the Unitary Executive Theory. Sometimes in order to save democracy, one must destroy it.

Republicans have made a hell of a start on that, haven't they? (Though not without way too much help from way too many Democrats.)

There's no need for Prop 8. It's a waste of time and energy, and couldn't be permitted to stand if it were to pass anyway.

-- blunderdog

Proposition 8, if it passes, changes the California Constitution. It would at that point be constitutional, by definition.

If Proposition 8 passes, the only way to end this type of discrimination will be to go through the whole process of changing the constitution again.

Thank goodness we in Massachusetts managed to avoid putting discrimination in our constitution.

I've donated to the No On 8 folks and I encourage others to do so as well.

Republican attempt to bog down Democratic secretary of state unanimously rejected ...

Republican attempt to bog down democracy also rejected ...

That said, wow, unanimous?! And this is very nearly the same court with the embarrassing Bush v Gore decision in 2000, so spare us the "activist judges" claptrap, trolls.

Given that "whiteness" -- like race in general -- is a sociological (/economic/political) concept, any meaningful definition is necessarily fuzzy and contextual. Essentially, someone is "white" if they are seen as -- and therefore treated as -- "white" by the people around them. Obviously, this means that your acquaintances and many others are "white" in some contexts and not in others.

In 99.9+% of my life, I'm "white" ... even though I have a significant percentage of "red". [shrug]

Colin Powell - I have to think he will do what's right for the country this time.

-- ChangetheChange

I'd just as soon he kept quiet ... like he should have in February 2003.

Actually, I take back the latter. He shouldn't have kept quiet then, he should have loudly repudiated the crap he was given to present to the world. But no, he only obeyed orders.

Does anyone have a clue how much newspaper endorsements matter? I mean, the people who've swallowed the "liberal media" crap will take endorsements like these as proof, but do endorsements positively influence undecideds?

I'm confused. The Columbus Dispatch referred to this ruling as "a unanimous 9-0 ruling". I mean, isn't that fairly obviously a unanimous decision?