Thanks for saying it. At least someone out there is.

I voted for Obama in spite of his followers, whose uncritical fanaticism and insane hypersensitivity had for a long time turned me off to him. The fact that he ultimately won me over in spite of this is testament to what a good campaign he ran. However, this weekend was an exhibition of those same horrid, mindless, crybaby Obamabots at their absolute worst - and the campaign itself was no longer staying above the fray, but right there with them, whipping it up.

Disappointing, to say the least.

...thanks for telling it like it is in this instance.

And, even more than that, thanks for standing up to your own readers, who have really shown their true ugliness toward you in this letters thread. You deserve much more respect than this, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. If I was Obama, and I was reading this, I would be embarassed by what was being spewed in my name.

...but I can't see Harriet Christian's rant as anything other than vain, venal, and racist. Her use of the phrase "inadequate black man" was not merely an unfortunate choice of words. It was the very heart of what she was saying. There is nothing worthwile that decent people can do with sentiment like this, other than to disavow it - loudly. I feel the same way about Geraldine Ferraro's myopically self-absorbed Boston Globe op-ed, and her notion that racial resentment is somehow qualitatively different than racism. The only thing keeping these two women out of Barack Obama's coalition is their own arrogance, and that goes for anyone else who thinks like them.

I do, however, agree with you that the repeated calls for Hillary to drop out of the race were obnoxious and insulting, both to her and to the intelligence of the American voters - Obama and Clinton supporters alike.

...than might I suggest Bob Barr?

He's unconditionally opposed to the war.

He's unconditionally opposed to the Patriot Act.

He's unconditionally opposed to the FISA bill.

He also supports ending the Federal war on drugs, decriminalizing them at the federal level and remanding that issue back to the states - something that would be a giant leap toward restoring privacy and upholding civil rights in this country - and he is on record stating that he supports this as a first step toward a full and complete end to prohibition in America.

And, unlike Nader, Barr will likely draw just as many, if not more, votes from McCain than from Obama, making him less likely to act as a significant spoiler for Obama.

At this point, I think I will probably end up voting for Obama, but I still haven't ruled Barr out, and there is still a lot of time left for me to change my mind.

To answer your question, he has been an active opponent of the drug war for about a year or two now. He has also been active with the ACLU for a couple of years now. That, and the fact that he is currently running for president on a platform that specifically includes drug decriminalization - something neither Obama nor McCain can claim - I think goes a long way toward making up for his pro drug war past.

And no, things won't get worse in Texas if drugs are decriminalized at the federal level, because decriminalization at the federal level doesn't have any effect at all on the statutes in Texas. At worst, things will remain the same. And I can tell you right now, things will DEFINITELY get better here in California.

And, as I previously posted, Barr is on the record stating that he supports this as a first step toward a full repeal of prohibition in America. He said it at the debate at the LP convention.

I guess I see the states rights position as at least a step in the right direction, as it would at least allow the more progressive states to be more progressive on that issue, and it would force the states adopting prohibitive policies to adopt the full burden and cost of enforcement. I also support full repeal of prohibition in every state, and believe that the Constitution guarantees such a right, but until and unless the Supreme Court affirms such a right, the repeal of prohibition can only start with its repeal on the federal level.

Back to the official topic - Joan posed the question of, barring a vote for Nader, how one can pressure Obama on this issue. I was just offering up Barr as a possible alternative, as he is quite good on civil liberties issues and is not likely to act as a spoiler against Obama.

Back off topic again - yes, I did see that the Supreme Court struck down gun control today. Kennedy is shaping up to be quite a decisive and influential justice.

...that he doesn't "do cowering"?