GETS mean? When hasn't he been? I can't remember a single speech he's made, ever since Palin's balloon burst, that hasn't ranged somewhere between nasty and outright vicious. Most, in my opinion, have either bordered on race baiting... or crossed that line entirely. And, speaking of mean, what's meaner than implying that his middle and Muslim-sounding name makes him dangerous... when you remember that McCain's OWN DAUGHTER IS FROM A MUSLIM COUNTRY? Is there, moreover, ANYONE out there naive enough to believe that the 11th hour ads about Rev Wright were actually produced WITHOUT the campaign's knowledge and secret nod? It's time we stopped pussy-footing around and called McCain on what has been one of the most dishonest, deceitful and disgracefully racist campaigns in recent memory. SHAME ON YOU, SENATOR.

Maybe you can't be hypnotized but you sure can be brainwashed. You have bought all the BS McCain/Palin have been selling. If your concerned about mind control try THIS for a read:

http:/velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove

The manipulation of the vote-and the voters and the subversion of the democratic process is despicable. AND remember this is the same group of thugs that are running the McCAin campaign.

cabdriver, et al.,

The reason I didn't include the European socialist states in my litany of vile socialist regimes of the twentieth century is that our modern Euro "friends" are a unique brand of socialism and are not fully functioning "socialist" regimes per se. France, Germany, Norway, Italy, Spain, the UK, etc. are free-riders of sorts (well not even of sorts, they are pure and simple), because European socialist institutions are provided on the backs of both the taxpayers of the respective states of which we speak, and by the US Taxpayer, which I've written about elsewhere. You see, Europeans don't provide for adequate defense, and so they count on the USA to keep the world safe, and keep trade flowing freely worldwide. If Europeans had to invest in their military the way we in the US do, they'd have no money left for public healthcare, etc. All this notwithstanding, Europeans, for all their market strength, suffer much higher unemployment then we in the US do, and the health care in most European systems is far less capable than the one we have here in the US, not that ours doesn't need some tweak'n here and there, but that last thing we need is to give our woefully inept Federal Govt control over that industry. Next time you go to a Social Security Administration Office, or are audited by the IRS, think about how bad public healthcare can be. Then multiply by 10. The problem is that someone has to take up the slack for the free-riders in the world, and someone has to keep the bellicose actors of the world in check. If we move too much toward socialism on the European model, there will be no "go-to" player. And by the way, I think the currant "Bail-out" is a travesty. Far better would it have been to take Franklin Rein's money from him -- all $90 million -- and the scandalous millions stolen by others like him, and then shame them publicly, even if we can't prosecute for criminal action. Same holds true for Barney Frank, and the rest of 'em -- all the duplicitous actors involved in this finacial mess. Democrats and Republicans alike, though more Dems seem to have been involved. Oh yes, Obama's one of 'em!

I'm sorry, but the racial double-standard is really getting beyond the limits of human endurance.

Over and over and over and over again, blacks have voted in a totally RACIST manner for Barack Obama. We saw it in the South Carolina primaries, where people with black skin voted for the black Obama in 90% of the cases.

But has there been ANY instance where 90% of the WHITES voted against Obama? So who is really more RACIST? Blacks or whites?

And if it is OK for blacks to openly and enthusiastically support a candidate because he has black skin, then why is it "racist" for whites to support a candidate because he has white skin?

In truth, this is not really about skin color, it is about a LOT of other things that nobody wants to talk about: Affirmative action (black preference for jobs, contracts and college admissions), integrated schools (that most whites don't want), integrated neighborhoods (that most whites don't want), etc.

Is a person a "racist" for not wanting blacks to move into his neighborhood when said blacks almost inevitably bring increased crime, gangs, and drug use?

Is a person a "racist" for not wanting their child to go to an integrated school because integrated schools in many cases are filled with gangs, rappers, and 15 year olds who can't read (and don't want to learn)?

Why do white people have a Christ-like responsibility to uplift black people?

The ascension of Obama ironically may bring the destruction of the Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights movement. After all, if we now have a black president, where is the evidence of "discrimination"?

Nowadays, when you have a black president, and a black Oprah (worth 2.5 billion), can you really make a strong case why blacks should get any special help?

I'm white, but I'm not the President of the United States, like Obama might be, nor do I have anywhere near 2.5 billion dollars, like Oprah. So why am I supposed to be helping black people so much? Let Oprah and Obama help black people. Out of THEIR OWN pockets. That's the way every other ethnic group in this country works.

Personally, I think that it is time to say that the Civil Rights era is OVER. Time to dismantle all that crap and go back to America totally ignoring race.

To summarize, there is more to the "racial" argument than just the color of Obama's skin. There is power, there is job preferences, there is money, there is Jeremiah Wright, there is Louis Farrakhan, there is Tony Rezko, there is Acorn, there is Jessie Jackson, there is Al Sharpton, there is the Chicago Democratic Machine, there is Ayers and Doran. There are A LOT of factors that haven't been thoroughly discussed or thoroughly vetted.