Thats an interesting notion.

Is it the local governments responsibility to keep citizens informed of voting regulations or the citizens responsibility to inquire of their government or as this title suggests, the responsibility of news opinion internet sites.

"It's attitude before action. But there's that other existential problem of American identity: the culture of denial. Thus, the "Huh, duh...what change???"---- L. Michelle

Change is part of Americas identity. Capitalism demands change - adapt or get left behind and die. We change the nations leader every 4 to 8 years by law. There is no denial of the need for change and change is a very old political selling point. Every politician who is not an incumbent runs on change. "Change we can believe in" is repackaged same old, same old.

Sure changing your intentions or priorities or "attitude" can lead to change, but not necessarily, just as talk is cheap without action.

Actions are the only evidence of a true and sensible change in attitude or to put it in biblical terms, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Duh.

...how Cuba feels about being a political ping pong ball in American politics.

And Obama is in it to prove lying like a weasel is marketable.

And doesn't marketable lying like a weasel count as spin?

The lawsuit brings up a very interesting question. Since two political parties have exclusive control over who has a chance at elected office, then do they carry a legal burden of resposibility to protect the rights of all voters in their party? If the answer is no, then either party has the power to exclude entire states and their voters if they do not agree with party direction on the candidate of choice.

You'd think no party would ever do something so stupid so you would not need laws to provide voters protection in the nomination process, except well the Democratic party has proved differently.

The GOP outmanuevers the DNC in FL and the DNC willingly puts its hand under the running lawnmower, loses a few fingers and then says proudly, the rulez is the rulez, bleeding all the way into the general election.

They hurt themsleves as well as the voters, but the issue remains; since with only two political parties, it can be reasonably concluded that those two political parties do represent the government. In other words does the argument they are outside election laws start to go out the window?

Rose colored glass takes on a new meaning with this article. Somehow I don't think updating the "Change we can believe in" posters to "Change to Chicago style politics" is a good move.

The GOP is going to look homeward as well. Bribery, corrpution, militant black policy, militant liberals, anti-white rhetoric, anti-semantic rhetoric, are going to be all highlighted - fairly or not. Obamas individual career in Chicago politics is also colored with ruthless back-stabbing and opportunism. I don't know that that is unique to Chicago politics, but the GOP certainly will make it sound that way, especially as a contrast to Obamas and this writers flowery "new!" way forward rhetoric.

Another place the GOP will look at is Massachusettes, where another Axelrod product P. Deval, is proving to be a progressive, but an inept, wasteful, tin-ear idealogue as well.

It seems elections have now perfected the process so only inept idealogues are electable. GWB being an inept conservative idealogue wrapped in a "Regular Guy!" marketing package. And the best "hope" for "change" is an inept liberal marketed as a "New Everything!" type of guy.

Whos' worst - Hagee or Wright? I'd pick Hagee.

But Wright is still questionable as a preacher and as a friend and McCain did not sit in Hagees pews or buy his preaching tapes or claim him as his and his childrens personal preacher for 20 years like Obama did. There's alot of backstabbing in Obamas world, done to him and done by him. Probably about typical for the average politician.

...both McCain can both trot out new preachers and then debate whose "new!" preacher is better.

Actually I find Obamas cadence in his speeches disturbing because they sound like preaching. MLK was a preacher and it made sense for him to do that. For a politician, it's creepy, not to mention doesn't align with the whole progressive seperation of church and state thing.

Maybe Obama should just come out and proclaim, "I do not need ~short pause~ preachers ~long pause~ I ~short pause~ am the blessed one, ~pause~ I am the one and only preacher! ~pause~louder~ I ~pause~ am ~pause~really loud~ BARRACK!"

Let's see McCain respond to that.