We have a chance to talk about what is really ailing America here. ALL of America, not just the once numerically-dominant mainstream. We are all sick in this together. I hope for an engagement in the reality.

Jellyfish brain digression here: thank god he looks different from the others. Fine features, mobile expressions as he speaks. Capable speech writer or he himself an authentically tasty orator. A pleasure to listen to as his articulations veer so close to substantive I break a sweat; and the intonations of his speaking voice suggest he might be a good singer, or at least musically educated.

Thank god for a person who is a pleasure to observe, and puts a hurt on my ability to control my Charisma Addiction. I liked Hillary for her bluntness, and her strength - hated the press for never allowing a sip of her subtlety and nuanced expressiveness to make it past the edit.

I love to hate Bush's maladroit way as much as anyone. A jester is alive and well in me. But I was so angry the day he was "elected", I kid you not, I got one little taste of what must be "homocidal rage". I'd never felt that kind of rage in my life. Stolen election. WHEN will there be monitors set on the process?

Do we [white people] fear to discuss race? There are only five posts here on such a critical issue.

Frankly, I think a lot of us [and I am including me] might come to tears if we were ito have an open discussion about race with people of color. Racism is such an ugly thing, and to get accused of it is truly devastating, even if it is something minor. To people of color they are keen to the insidious existence of racism, while we people without color{?} can actually be totally unconscious of it. It hurts to have that consciousness given to us, particularly by someone rightfully upset by its persistence in this society. We really have no concept of how it is a BIG DEAL!!!

We are all going to have to talk about it, because only then will we have any HOPE of change.

The brutal reality of this Presidential race is that Obama will have to work twice as hard to get half as much, even in these United States in the 21st century. We, all of us, need to step up as well. The civil rights movement could not have been successful without the concerted efforts of people of every origin. I feel we need to defend and support Obama at every opportunity because the Reich is relentless. Take nothing for granted, leave no lie unchallenged, and talk openly about how things really are. This country is moving into a new generation and, while we are not yet clean of racism, race means a lot less to this next generation then it does to the last.

PS - Does anyone recall Bush appointing his cainet before the final decision was made in 2000? I thought THAT waa presumptuous, but I guess we all knew how the Supreme Court would determine who would be President. We have to be sure it does not come to that.

We had a conversation with my brother-in-law in Florida the other evening in which he grudgingly admitted that what I have been telling him is true--that there is a lot of baseless and unsourced anti-Obama propoganda coming from the right wing. He said that while he now admits that, "I and a lot of my friends will never vote for him."

"A lot of the opposition to Obama is just racism," my wife said, putting her usual point on it.

"Oh, no, I don't think so," he replied. "It's just that we don't stand for what he believes in."

"Such as?" I asked. He was unable to answer.

The current columns wondering why Obama can't break loose from the tight race with McCain and assigning it to uncertainty over who Obama is and what he stands for miss the point: Many white people won't vote for a black person. When you call the obvious fact to their attention, they backpedal and say it couldn't possibly be that. Not them. But what is it? They can't say.

"arrogant, elite, self-congratulatory, superior, uppity"

There is a wide gulf between the words "arrogant" and "uppity" and I am not sure that the word arrogant when applied to Obama means uppity. There is no doubt that race has been injected into this race by both the public (through direct email attacks with ugly words) and the political professionals (through code when done by the professionals). Still, there is also no disputing that Obama must have a good deal of arrogance:

(1) He wrote a memoir when he was 35 years old. Doesn't that take just a little more than the ordinary chutzpah? He had achieved academically and had an interesting (albeit developing) life story, but hadn't really achieved anything at 35 that merited a memoir.

(2) He started running for President after just a few years in the Senate (and just removed from the Illinois legislature). Doesn't that take more than just a trace of self-confidence?

I am a huge Obama fan and glad he has some arrogance (really, who could make a serious run for President and not have that quality), but whether the arrogance label is code for something more sinister or not, it isn't completely off base here.

Regardless, I am not sure that the "arrogance" and "celebrity" themes are going to work for the R operatives. America loves celebrity and arrogance (as long as it has the occasional humor mixed in). Also, no one who has heard him could believe that Obama is a lightweight Paris-Britny celebrity.

JimL said, "The current columns wondering why Obama can't break loose from the tight race with McCain and assigning it to uncertainty over who Obama is and what he stands for miss the point: Many white people won't vote for a black person."

While I don't doubt that racism is playing a role in Obama's failing campaign, I think that "uncertainty over who Obama is and what he stands for" does not "miss the point".

I worked with real progressives for Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition in the 80's, but Barack Obama is no Jesse Jackson, and real progressives who are increasingly disturbed about Obama's regressive views cannot be counted on to support such a candidate. This is a major factor which, added to the racism, makes Obama's election increasingly unlikely.

Progressive Dems need to stop supporting Republican lite. If you did that, you might still lose some elections, but you would be contributing to a progressive movement. As it is, you lose the elections anyway (except when Ross Perot runs), and the political spectrum keeps shifting further and further to the right.

Lee Coleman: Your accusations are offensive to me and to all other true progressives who choose to see Obama or any other politician on the basis of his political positions rather than the color of his skin. Shame on you.

Furthermore, your apparent ignorance about the racial identities of my choices, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez, is very telling. Are you an anti-Arab racist because you reject Nader; or an anti-Mexican racist because you reject Gonzalez?

I also have been very critical of Joe Lieberman on BO. Does this make me an anti-Semite? Do my criticisms of Hillary Clinton mark me as anti-woman?

I have spent a great deal of time and energy providing links to information that can lead only to the recognition that Obama is just another right-of-center poseur. It has nothing to do with race. That you cannot see any reason other than racism that a progressive would choose Nader over Obama is a reflection of your and not my prejudice.

Mr. Coleman: You called me and "the left wing of the 40 percent in the left-voting sector" "merely racists", so don't pretend that you said something else. In that context, it was appropriate for me to discuss the races and ethnicities of the candidates I support.

I deny that I am in "the left wing of the 40 percent in the left-voting sector". I am a progressive, and my positions on the issues are centrist. Supporting Obama, who is to the right of center on the issues I care most about, is therefore giving "aid and comfort to the right".

I advise you to read Obama's legal advisor Cass Sunstein's positions on blocking any prosecution of Bush for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance, supporting John Roberts for Chief Justice, or supporting the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes and Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama) before you conclude that Obama is "left of center".

Furthermore, I think you should consider more carefully Obama's right-of-center positions on trade, increasing military spending, FISA, withdrawal of all U.S. personnel from Iraq to home, single payer health care, nuclear and ethanol, corporate crime and welfare, impeachment of war criminals, unionism, Wall Street securities speculation, even-handedness in dealing with Palestine/Israel, and living wage.

Here's what David Sirota (In search of the American 'center') has to say about both Obama and "the center":

"As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed 'to appeal to the center of the electorate.'

However, empirical data prove 'the center of the electorate' is exactly the opposite:

-- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

-- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

-- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to 'set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?"

<hr/>