that you have to keep a certain distance from your clients. Lawyers, doctors, etc. understand this, so I wonder why these journalists don't. The fact is that friendship can easily cloud your judgement and these reporters, by allowing McCain to appear to make them his "friends" compromises their ability to ask tough questions, demand answers and report the truth about the candidate and his campaign. That's the whole point of what he was doing. This is elementary stuff to anyone who practices a profession.

But it's not just these reporters or the McCain campaign. Read Joan Didion's book of essays Political Fictions. She makes the point that, in every campaign, there are campaign insiders and everyone else is an outsider. As Tom Wolfe would say, you're either on the bus or your off the bus. Journalists reporting on the campaign are insiders and, as such, they scrupulously ignore things the campaign wants them to ignore, report the way the campaign wants them to report, deep-six embarrassing video footage, etc. To do otherwise, to let outsiders in on the joke, would instantly jeopardize their insider status. That's what happened to Reston and her sense of regret reflects her realization that she failed to properly understand the game she was playing. Her idea that she's there to ask real questions (however inconsequential) and get real answers is not so much confrontational as it is naive.

the Secret Service is extra vigilant and on its toes. Obama's not even in office and there've been two conspiracies (albeit incompetent ones) to kill him. The iconography of lynching in this case is lost on no one and can only encourage the racist crazies. Electing an African-American would be a huge step forward for this country; to have him killed while in office would rip a possibly unmendable hole in the already frayed fabric of our society.

stand in the way of the right wing's sense of victimization by the press? It is its own reward.

I hope they give you hardship pay.

how Derbyshire has embraced the new spirit of unity and shared purpose Obama talks about. It's great to see him realize that we're all in this together, that we sink or swim as one, e pluribus unum, and all that. Truly uplifting. But of course, I shouldn't be surprised. Thanks NRO.

but let's not lose sight of the fact that he may well be right. Like so many, I fervently want to believe that Obama will be the agent of change this country so desperately needs. But then I look at his advisers and potential cabinet appointees and I see Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin. I hear that Robert Gates will continue as Defense Secretary and I see that Rahm Emmanuel is his Chief of Staff. I note that he voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act and for telecom amnesty, promises to ramp up defense spending generally and the war in Afghanistan specifically, continue unchanged our Israeli policy, actively oppose single-payer health, support free-trade agreements, the war on drugs, etc. And I wonder what he's going to change. Yes, he'll be a big improvement over George W. Bush, but is that really enough? Not for me it isn't. His vow to be "bipartisan" sounds a lot more like Joe Lieberman than like FDR. I hope I'm wrong, but these are the facts as I find them.

As to others on this thread who inform us that Ralph Nader is irrelevant or worse, think again. The fact is that, in his lifetime, Ralph Nader has done more for everyday Americans than anyone alive. And the fact that a progressive like Ralph can't seem to pry supposedly liberal or progressive voters away from DLC wunderkinds like Clinton and Obama says a lot more about those voters than it does about Ralph. It says they sell their liberal/progressive principles cheaply - like, for nothing. And of course, Nader continues to work for all of us every day of every week through his many 401(c)(3) organizations.

But who'd notice that?

Did you actually read what I posted? If so, what does my description of Nader's remark as "disgraceful" mean to you? And if you don't know what Nader's done for you lately, look it up. The internet gives you ready access to his various 501(c)(3) organizations.

It's easy to have an opinion and only slightly harder to have an informed one. You should try it sometime.

No. I did no such thing. I called Nader's remark disgraceful. That's what I meant and that's what I said. Period. What I also said was that Obama may not be the agent of change everyone is fantasizing about. That is at least an arguable point and it's the one Nader was making. The point is not objectionable. The Uncle Tom remark was a bad and unnecessary way to make a valid point. There. Understand? It's simple really.

Nest time read and comprehend before posting.