... whether a person is basing his or her vote solely on a fear or dislike of blacks ---

It is irrelevant if he or she prefers Clinton in the primaries. However, if the person calls himself or herself a true Democrat, but refuses to vote for Obama in the general election after he receives the party nomination, then this person is basing his or her decision on racial sentiments.

Like the Jon Stewart question to Obama that illuminated the whole unspoken feeling none of these panelists (all white, all male, all highly educated, all advantaged in life): "Will you enslave the white race?"

Isn't this what a lot (if not all) of the mudslinging about? Isn't this the real question underneath all the "black voters are racist" rhetorics?

Agreed. If an Obama supporter calls himself or herself a true Democrat, but would refuse to vote for Hillary in the GE, then he or she is doing so out of sexism. Obviously.

... because I voted for Clinton in the primary. Yes, I would rather she become the president, but I would not choose McCain over Obama.

It really is that simple. Beyond that, it's about racism (or sexism, if she had won the nomination).

... if these are indeed spontaneous, unmoderated, Lincoln-and-Douglas debates: Namely, McCain is and will be forced to argue FOR positions that are unpopular with most Americans at this moment and/or he does not sincerely believe in. I do not seriously believe he believes in a lot of the right-wing, ultraconservative, intolerant, pro-Bush messages he has been touting so far. But he has to. Will he look sincere to defend positions he had denounced a year ago, two years ago, three years ago?

Based on the logic of bottomless pandering, Obama should have bleached his skin white and reconstruct his face to look like Reagan, and Hillary Clinton should have done a sex operation.

Pander-driven campaigns, otherwise known as poll-driven campaigns, seem to vex Democrats a lot more than Republicans. Republican candidates don't even bother to pander to blacks or pro-choice women or gays or university faculties, because they know it is not worth the time and resources to do so.

Perhaps the media have fun in plucking out "Which segments of Americans would not be pleased with the Democractic candidate?" Readers with a morbid curiosity and nothing better to do (like me) have fun reading such number crunching and dicing. To base one's game plan on polls and media chatters is ... well, just look at Gore and Kerry.

There seems to be difference between the placement of concern/attention/resources -- Does one focus on people who support himself (or herself) and try to expand the circle? Or does one focus on people who hate/dislike/resent/wouldn't-vote-for-you-with-a-gun-to-my-head and try to make them like you?

Ask Rove.

... when Washington Post is reporting on the torture policy devised by the Administration and provided by CIA expertise:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/18/BL2008061801546.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Will Americans ever be outraged by truly outrageous conduct of their elected officials?

Obama's biggest weakness is something he cannot control or change --- he is BLACK! BLACK BLACK BLACK! Why are you white people skirting around this obvious fact? "Older white voters" and "blue-collar white voters" feel they cannot trust him or vote for him because he is BLACK!

I am most curious about how much responsibility Bill Clinton should carry for the mess in her camp. Mark Penn wrecked a lot of things, yes, and I love to hate him, but I have to wonder --- Would Hillary have had a much easier time cleaning house quickly and early and running a more effective campaign if Bill had not meddled? I do not want to discount the importance of his stature and influence and connections, and he probably did it out of love, but looking back it just seems a bad idea to give your husband so much power in your business affairs. You can't fire him, especially someone like Bill.

They hem and haw all day about how neo-cons are bad and wrong, but two shoes are enough for them to feel sympathy for "The Decider." Spineless.

Now that he has shown his impeccable judgment on political affairs, should I bother to read his other articles on salon.com?

The more you explain, the more clueless you look. Stop.

... why liberals are shocked and fuming about Rick Warren. Obama has always been a centrist, like most other successful Democratic politicians in this country. Liberals have convinced themselves that he is on your side (because he is half black?). The reality is that no one who is "progressive," or on the left, can be elected to presidency or even Congress in today's social environment.

You liberals must get down to the grassroot and mold your own representatives, get them elected, and persuade the public to come to your side. You cannot sit there and project your wishful thinking onto the centrist politicians who come into power. Hiding in your little hut listening to Air America will not win support for your causes.

The reality is, you were not the key groups that got Obama elected. Winning Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana was what got him elected. If you don't carry enough votes to make or break politicians, you have nothing. You are nothing.

It is disingenuous to argue that Obama (or another Dem candidate) must pander to the left more than he must pander to the middle America. We all know NY, CA, MA would go blue in the general election. If liberals can come up with an ELECTABLE candidate, then by all means dump the centrist. If you want the politicians pander to you, come up with enough leverage.