There will be no one on stage to help McCain when the going gets tough and Obama will have no problem winning every debate.

Gore handily won every debate versus Bush in the 2000 election and yet the MSM spun it the other way.

Until Americans are weaned from the MSM, it will be an uphill battle to get them to see plain truth in front of their faces.. The MSM reality distortion field is simply too powerful.

You're right, he didn't say Palestinian. But I think it would be disingenuous to assume that he did not know that the comment would be taken to encompass Palestinians as well as other groups. He is too able a speaker to leave such a loose thread, without some advantage. Surely, if he wants to counter that sentiment, he could have said something by now. But even GWB has a better record on pro-Palestinian issues. Obama, being of color, is probably even more scared than the average Democrat to come out with a pro-Palestinian comment.

I also want to emphasize that its not the biggest issue for me. I do have family there, the unfairness of the issue, the complete offensive disregard Americans show for Palestinians, the utter injusticce of it, makes my blood boil. But I'd be a fool to be voting on that issue given the stakes and the unanimity on the Democrat and Republican sides.

The Salon readers don't just disagree with conservatives and Republicans; they seek to villainize them.

Ever heard the phrase "draft dodging, dope smoking, commie-pinko librul"?

I bet you don't own a mirror, self reflection just ain't your bag.

...Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

The timing of this famous remark is significant. Churchill won the war, but in the election of July 1945, he was defeated. At the time I thought the public showed gross ingratitude, but I am willing to accept the interpretation that Churchill was not the man to organize the peace.

When the news came out, Churchill was taking a bath (was there ever a statesman who spent more time in the bath?) He remarked "They have a perfect right to kick me out. That is democracy". When he was offered the Order of the Garter, he asked "Why should I accept the Order of the Garter, when the British people have just given me the Order of the Boot?".

He returned to power in 1951. The remark about democracy was made when he had lost power and had every reason to be bitter. Fortunately he kept his sense of humor even in the most trying circumstances.

http://wais.stanford.edu/Democracy/democracy_DemocracyAndChurchill(090503).html

It is about the criminalization of its opponents. The Salon readers don't just disagree with conservatives and Republicans; they seek to villainize them. Salon readers don't want a 'unifying' figure any more than they want a 'moderate.' If Salon wanted a moderate, it would have supported people like Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Instead, those two moderates are now the special hate objects of the Salon readership. Because they are among the greatest threats to hold back any real movement to the left. Obama isn't a 'unifying' figure in any sense other than that he deftly bridges two faithfully liberal demographics; white academic elites and urban blacks. What unites them? Their liberalism. And I wasn't the first to say that; Glenn Greenwald pretty much said it for me.

You sound like one of Tom DeLay's old constituents. If he's convicted, and I hope he is, he is a criminal. We want to marginalize you. You belong back on the fringe with the rest of them. That's democracy. Sometimes you just don't fit. Change or die. Adapt or become extinct. Moderate your politics. There is nothing moderate about your politics. Or Lieberman's or McCain's.

I wonder if Clinton will go on record as saying the same.

...this was a bit of hyperbole. Perhaps you missed, this tulip from Obama...

I basically agree with you and others that this passage was conspicuous in its inclusion, as though it really didn't belong with the rest of the speech. At the same time, I'm not sure that it's cynical -- it very well might be reflective of what Obama thinks.

There is, in one sense, some bad dog whistles in that paragraph -- but if you look at what he really said, he said that most of the conflict in the Middle East originates with radical Muslims, not with Israel. Disagreeing with that view isn't the same as proving that Obama doesn't really believe that. He might very well believe it.

Obama has a history of pretty aggressively disputing smears against him by emphasizing the reverse. I criticized him for that flier he circulated in South Carolina emphasizing what a "Committed Christian" he was, but many Obama supporters and others here defended it as necessary to combat the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" whispering campaign.

More than anything, that's how I saw the Israel/Islam paragraph -- as a means of combating the patently false (and potentially devastating) smear that Obama is anti-Semitic or at least hostile towards Israel. It's only "pandering" if he doesn't believe what he said.

Don't know if he specifically meant Palestinians as he meant OBL and Al Qaeda, which is really no better. It's still a lie. And yeah, he panders to nobody, except for a little wink to the lobby in the most important speech he's ever given.

The Salon readers don't just disagree with conservatives and Republicans; they seek to villainize them. --Aycharaych quoting someone else

No, we disagree. The conservatives and Republicans have "villainized" themselves, more than ably.

I hope Hillary and McCain both have the decency and common sense to publicly and loudly applaud Obama's speech on race today. What do they have to lose? Really. What?? And there is so much to gain from inviting this level of discourse about race into the political culture of this country--the main important cultural arena where dialogue about race is either non-existent or of 12 year old mentality.

As someone who grew up in the evangelical community, I am fuming at the pass the press has given to the pastors who are mentoring George Bush. Think of Billy Graham, whom Bush credits with his conversion experience. He was as intimate a pastor as any in so many presidents' terms. Billy Graham's religion on the surface is about love, but without much scratching at all you find all the hate: his God, after all, is the one who damns TO HELL anyone who doesn't see things pretty nearly exactly the way HE (never "she") sees them, which means pretty much most of the HOMOSEXUALS (certainly all who might actually be enjoying their sexuality) and ALL earnest Muslims, Mormans, MOST Catholics (etc.) will spend eternity separated in hell -- far far away from the precious elite club of evangelicals who make it to heaven. Is this not an incredibly obvious portrayal of hate??? Is it not as bad as glorifying someone who wants to bomb some part of the geographical entity we call America?? Who would embrace this hateful, narcisstic God?? Let's hear about how Bush deals with THESE influences in his politics.