The very few well-informed will vote on issues, such as those that have been presented. The rest will vote by their gut.

Pardon me for being negative about this whole process. Nothing will change, despite the fact that things really need to be changed.

I think I may join WakeHolden in the Paranoia File, although he's a much more brilliant writer than I.

At least he seems honest in his paranoia.

Liz, racism will always exist..but in America the gap has closed much more than you indicate in your first post. Your point in your first post is mute. Americans have voted. Whites and blacks have voted for Obama. Obama won the vote of the Democratic Party, over a field of many competitive whites. Most Republicans will not vote for Obama, because they support McCain. Race is a non issue at this point.

Surprisingly, CG, believe it or not, I've never seen Obama's color. There was an editorial in one of our newspapers that outlined what had happened 100 years ago in Illinois which obviously upset me and reminded me of a lot of things people have said during this presidential race. Things such as, if Obama wins, I hope he's chosen a strong running mate (implying assasination attempts) and other things too fierce to mention.

I also remembered a story about a small town in the mid-West and how Obama rumors had been picked up, spread around and ultimately believed. This campaign, it seems to me, is much more subtly dirty than most, within my memory.

May I suggest a Harry Lorayne memory course?

Presidential and Congressional campaigns have been this dirty, both subtly and overtly, since Nixon. (And the campaigns pre-1900 were absolutely vicious in their vitriol against opposing candidates.)

Nixon loved to smear enemies with the "Commie" brush. Neither Dems nor Reps are guilt free on this, there is no moral high ground, the party operatives will say whatever they have to say in order to win.

Sometimes they're found out and their candidate is punished for it, but simple lies that instill racial and economic fear and resentment in people usually work.

Racially speaking, the Dems are quick to point out any racial "slip" by a Republican, such as the "macaca" remark which may have cost Sen. George Allen the presidential nominataion, etc.

Republicans, since they can't use race against a white candidate, usually try to make the dems look as dorky as possible, i.e. the Dukakis tank pic, Kerry hunting and windsurfing, etc. (I'll bet Kerry never shot a friend in the face while hunting). Or they play the fear card, such as the Willy Horton ad.

In the current election, Republicans can't come right out and say "He's black, don't vote for him." so they frame it with talk of his middle name, his non-American background (untrue) and so on. McCain's appearances of late have included the pledge of allegiance (are we in school?) the Star Spangled Banner, and America the Beautiful, which many people think is our National Anthem. Nothing wrong with any of those, except when they are so cynically used to convey the idea that Obama is not as American as McCain. It's like McCain beating Obama over the head with an American flag.

Fear has always worked for Republicans. There is no reason for them to discontinue their attempts to scare us, in order to win an election. And since racism is based on fear, they're doing a pretty good job.

Oh my! I'm not going to make any disparaging remarks since I'm sure you'll come back hotly denying you said you've never seen Obama's color, or that saying you've never seen Obama's color doesn't mean you've never seen Obama's color. I'll just leave it at that. However, it would make a lot of your other observations on a variety of topics somewhat suspect if we can believe that, to date, you've never observed an image of Barack Obama in print, on TV or in person. Odd, what?


I'm afraid you are still a long ways away from equaling the collective memory of Muslims, who can justify yesterday's beheading or bus bombing or rocket attack upon some grievance dating back to the crusades 900 years ago. That is what you call "holding a grudge."

If lizbeth means that his color doesn't make any difference to her in her judgment of him, I can believe it.

If she claims she actually does not see his skin color, my response is that the only person who truly does not see skin color is Stephen Colbert.

...although Stevie Wonder would certainly come in a close 2nd, don't you think?

Yes, if you are using the word "see" in the sense of receiving light waves on your retina which are neurotransmitted to the brain which translates the light patterns into recognizable images.

But if you are using the word "see" to indicate recognition of something, then no.

So it depends on what the meaning of "see" is. --W.J. Clinton

EXAMPLE: Stevie Wonder is blind, but even he can see that we've gone way off topic here.

I see! So basically, you're saying Stephen Colert wouldn't recognize a black guy if he bit him on the ass?

Policeman: "So, Mr. Colbert, you say you witnessed the crime and saw who did it?

Colbert: Yes, officer, I did.

Policeman: Great! Give us a description of the guy. What color was he?

Colbert: Uhhhh-uhhhh?!?