Evidence scant that Wright hurt Obama much in Ind., N.C.

Nope. It means voters are smarter than the press.

Exactly right Djehuty; the smear job just didn't work and the press feels like all their work was in vain.

Nope. It means voters are smarter than the press.

Thank Jebus, I was convinced that I needed to move to Switzerland.

Allow me a moment to bask in the schadenfreude! This is almost as much fun as watching Congressman Hyde rant pompously about Clinton's supposedly "impeachable" offenses, only to see the American people shrug, say "So?" and vote a lot of his Republican colleagues out of office.

Nope. It means voters are smarter than the press.

I totally agree with you "Djehuty".

What is specifically telling is how "So many" out and in here that in fact seem to be scared of Clinton not winning this (She could, but only by doing a "Rovian backed Bush 2000/2004 dirty trick") election.

No I say Go Obama Gooooo!

we work for unity, consensus, individual inclusion

Oh yes!

Agreed. How about covering the 100k people that might be dead in Myanmar/Burma or that Scott Bloch is talking to the FBI. Instead of...

This just in, Barack Obama, still black!!!!!11

But......on the otherhand:

It isn't like racism hasn't been the single most murderous and destructive thing in American history. Willy Brown, the California politician, guesses about 6% of white people will never vote for a African-American for president for no other reason than his race. Since 80.2% of the population is white, six percent would be 4.812% of the whole population.

For the sake of making an argument--even though we know available information would modify the assumptions made somewhat, assume Brown's guesstimate is valid, assume that citizens vote in the same proportions regardless of race; under those assumptions the 4.812% of voters fixedly against any African-American candidate would have meant, in the last presidential election, that there were 5,883,514 automatic votes against a black candidate regardless of his qualification to be president and regardless of any comparison to his opponent.

If Brown is right Obama starts the general almost six million ignorant and hateful votes behind.

Let's plug-in some of the known modifications that would have to be applied to the above argument. Caucasian-American tend to vote in slightly greater proportion than African Americans; they also have higher proportion of their population of voting age. Those factors would skew the calculation above in one direction.

On the other hand, the past isn't destiny: There is nothing to say that African-American voters and other "non-whites" (only a nation with a racist history would need to class people as "non-whites) won't come out in higher proportions this election and all future elections.

Some aspects of human nature are almost immutable. Any trial lawyer will tell you that people of goodwill without a scintilla of racism in their soul still tend to sympathize more with people like themselves. That is why lawyers try to get jurors picked who have backgrounds similar to their clients. In courts of law, where citizens of goodwill are trying their hardest to act on reason and without prejudice, the tendency to associate oneself to someone like yourself is still an important factor effecting verdicts in law. So too, in all likelihood, in elections.

This factor will skew the election results-- not uniformly, not as a function of prejudice, but as a broad reflection of human nature and our very diversity.

There is also the likelihood that offering the choice between a minority candidate or a woman as an alternative to another white male will cause some unknown number of voters to opt for the minority or woman based on that characteristic alone. Hey, we've had to live with our national history. The vote is a tool to create a better future--race and gender discrimination of the past will likely engender some backlash in the election.

All of these factors are unquantifiable. Brown's guess is only that--a subjective stab.

However, all of this points out that the "racial factor" is a valid and newsworthy issue in this election cycle.

Of course, that doesn't mean the press will handle it with any responsibility or insight. It'll just sensationalize to draw-in readers: opting for the commercial role rather than the role the it asserts for itself in our democracy and in the marketplace of ideas.

So, do you think an enterprise with the scruples and the sensibilities of the American press has earned special legal protections so its practitioners shouldn't have to testify truthfully in courts of law--like the rest of us who owe duty to participate in the rule of law by proving truthful testimony?

Does the light reporters and press pundits throw on current event justify giving them permission to hide in darkness when courts of law are truth finding?

Should we put them up on a special legal pedestal as a reward for the good job they are doing?

Should we close the judicial avenue of truth-finding in honor to the truth they habitually illuminate?