Any politician that accepts the support of an individual and/or organization to the level that John McCain did Hagee and doesn't at least do a cursory investigation of what they support is considerably more inept than John McCain.

Doing those sorts of investigations is one of the things McCain has a staff for.. The political implications have long since been gamed out in the McCain organization. They know that white right wing hatemongers are just more common and hence less scary than black lefty ones.

I have no realistic expectation that a comment this far down the pile will get read, but I'll make it anyway.

Glenn, re: Update V, right on! And the heck with it being about blocking a McCain presidency, it's a general principle: Attack! Attack and don't look back and don't stop to defend except as you use it as a basis for renewed attack.

Some years ago, during some Supreme Court confirmation battle, I said to a friend that the nominee should be rejected on their political stands "because if they can be nominated on that basis, they can be opposed on that basis." My friend said we should judge only on "qualifications" because we had to be "better than they are." I replied with the story of the farmer and the mule. If you recall the story, skip the italicized text following.

A farmer watched with amusement as a man struggled to get a stubborn mule to move.

"You're doing it all wrong," he said. "You gotta talk to 'em gentle-like."

"Okay, show me," replies the frustrated man.

The farmer walks up to the mule, picks up a 2 x 4, and smacks the mule a good one upside the head.

"What are you doing?" cries the man. "I thought you said you have to be gentle!"

"You do," said the farmer. "But you gotta get their attention first."

We don't have to be and should not be deceitful but we do have to be stubborn, aggressive, and prepared to be impolite. The right wing will screech and moan about how "uncivil" we're being, but our answer needs to be that they have no business complaining when other people play by the rules they set down.

For decades, the right has been counting on us being too polite to do so. It's time we proved them wrong.

You left off my fave: Versace. RIP. Unfortunately his sis has never had his verve.

The only thing I have against gay guys: I always fall for them. Thank you for the tourist guide. Now maybe I can spot some of them before my heart is involved.

In the battle of the churches, the spoils are the undecideds, not the true believers. Do you really think McCain would gain from attacking, when Obama is smart enough to turn it back on him?

I'm curious though...why does Shelby Steele (I haven't read his book) think that Obama can't "have it both ways"?

Every candidate has a background or "roots" that he brings with him to the white house. With Kennedy it was Irish catholics...with Bush it is rich oil men...I think that the danger would be if that candidate "only" represents this group that he is part of. (And still it didn't stop Bush...but that is getting off topic).

Maybe people have been wrong in seeing Obama as post-racial. This is my highly unscientific p.o.v. on that. I see Jesse Jackson as more of a racial leader...with strong roots in the African American community. I like and admire Jesse Jackson. I see Colin Powell, Condi Rice as "post-racial." Because they are who they are in a way that seems unrelated, for lack of a better word, to their race. I don't mean to be unfair to them. They might have more private roots in the African American community but they don't wear these roots on their sleeve. They are post-racial.

Obama to me is "post-post-racial" because he has kept his place in his church, his roots with the African community unhidden in comparison with Rice or Powell. More like any other candidate with roots in any other community...that he's proud of but recognizes are not all that he is. Maybe the media chose to overlook his pride in his community, but he did write a book, his first book, about how important this identity is to him. It has always seemed to be a central part of his message in his speeches to me. That we are one country one nation...but that he is the son of two cultures, both of which are important to him, and he brings both sensibilities into his point of view.

I hope that Shelby is wrong. At some point Obama or someone like him, with roots in the African American community will be able to run for president and to have it both ways, because this is, I think, also the only way that an African American can win. As a Democrat, African Americans are part of the loyal Democratic voting base. The question is whether he can bring together African American and working class voters--and I don't mean to be overly optimistic, but I think he can. But I don't think he will win Pennsylvania...I'm not sure if this is because working class voters don't like him, or just that they like Hillary Clinton better. I tend to think the latter.

What a strange country we are. Patriotism is still such a big deal to people, maybe more so than almost anywhere else in the world, and yet glibly, so many people claim in almost the same breath, "we are a racist country."

This is as good of a time as any for us as a country to grow and to change. Is this the only thing that Obama's candidacy represents? I don't think so. But Greenwald's article linking the attitude of conservatives toward enemies (threatened tribalism) with racism is intelligent. I don't think that avoiding the problem of racism is something that we can afford to do much longer. But is this "all" that his candidacy represents? No. I think that health care and the Iraq war are just as important to Obama and his supporters as they were before the Reverend Wright story hit the media.

Maybe I'm missing something in Steele's thesis though. And it is interesting about Oprah. Maybe Reverend Wright's sermons were a little too sexist for her? But there still are many members of that church who have said that the sermon clips played do not accurately sum up all that Wright is and has been in their church. I tend to believe that there is something to that argument.