I have concluded that people simply do not see Obama for what he is.

Those who drank the kool-aid think that Obama is some messiah, above politics. Puhleeze - the guy is a politician. And one of the things politicians do is compromise. These means they sit down and talk with their political enemies. And for what? To implement the platform the ran on so that they can hoodwink voters into re-electing them. Slimy.

Here is a perfect example: he is willing to go along with the McCain/Republican offshore drilling "gimmick"." Sure, he says he'd only go along if Republicans agree to pass his comprehensive energy plan (see, this guy is your typical political bully). And, sure, he says he would put strict limits on offshore drilling. Blah, blah, blah. And his cult members say "big deal": offshore leasing can't even begin until 2012 because of existing moratoriums and that, according to DOE drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic and Eastern Gulf would have little impact on fuel production until 2030. Yeah, right, this is just a rationalization for knocking back more kool-aid.

More hypocrisy: he wants to make alternative fuel sources and green technologiesviable. "Viable?" That is just code for profitable. This Obama guy wants to take advantage of our energy crisis to develop alternative fuel sources and green technologies for a profit. Some big fat cat must have given a really big donation for that one!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"...whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."

Thomas Jefferson

A well-informed electorate is crucial if we wish our democracy to survive - without that we start down the road to tyranny.

Ordinary people are increasingly frustrated with a mainstream media that is controlled by corporate interests. Corporate control of media outlets means control of the journalists who work for these outlets. Which makes it increasingly difficult for journalists to report the news in an unbiased manner. (On top of that, there are also many journalists who are biased but fail to reveal their biases in their reporting.) In addition to the problem of corporate control, the internet is full of outright lies or distortions which the mainstream media fails to set right. Instead, they repeat these lies and distortions over and over.

The problem with all of this is that it makes it very difficult for readers and viewers to determine the reliability of news reports. Readers and viewers can not be well-informed if they do not have the information they need to understand when "things get so far wrong" and can not be "relied on to set them right."

The first amendment applies only to suppression of speech by the government. When the government violates the right to free speech there is a way to seek redress.

But what happens when corporate interests suppress speech? When the press is no longer free but is controlled by those interests? How will our democracy survive when it is not the government but private, corporate interests that are suppressing speech?

This, from your post, bears repeating:

"You are aware he didn't even bother to write black, or shade in the accompanying bubble, on his [application] don't you? You don't get to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review by being black. You get it by being intelligent and reasonable. Period."

How many people out there are as frustrated as I am by all the lies and distortions coming from Obama bashers? And as frustrated by the fact that it is clear that they pay no attention to any evidence or listen to any argument that might just cause them to say, "you know, I was wrong"? But I suppose we can't expect otherwise - after all these people support Bush - a man who would never, ever admit that he was wrong.

Except as a political ploy when he admitted that he was a sinner and "accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal savior." People just love redemption stories. McCain has a few himself. (Maybe that is why Obama isn't crushing McCain - he doesn't have a catchy, moving redemption story.)

I was on law review. Maybe your law review did things differently. We did not have to write articles, rather we cite checked and edited articles accepted for publication. Anyone is free to write a law review article, even law students. But writing and getting published are 2 different things. Law review articles are by experts in the field of law: law professors, judges, lawyers. Hence the name "law review" -- a law student does not have the expertise needed to review the law.

You may be confusing writing an article with the legal memoranda some schools include in the competition to get on law review. These are not published. In fact, they were blind submissions, no one who reviewed them knew who the writer was. Some schools do not have a writing requirement - people are selected on grades. Some schools do a combination, etc. MVpeach, golly gee, if your school required you to write an actual law review article and you got on law review your achievement is very impressive indeed.