Knowing how badly Obama wants to be president, it wouldn't surprise me at all, if Obama's dyeing it grey to appear more presidential. Ain't nothing but a "move"....

Oh, boo hoo, Hutman cussed at me! I'm having the vapors, I tell you! Somebody grab me a chair!

Fuckwit.

When I say people, I don't mean YOU. I know this may be surprising, but even I am known to generalize. Almost anyone here who has supported Clinton has been subject to disgusting charges or implications of racism at some time or another. Often, when Clinton supporters have admitted racism exists, they have been implicated as being one of the racists, and, when they say that it is not really racism that affects outcomes for Obama, they have been told that they are in denial because they don't recognize their own racism. Either way, racism has been used as a cudgel in argument. That is why I provided a link in my post as an example of where it was being done only yesterday to me.

You didn't bother to read or address that link.

So to reiterate, when I say "people," I don't mean YOU. When I say it has happened and YOU say you didn't see it, you have not actually provided a rebuttal -- especially when you go out of your way not to "see" it.

Unless you are GOD Hutman and can be everywhere at once, you are not privy to all exchanges at Salon.

Most of what you said to me amounts to ridicule and not argument. That you are clever does not make you substantive.

Fluff like this is why I'm reading Salon less and less every day. This story maybe deserved to be a one-line mention in a 'daily roundup' feature (like the ones on Carpetbagger).

I'm becoming convinced that the content here is no longer worth the subscription cost.

Xanadu Hutman makes an elaborate and mostly effective rebuttal to "AKA Smith" but torpedoes the post in the very first sentence (I won't dignify the sobriquet gratuitously applied to AKA SMITH by reprinting it). I would merely point out that most readers actually DO have the ability to sift the rants from the reasoned arguments and I hope that bloggers on this site would confine themselves to advancing the discourse rather than calling names. Salon is starting to get rather tiresome in that way. It ought to be a respectable alternative to the Washington Post, but Greenwald's antagonism notwithstanding, The Post is simply doing a better job and attracting more prescient commentary. Let's try to keep the debate as vigorous and enlightening as the reporting on this site and leave the polemicists to stew in their own vitriol.

As Drachen and others have pointed out, the "gray" pics do not show a man's hair turning gray, but combinations of an overexposed photo, bright outdoor lighting, and shiny hair.

Hre's the mystery unraveled:

1. Obama's hair is cut very short, and its wiry. This lets more of his scalp show, which gets shiny when he perspires.

2. Obama's hair (like many people of African ancestry) isn't as porous as straight hair, so when any kind of hair product is applied, it tends to get more sheen. This usually isn't noticable in "regular" situations, but under bright lights, you can see the "bounce" of the light off the hair. (This is sometimes a challenge in my profession, where actors are under bright lights, and finding a truly "matte" hair spray can be difficult).

3. No only is Obama's hair "gray" in these pics, but his face is ashen, and his dark suit is bleached gray.

4. Drachen provided a helpful close-up photo that shows Obama with mostly black hair, but with a few individual strands of gray threaded in.

This story is silly.

It's the light, not the hair.....In the two where he appears to be graying, he's in bright outdoor lightthat is flattening, lightening color. In the other two, he's indoors.

AKA Smith: "People are not allowed to suggest:"

You're such a fuckwit, AKA. People are "allowed" to say whatever they want. Just don't expect people not to argue with you. There's a big difference between arguing with you and telling you what you're allowed to do. Do you understand the distinction? Disagreement is not censorship, unless you have an incredibly thin skin, which apparently you do.

AKA Smith: "1. Obama might lose."

Nobody has said that you can't suggest this. I think it is entirely obvious that Obama might lose -- just like it is obvious that a high-rated sports team might lose anyway, or that the health benefits of eating anti-oxidants might be marginal. Or whatever. Who has ever given you a hard time for making this statement? I think you're exaggerating.

AKA Smith: "2. That Obama's moves to the left are wrong."

You mean "moves to the right"? Or do you have some confusion between right and left? Remember -- you WRITE with your RIGHT hand (unless you're one of them funny left-handed people).

AKA Smith: "3. That Obama's broken promises show a lack of integrity. (FISA)"

Awwww, Obama "bwoke a pwomise." You make it sound so infantile, like he personally lied to you. It may or may not be a matter of "integrity." You are welcome to make this statement, though, and we shall see whether it's true or not. I am welcome to disagree with you, and I think Obama made a decision based on a number of factors, including a simple "choose your battles" calculation and the fact that a filibuster would put him in direct conflict with some of his senior Democratic supporters. I think when/if president, Obama is going to reform the FISA laws and bring things back around to line them up with Constitutional principles, but hey, I could be wrong. But I think that's what will happen. It won't be overnight....there are 8 years of Bush crap to unravel here.

AKA Smith: "4. That he is in anyway non-authentic."

Aren't you supposed to be an English expert or something? Because "anyway" is not used that way. It's "any way." Do you also spell "a lot" as "alot"? Anyway, (I used it correctly there) Obama could be inauthentic somehow, but this isn't exactly something that can be proven or disproven. All politicians have a job that involves putting the best face on matters, and I think it is pretty obvious that this ongoing task involves a degree of inauthenticity sometimes. I think Obama is more genuine and effective than many others, though.

AKA Smith: "5. That his race might affect what voters do."

There's no problem with you saying this, and in fact you seem to be contradicting yourself between this and #6. You're the one setting a double-standard here, not Obama people. Race obviously affects some voters, but the question is whether that should be turned into an argument against Obama. I would say "no," just as I would say that Hillary Clinton's sex, and the way it might affect voters, should not be used as an argument against her. Don't you agree?

AKA Smith: "6. That his race doesn't affect what voters do."

See above.

AKA Smith: "7. That his speeches are "lite" on policy or details or examples to his claims."

You can make this statement, but back it up. I've listened to several Obama speeches where he detailed all sorts of policies. Which speeches are you listening to? If you can't back up your claims, it's not my problem if you don't like it when I disagree. It's your problem for talking out your ass.

AKA Smith: "8. That Rev. Wright even still exists."

Ummmm......are you kidding? What is your point? Why would you bring this up to begin with, and if so, why would you fail to understand people questioning you about it? You are "allowed" to bring it up, but again, what's your point?

AKA Smith: "9. That he uses showmanship to gain advantage."

Can you please name a politician who does not use "showmanship"? Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. People criticized Obama as an unknown who had yet to prove himself to skeptical voters. So Obama lays out his principles in speeches and does various other things to make himself understood to various contingencies. Then you turn around and criticize him for it. Lame.

AKA Smith: "10. That he is inexperienced compared to his opponent."

Compared to McCain everybody's inexperienced. Though at what, I am not quite sure.