The significance w/r/t media bias of the 48% of people who've heard too much about Obama blew right past you, apparently. And characterizing McCain as a man who "betrayed his ex-wife . . . in order to marry a cheerleader" is something I encourage you to stick with through the election, as it's a guaranteed winner.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Now I think I have an inkling of why Mac wote his more recent post. Since you've already made your motivations clear...

...why do you think your post would be well received by anyone other than the most partisan liberals?

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

McCain's bio has some huge attack opportunities. Whether the attacks would be accurate or fair is irrelevant, of course. The appearance of impropriety is enough in politics.

My guess is there are two reasons it's not happening. First, Obama has seized the reins so completely in this election that no one is going to produce any ads without his OK, and Obama is worried that a smear campaign would belie the "new politics" image he's trying to cultivate. Second, the Democrats as a whole are very leery of attacking a war hero. They tried to tap into this dynamic by nominating Kerry last time, which didn't work so well (the Republicans are less vulnerable to charges of Troop Hatred).

The Democratic Party is so institutionally risk-averse that it's a wonder they ever win elections. I'm pretty sure they have enough of a tailwind right now that they will win the Presidency and pick up seats in Congress; but if they had a Gingrich or a Rove leading the pack, there'd be few Republicans left outside the South.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

It's both funny and sad that partisanship obstructs the otherwise active and sound critical thinking and reasoning of some folks. Depending on whose foot the shoe is on, the microscope is either used extensively (and findings included or discarded depending on whether they support or refute one's desired conclusion) or put on the shelf along with one's glasses (whatever people on their side -- candidate, party, fellow partisans, etc. -- are telling them is there is good enough for them).

Case in point:

Obama built his candidacy throughout the primaries and still today -- both his strategic offense (superior judgment; stronger against the Iraq war, and not to blame for it) and his strategic defence (deflecting the charge that he's too inexperienced) -- on his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002, as evidenced by a speech he gave at the time. This, he argues, showed superior judgment than all the more experienced candidates, and after all, if the reason experience is valued is for the judgment it provides, no need for the experience if he acquired the judgment without it, and in fact, better to go with the guy with the superior judgment.

His supporters (the same ones who are skeptical of anything claimed by anyone on the other side, and who put their critical thinking and their investigative powers into overdrive to find a reason to reject the claim) have apparently swallowed that argument hook, line and sinker without ever giving it a second thought.

Well, if a Toyota salesman tells me that the Toyota Camry is better than the Nissan Maxima, is it because he really believes it, or because he's selling the Camry and not the Maxima?

Well, as one columnist put it when discussing Obama's 2002 opposition to going to war in Iraq:

Perhaps Obama truly believed everything he said, that it was clear to him that war (or its authorization by Congress) was the wrong action at that time. Or perhaps he thought the opposite, but was disingenuously taking that position to please his constituency. Or (and this I consider most likely), he was somewhere close to the fence, but went with pleasing his constituency as essentially the tie-breaker. If it's either the second or third, then as for Obama's whole "superior judgment" claim -- well, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

But my point here isn't mainly to knock Obama's claim -- although I may have posted at some point on that -- but rather to point out how ridiculous it is that many of the same people who are beyond extremely skeptical of claims from the other side (and who devote effort to supposedly debunking such claims) are utterly naive (or at least act that way) when it comes to stuff claimed by their own side (and devote effort to promoting such claims).

Come on, folks. Use your brains and your energies with some reasonable degree of even-handedness (and I'd suggest a healthy degree of skepticism applied to all such claims). Try to be equal opportunity critical thinkers.

Here's a fun exercise: Some of the folks who just love to debunk all the supposed myths about the other guy and to tear that guy down could write a diary or two debunking (in part or whole) some positive myths about their own guy...if they are able to see them. I won't hold my breath, but it's possible.

Those with short memories might need reminding that it was the GOP Congress of the 1990's that impeached a sitting president over a blowjob and a stain on a blue dress. To say that extra-marital affairs are now irrelevant to a candidate's fitness for office could be construed as a wee bit hypocritical.

especially regarding the media's incentives for keeping the race close. Hopefully the debates and some real reporting activity in the next few months will lift the veil.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

...for coming up with the worst and stupidest justification for opposing McCain that I have yet seen.

And I say that as one who desperately hopes (but without much confidence) that Obama will beat the pants off McCain come November.

God help the while, a bad world I say.