You wrote: Could voting for a white president somehow mean supporting the advancement of blacks?

Absolutely. A vote for FDR, Harry Truman, or Lyndon Johnson was absolutely a vote for the advancement of blacks. Are you really so ignorant of the achievements of those presidents, or so bound up in identity politics that you can't grasp that? By the same token, I would argue that voting for a reactionary black politician would likely mean a step back for most black people. Since when is it all about skin color or gender?

As for family and name recognition, most of the time it works that way for men too. Do you think it's some accident that George W. Bush, Al Gore, and many others are from the privileged classes?

I would obviously agree with you that at least up to this point, sexism has been a major factor in preventing this pattern of promotion with women, but it's only part of the equation.

Hillary tried to triangulate in her Senate record - following the same pattern Bill did as president - but lo and behold, the game changed. She was outflanked on the left by an exceptionally talented candidate. Liberals were in an anti-establishment mood this year. She lost fair and square, and it does not logically follow that it dooms women's chances forever. Good grief.

And if warrantless wiretapping and surveillance happen to yield useful information about domestic dissident groups, all the better. That, of course, is the real reason behind the urgent "need" for no meaningful oversight, war hysteria notwithstanding.

Here's a link to an interesting article that appeared in my local alt-weekly regarding FBI attempts to infiltrate peace and/or protest groups at the upcoming Republican National Convention. I realize this is not precisely germane to the issue of warrantless wiretapping, but it's part and parcel of the same: the national security state and its very deliberate attempt to put a chilling effect on free speech and association.

http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/

I know this is pure snark, but I can't resist. Seeing McCain's forced smile/grimace on TV kept reminding me of something or someone, and then I finally realized what it was: he's the Abominable Snowman from the old Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer animation show that airs every Christmas.

I learned from a smart economist a long time ago never to believe what people say about the economy. His contention was always that, if consumers have the wherewithal to spend, then they WILL spend, even if they don't say that to pollsters. Such is the splendor of the dismal science.

I'm against sloppy economic quick fixes (like the stimulus checks) because they effectively substitute for long-term, sound policy. They're little more than bread and circuses. I certainly acknowledge that the inflation in energy and food costs are a burden for the very poor (an expanded earned income credit would be a good idea to target that group), but the fact is that many Americans can, and ought, to pay more for these commodities.

You make an excellent point about the unscrupulousness of most politicians: that they'll say or do anything to get back into power.

However, I don't think politicians' hypocrisy diminishes the principles articulated in the Tories' recent statements; rather, it gives the public and the press ammunition in case those Tories get elected and then try and backtrack.

I think you'd see a similar movement on the right here in the U.S. should Obama be elected. That is, they'll immediately start complaining about the evils of the imperial presidency, and contradict most or all of the arguments they were making when Bush was in office. Moreover, I doubt the Democrats will want to give up the extravagant powers Bush has garnered for the office.

The only solution I see to preventing civil liberties from being used in such a cynical way by all politicians is to develop a robust constituency for the rule of law in the U.S. You'd think, given our nation's history, that this would be a no-brainer, but as the last several years have taught us, citizenship courses are in dire need of revitalization.

A telling anecdote: just recently I had a conversation with a smart young woman who is almost finished with her B.A. When the conversation turned to civil liberties, she didn't even understand that warrants are normally required for the government to eavesdrop. Scary.

The only silver lining I can see is that, should Obama be elected - a possibility that appears more likely to me every day - you can bet that the Republicans will immediately start to decry the powers of the Executive branch and will soon begin to denounce the new administration's boundless and oversight-free discretion with respect to warrantless wiretapping. Suddenly, the Bill of Rights - missing for the last seven years - will be dusted off and hauled out of its undisclosed location.

Maybe then there'll be a chance to rescind warrantless wiretapping by act of Congress. It seems that only bills approved by Republicans ever get passed in that body, regardless of who's actually in power.

Glenn, you just don't understand. To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. As long as those eggs are of the foreign (or foreign-sounding) and generally non-white variety, really, what's the bother?

Our Dear Leader in Washington - with the able assistance of dedicated shock worker legal scholars like John Yoo - is helping us build a glorious future free of the terrible burden of thinking about all this stuff. Everyone is created equal (though some more equal than others) and we have always been at war with Eurasia.

Why can't you just get on the bus?