These four races were more cherry-picked than Bush's Iraq War intelligence and just as biased.

Strickland/Blackwell is hardly a convincing case as Blackwell, though black, played a prominent role in suppressing the black vote in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

Steele/Cardin is equally flawed. Blackwell and Steele were black REPUBLICANS in a year in which Republicans were decimated across the board.

Healey/Patrick is problematic for the argument as well. It completely ignores the fact that Healey is female, which could have been a factor. The final numbers fell either within the margin of error of the polls or were not off by much.

Ford/Corker ignores the fact that the numbers fall within the margin of error. Tennessee also has some peculiarities. West Tennessee is "Blue", East Tennessee is bright red, and Middle Tennessee is purple (or more like a red circle around blue Nashville). There were voting issues in Memphis. And Ford was seriously hampered by the fact that his father and uncles have been involved in serious ethical scandals. While voters in West Tennessee know their Fords apart, I am not convinced that my neighbors in East Tennessee could separate Harold Ford, Jr from his father and uncles who all faced corruption scandals. Tennessee is also the one of the brightest of red states. Tennessee is the heart of the Bible Belt and the birthplace of the KKK. The culture war arguments that fell flat in most of the nation still resonated here in 2006 (and 2008). Corker and the Republicans also ran the most shameless campaign in the nation in 2006. Remember this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAgUvJWijag ?

This was a flawed argument by an admitted partisan and had no place on Salon. I don't mind seeing the opposing view on the pages of Salon. The willingness to listen to both sides of an argument is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. However, the "opposing view" should meet certain bare minimum factual/methodological criteria before being hoisted upon readers. Mr. Greener's article failed that test.

1. 5 pecentage points

2. 380

3. 32

4. 8

5. Murtha

6. Tinklenburg

7. Martin

8. Franken

9. Hagan

Tie-breaker 9:11 PM

Palin's refusal to say for whom she voted was in response to the question "Did you vote for Ted Stevens?"

What does the success of Prop 8 really say? Is a repudiation of gay people?

I do not think that it is. I think that there is a backlash in this country right now against the courts making these decisions for the people. Connecticut is a good example. The state deliberated the issue and came to the conclusion that, while civil rights for ALL Americans are important, it was not necessary to redefine marriage (essentially a religious institution) to preserve those rights. The court overturned the will of the people on a flimsy legal argument. I would have voted in favor of Prop 8 had I lived in California (although I did vote against a similar measure in Tennessee in 2004 because of the language of the measure which crossed into more questionable Constitutional territory).

Note to gay activists: Stop comparing yourselves to black people. It doesn't help you. It hurts you, badly. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Dred Scott. The comparison is as laughable as Palin's claims of being an "energy expert", perhaps more so. Being in a relationship called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is nothing compared to being told that no, you are not a person, but are the property of another person and sent back to slavery where you could be beaten, raped or killed at the whim of your owner. The fact that gay people are comparing a situation where their civil are fully protected (civil unions) and the only distinction is a semantic one recognizing the fact that marriage is historically a religious institution to a situation where people were told that they are only 3/5ths of a person, were the proerty of another person, had to ride at the back of the bus or use a seperate drinking fountain is not only laughable but insulting.

Sorry about the poor proofreading in the last post. Hit Publish instead of Preview. :(

No, gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage. There are fundamental differences between the two and if you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then there isn't any point in talking about it. Having suffered through 8 years of disdain for the "reality-based communtiy", I don't have the patience left to argue with brick walls.

As for the courts, I speculated that a reaction to the unelected judges making these decisions directly against the will of the electorate could have been a factor. I did not say that I was necessarily opposed to judicial intervention. At times it is necessary. Personally, I don't feel that a semantic distinction rises to the level that merits judicial intervention.

This is not a human rights issue. It is a semantic issue.

Your smoke and mirrors attack on my advice to gay activists was a cute attempt, but my repudiation of the attempt to draw comparisons between Dred Scott and a semantic distinction was unaffected by your substitution of intermarriage for the civil rights atrocities that were committed against black people in this nation.

While I disagree with you that gay marriage and interracial marriage are the same issue, I will say that a comparison to interracial marriage is as far down the civil rights road as gay activists should take the comparison. To take it any further than that or to try and draw comparisons to the horrors inflicted on generations of black people in this country is dishonest and insulting.