I've always noticed the difference between my average Republican neighbors and me/like-minded friends: They are HAPPY with their representation; we are always wishing ours was more liberal. (I'm not speaking of Dennis here). Ever notice how Republicans running for national office run to the right? Try to sound war-like, tough on crime, stridently patriotic, anti-government?

NOW...Ever notice that Democrats running for national office run to the ....right (also)?? Sounding tough and war-like, ever so patriotic, etcetera? I have no freaking idea who's responsible for this--probably the media, which is corporate-owned after all--but nobody is out there representing truly liberal interests. Democratic pols know that we kind of don't have a choice and will vote for them anyway. (Especially after the Nader thing in 2000). Why doesn't this happen with Republicans? Why do they never run left and just understand that the base will have to vote for them anyway if they don't want someone from the opposing party? The answer is that Republican pols more closely match their base in some fundamental way, as Glenn says. It all boils down to the idea that the Republican party represents the powerful and the Democratic party is supposed to represent the powerless but by the time they have gotten into office and been there for a while, THEY THEMSELVES are now the powerful and their hearts--not to mention wallets--are no longer in it. It's hard and thankless work representing the powerless, and they just start giving in to their own self-interest. More than the Republicans, Democrats need to really keep electing fresh faces b/c it's just way too easy to start identifying with the rich once you're in office. That's why people like Teddy Kennedy and the late Paul Wellstone are frankly amazing. Somehow they keep their focus.

I managed to do both--watch my Tribe lose to Boston in a game where all the early breaks went to the Sox AND catch the FOX debate replay afterwards.

Apparently during the debate Republican polster Frank Luntz was monitoring a focus group whose reactions were eye-opening to me. It turns out all the participants of the focus group had sky-high positive emotional responses (not sure how that's measured, but he had a graph and everything) whenever one of the candidates attacked Hillary. When asked about that, I couldn't believe the misinformation these people spouted; they all think Hillary is a left-wing socialist type who hates the troops. One after the other got riled up all over again about the catastrophic horror that would be unleased if godforbid Hillary got elected--I think someone even invoked the world coming to an end, or at least "as we know it."

How can there be such a disconnect? How can any educated follower of politics in this country not know that Hillary is actually not left enough for the left-wing of the Democratic Party? I mean, I'm liberal on most issues and therefore mostly affiliated with Democrats, and I know who the centrists are in the Republican party. I know that McCain (until his probably temporary campaign-driven turn to right) is mostly seen as not religious or conservative enough for the right-wing base, hence his protestations to the contrary ("I'm the most conservative one on this stage.") I know that Rudy and Arnold (CA) are tolerable to us lefties b/c of their positions on social issues in about the same way that Lieberman is tolerable to righties. Why on Earth don't Fox focus group idiots know the same stuff? I guess I already know the answer--they're exclusively FOX viewers and Limbaugh listeners. Nothing new here, just another jolting reminder.

One more thing about that emotion poll that the (btw completely biased) Frank Luntz talked about. The only time the graph showed a strong downward dip--and it was dramatic, like a deep valley--was when McCain said that he respected Hillary and he wanted the debates with her to be on substantive issues and done respectfully. Apparently Republican primary voters, if those focus group people are any indication, would rather see a bloodbath.

about that doll study in the 50's--the one where all little girls, both black and white, preferred the white dolls. If we are naturally suspicious of OTHER, then why would the black girls prefer the white dolls? It seems that some kind of environmental influence was at play there.

Mostly I don't mind the notion that we are all walking around subconsciously thinking of ourselves as belonging to a particular group and seeing those outside the group as different and even untrustworthy until proven otherwise. This seems like a fundamental evolutionary concept. I agree that it would be nice if we could overcome it, somehow; I just don't find the notion wildly untenable.

I'm curious what my own responses to such a test would reveal. I consider myself thoroughly bias free, merely curious and observant. I suppose I, like most, would be surprised at my bias. I guess we can't all be like Stephen Colbert, who doesn't see skin color. :)