You have repeatedly presented as accepted truth that the Obama campaign was behind the Bradley effect claims. Do you have any evidence to prove that? I'd really like it if you did, and if you don't, I'd really like it if you stopped simply assuming it's fact. I bring this up b/c at the time, I was furious as an Obama supporter that it got brought up. I knew that he was trying to transcend the race thing, that he didn't want to be portrayed as the "black candidate." This was truly the first time race was brought into the campaign, to my recollection.

I've mentioned it before at least a few times and I think it bears repeating: It was the polsters themselves who pushed the idea of the Bradley effect. Go back and search everywhere you can. You'll see that they came out in full force--syndicated editorials, guests on talk shows and radio shows--they were everywhere. It's hardly worth pointing out why: their entire reputation was at stake. It COULDN'T be that the polls themselves were wrong, they seemed to say, it must be the racist voters.

Also, you mention double standards. Well, how about this one? Chris Matthews was forced to apologize publicly for saying the parallel to what Ferraro said: He suggested something along the line that Hillary only got to where she was b/c of Bill or something. (Maybe it was more crass than that? Something about being cuckholded?) Nevertheless, the gist was the same: she got here for reasons other than her own merit. I seem to remember Hillary supporters were simply overcome with outrage. And the Chelsea remark! And the Power remark! The Clinton outrage forced quick dispatches of the parties responsible for those remarks. And Cleveland's debate was held hostage by the Clinton campaign b/c it was sponsored by NBC. I merely ask: Why are the Clintons allowed to be outraged but the Obamas not so much?

I said to my husband after Ferraro's first remarks--Well, what she says is partially true, but of course she said it to inflame or diminish, which is not nice. But I like her spunk, and I wouldn't mind her message if she were forced to answer some similar tough questions about her own candidate. But her defiance, her total unwillingness to accept that she had thrown a bomb FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT TO DENIGRATE is just beyond me. And then she came out with her childish "Well, now I'm the victim b/c I'm white, so there" (or similar), which only made her look foolish (but imo still managed to benefit the Clinton campaign b/c of all the "soft" racists out there who speak the language of umbrage at reverse discrimination). The thing that most got me was her own outrage at his outrage. WTF? This is as Orwellian as it gets. She throws a bomb and she acts the victim. Too, too much.

(see Scott Bateman's video dog for the Geraldine thing--that's what I'm trying to say here about her "victimization.")

For everyone who has pointed out the "racism" of the 90% black vote in Mississippi or grudgingly suggested that blacks vote for Obama b/c he's black...

The only thing I can say, and it's so f-ing true it'll take your breath away:

Barack Obama didn't have the black vote. He wasn't black enough, remember? Hillary Clinton had the black vote from the start. Hillary Clinton LOST the black vote. Forget the history books--this is so obvious it doesn't need the gelling time before we see it's true. This is already conventional wisdom.

I guess I'd better go to bed. Looking forward to all your responses in the morning, barring a shiny new sex scandal that diverts everybody's attention.

You say you struggled to find an analogy to Clinton and came up with Nixon. You wanna hear something funny?

I had a thoughtful talk with my husband about how we are really turned off by the Clinton campaign, its focus on the political rather than the substantive, its desire to do anything to get elected, the party and the principles be damned. Anyway, I am always determined to consider every side, and I offered that maybe it's true that b/c she's a woman, she needs to be tougher in some way than a man, that there's sexism involved somehow either in her need to run her campaign that way or in our/everyone's negative interpretation of it. He said, no, he's sure he hates this whole kind of campaign, so I challenged him, "Well, what man have we hated that has campaigned this way?" and he immediately came up with Karl Rove, to which I said, "yeah, but he wasn't the candidate. Give me a candidate who's been an overly political animal." He thought a minute and said, "Bill Clinton."

I love the way you think.