Granted its to be hoped that the element of people who would never vote for a black person are the same as those who'd never vote for a democrat anyway but I tell you it's probably a lot more than 15%.

The problem is of course the soft-racism of self denial. How many people out there are racist BUT don't like to think of themselves that way? These are the people who could vote black JUST to prove to themselves they are not racist IF the right-wing makes a big deal out of it. In other words if the right-wing attack machine makes people feel like they are voting against Obama just because he is black, there could be an unintended backlash.

Conservatives rail against what they themselves do so I had just assumed McCain was an influence peddler.

Do we really want the gov't to protect us from feeling uncomfortable in public?

If HRC wants to keep running because she thinks she can win, thats fine, but there are two things I don't understand.

1. She points out the Obama can't 'close the deal' as if this somehow points out his unsuitability for office, which would be a brilliant argument IF she wasn't the person, he is beating in every category. Whats up with that? I mean, if we accept her reasoning, if he is unsuitable for not beating her decisively enough, isn't she even more unsuitable for TRAILING such an unsuitable candidate?

2. HRC supporters point out that a very important dynamic in the campaign is that HRC is beating Obama in the large swing states, reasoning that Obama can't win the general election if he can't win those states. My question is why does Obama losing those states to HRC, equate to Obama not being able to win those states if he were running against McCain?

You know perfectly well that a poll showing people won't vote for the other candidate if the other candidate is the nominee is useless 7 months from now. Now people are energized for their candidate. Once this is over, IF the losing candidate fully endorses the winner and works to get out the vote, it shouldn't be a problem come Nov.

How can HRC attack Obama for his shortcomings in the primaries when he is beating her? I mean if you bought any of her arguments that "Obama is a weak candidate because..." wouldn't the following logic be that she is even worse since he is beating her?

I can see Repubs making these arguments about Obama, but for the person whom Obama is beating to argue that he is weak for not beating her decisively enough is just stupid.

Bottom line is MANY religious leaders condemn the population of the U.S. EVERY sunday! Rev. Wright is no more or less offensive than all the other ministers telling us we're all going to hell.

Now here is the tricky part. IF you find Rev. Wright really objectionable but have never thought about all the others who say similar things, then the problem is not with Rev. Wright or Obama, but with you.

This is similar to the OJ trial. People enraged he got off, but these people were not enraged by the multitude of innocent black people historically and currently incarcerated or executed.

I would like to note that I personally do find Rev. Wright offensive but no more so than I find any other religious leader. And as well I do think OJ was guilty but to me its just another sad chapter in this country's sad excuse for a justice system.

Yep, I'd sure hate for the president to be learned, well-read, intelligent, familiar with the world around him or her, as well as curious about it, and be able to interact with the leaders of the world with out making a complete embarrassing laughing stock of our country by saying something completely inappropriate like, oh say, "Awesome speech" to the pope as you pass each other on the stage, like the pope just popped an awesome wheelie.

Glenn you hit it right on the head when you said the blog entry was the most revealing thing. This line "it's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking" makes it absolutely clear that Mr. Williams is not a journalist as much as he is in marketing. He's a salesman.

Objective journalism is not targeted to a group of readers, or viewers.

The realists are deciding that the ongoing fight damages the eventual nominee. Fastest way to end it is to back Obama since he is the leader. Though I'm sure there are some who are also unhappy with the way HRC has run her campaign

Before you get excited about this, based on my own experiences working for do-gooder type non-profit organizations: Its all about the funding. Maybe at the beginning there was a genuine desire and effort to do something about drunk driving. However after a while, you make a name for your org, you have a staff, budgets, and it gets to the point that you exist merely to fund-raise in order to keep on going. Orgs like this will constantly be grasping at stupid straws because they need something to put in their fund raising appeals and to keep their names in the news so they stay on the radar.

Thats all this is.

Did anyone really think the govt of any party was NOT going to provide protection for major corporations?

...About the theory that ONE of the reasons (note I said 'one') women don't have pay parity with men is because they are not as competitive. I don't believe that that is the only reason or even a major reason, but it is something to think about.