Here's the ideal: McCain just realizes the inevitable, that he's going to lose to Obama in a respectable landslide, and just saves that money for something else. Obama does the same. The state of the union improves on many levels.

Here's the reality: There are potential right wing 527 groups like the Swift Boaters, with unlimited resources to make all kinds of unfounded but compelling slams. ("Actually, Obama is really Osama Bin Ladin in disguise!!! He's going to become president and turn our nukes on ourselves!") Now, if Obama goes with public funding, and gives back all the millions and millions he's received (largely through small donations from grass roots support, I might add, which is truly democracy in action), there might come a day when he doesn't have enough funds to counter the inevitable "Obama Killed Laci Petersen" claim.

I think he should stick with private funding. But he needs to explain his decision to the public, to maintain credibility.

If you're going to make completely substance-free comparisons of McCain to someone admirable (to some), why stop with Reagan? Why not pick someone more exciting, like, say, Superman?

See, McCain is like Superman, because not only can he fly, but he's got x-ray vision, heat vision, and is more powerful than a locomotive. That's why he deserves your vote!

I mean, seriously, if they're not going to bother being truthful, couldn't they at least shoot for entertaining?

So Bill Donohue says that Hagee is the worst religious bigot ever? This is gonna be sweet, since I'd actually put my money on Donohue. I say, Celebrity Death Match: two go in, one comes out. See it on Pay-Per-View.

Because, from what I can see, she can out-GOP the GOP. Plus, it doesn't sound like the authoritarians are all that taken with McCain. I'm willing to bet Hillary could get more votes as the Republican nominee than as the Democratic one.

And besides, Bill Clinton has already told us in no uncertain terms that we should vote for Obama (the candidate that asks you to think and hope) over his wife (the candidate who appeals to your fears).

Gwool, you chose a funny moment to demand a substantive discussion. The post we're discussing is how the current republican candidate is similar to the mythical image of a dead president from 25 years ago. No substance required.

Facts aren't going your way? Don't let it get you down! Just invent some new facts!!

I think I speak for a majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of humans in saying we've had enough of this kind of crap.

Thanks, Hillary, for working so hard to clarify my decision to vote for Obama. I might not feel quite so confident otherwise.

Rather than try and win on a technicality by trying to disqualify McCain, or even allow such an underhanded threat to exist, instead introduce legislation to allow the poor sap to run. Obama will win in a landslide against Bush III, Diebold notwithstanding, so by all means, let's get him on the ballot!

Nobody, not even members of the press, like to be treated like they're stupid. Which is one of the main reasons a lot of the press can't stand the Clinton campaign, and -- like me -- will be savoring their coming defeat.

I sympathize with your general point, KcM, but I don't think it's true. If it were, the press would be dogging Bush at every turn, because no one issues an insipid, fact-free press release like the current administration. No, if the press objected to be treated like they were stupid, they would have run that administration out on a rail long ago.

That would be a two birds, one stone situation.

In one stroke, it would show that McCain is really Bush III, and after losing by a landslide, it would hopefully put a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty.

How could that be? I thought they were the new leftist heroes and we're the evul evul evul badguys. Oh well, I'm sure it's for their own good. I blame America. And the Jews.

I guess that's what you get for thinking. I recommend you don't attempt that again until you're on more solid intellectual and emotional ground.

Also, should I point out, your post is absolutely irrelevant to the subject at hand?

Back when I first went traveling as a young lad, I wore a Canadian flag pin, because in my short experience, I hadn't seen many examples of American culture that I wanted to identify (and be identified) with.

Decades later, I'm quite proud to be an American, particularly when I travel. Not to say I'm proud of my government or my president; exactly the opposite, of course. But that leaves many sources of pride as an American. (Don't make me list them all.)

So now, when I'm traveling and someone asks where I'm from, I immediately tell them "the States." My thought is, if this person is stupid enough to think there's one type of any nationality, then I couldn't care less what they think about me. Almost all foreigners I've met, however, seem completely able to grasp the fact that while George Bush sucks, it doesn't mean all Americans suck with him. I'm almost always asked, upon declaration of my nationality, what I think of George W. Bush. By the time I explain that he's likely the worst president in US history and deserves impeachment and imprisonment many times over, I've typically made myself a new friend. I've had this happen with a surprisingly wide range of demographics: elderly Brits, Indian rickshaw drivers, Israeli travelers, drunk Aussies, Pakistani doctors, you name it.

I guess Bush has turned out to be a uniter after all.