So, he avoids “divisive stands” by enacting a major shift in US foreign aid that at least half the country is going to disagree with? I’d bet that even a fair share of the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t want their tax dollars funding the procedure for anyone, not in this country, not outside our borders.

Will the media ever stop being in the tank for this guy?

If there’s a terrorist attack on US soil during his administration, the media will still find a way to blame it on George W. Bush.

The lie that Obama told about accepting public campaign financing, thus limiting the amount that he could spend, may have won this election for him. How ironic that McCain was a media favorite for his attempts to rein in campaign spending, and now the legislation that bears his name may cost him the election.

It’s incredible how many people really seem to believe that Obama is a moderate who will govern from the center. There is nothing in his record or proposals to base this on, other than his complaints when anyone accurately labels him as a far-left liberal.

The media isn’t fooled by Obama. They go along with the “moderate” deception, because he’s the far left candidate that they’ve waited several decades for.

The unknown factor is your point about the “white people who will vote against Obama because he is black,” the much feared “racist” vote. Are there whites that are so perniciously racist that they will tell polsters they are for Obama but have no intention of voting for him?

As much as I don’t want Obama to win (because he is a freakin’ marxist), I don’t think there is that much statistically significant racism in this country that will hurt Obama’s chances. Are there a few Archie Bunkers out there? Sure; but not in the millions that will make a dent percentage-wise in a national election. And we all have to pause a moment and agree that that’s a good thing.

However, I do believe that two constituencies don’t want the white racism bug-a-boo to really go away, and they are the militant black activist movement (race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), which makes its living battling the racism straw man eveywhere they imagine it to be; and the powerful and allied white liberal east-and-west-coast elite establishment. The latter uses racism as a way of “guilting” other whites into supporting ultra-liberal policies like affirmative action and voting for black candidates to “redress centuries of injustice” and such clap-trap.

As we start looking ahead to the seemingly increasing likelihood of Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency, can we finally say with regard to race: Get over it; stop whining about racisim and using it to excuse every sort of anti-social behavior and faliure to achieve. That would be one (about the only one) good consequence of an Obama presidency, but somehow I don’t think it will happen. We can expect the Jacksons and Sharptons to find racism some where. And it will be your fault; and you will have to do something (like fork over more tax money and accept reverse discrimination against whites) to make it better.

We’ve already seen Barack Obama. Version one was called John Edwards.

I really believe that if Obama was white, he’d have been no more successful than Edwards.

Black people, who we dare not call racist, will vote at least 95% for Obama, with higher turnout than before.

And while there are white people who will vote against Obama because he is black, there are a lot of other whites who think it’s the hip and cool vote and will choose him because he is black. Because, it will make us look so enlightened to the world.

Democrats must sit around late at night after a day of campaigning and laugh at how inept the Repblicans are, how they don’t even seize on issues where they have clear advantages.

I’d love to see politicians speak like real people for once. Be blunt, rather than “understand” everyone’s point of view. You know, some issues really are black and white (no pun intended). In this case, it’s pretty clear that Ms. Goldberg is a uneducated dunce. And while Sen. McCain wouldn’t have to put it quite like that, while being polite he could say the same thing. He could have simply pointed out, as you did, that this musty old documment, The Constitution, will keep Ms. Goldberg off the plantation.

I too hate the seemlingly now required pilgrimages that politicians make to the various talk shows. For the life of me, I’ll never understand the appeal of the new “hip” comedians that unfortunately have become the prime source of news for the under-forty set. The reaction of nearly every guest after kneeling before Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show,” is always, “He’s so intelligent.” Mr. Stewart’s act seems to consist of nothing more than running out-of-context clips from various public figures. (Stewart does target both democrats and republicans, but you can easily guess which side ends up in the crosshairs far more frequently.) After the clip concludes, he sits there and smirks. That’s pretty much the act. Maybe I don’t get the humor as I, unlike most of his audience, actually watch the news and know the context of what his smirk target was saying, and that takes the humor away.

Unfortunately, in our celebrity-obsessed culture, politicians probably have little choice but to humble themselves to appear in such shows. If one makes such appearances, the other almost have to follow suit. And while Barack Obama, the “biggest celebrity in the world,” didn’t start this trend, he certainly is tailor-made for these fluff shows that pander to the intellectually lazy.