Nancy, my only interest in "campaign finance reform" is to do what is possible to reduce chances of corruption, of someone simply buying a politician, but with primary emphasis on our fundamental (and First Amendment) rights.

In my view, giving money to a campaign is a free speech right. McCain-Feingold is clearly unconstitutional, and the biggest failure...yes, I said the biggest failure...of George W. Bush's presidency was his signing that travesty while saying that he realized it is unconstitutional.

As far as the possibility (or certainty) that a rich person might have a bigger impact on an election than a poor person because the CEO can buy more advertising time (indirectly) than a construction worker can, I simply don't care because I don't see any problem...as long as campaign contributions are immediately disclosed in a way that the public (and the press) has easy access to.

[I should emphasize here that I'm talking about contributions by individuals. We might find a hint of common ground if we were discussing contributions by corporations and unions which both are in the business of directing concentrated benefits (to themselves) and hoping that the diversified costs (across all taxpayers) won't be noticed. Take 5 cents from every person in America and you're talking about a lot of money even though almost no single American will spend the time to argue about it. Do it enough times, though, and you have today's government with it's massive overspending, earmarks, and deficits.]

We should not socialize elections any more than we should socialize medicine. It's not relevant that some people contribute more than others can afford to contribute. Indeed, given than about half of the American population pays no federal income tax, I'd hope that those of us who do pay tax take a greater interest (and have a greater influence) on elections than those who simply use government to transfer money from me to themselves.

Not only are campaign finance limits a restraint on my free speech rights, but publicly-financed elections also represent an unethical taking of money from people who would otherwise choose not to contribute to a political campaign. If people don't care about their government enough to contribute, then they get the government they deserve.

Voting is a responsibility. It should be done by people who have at least attempted to familiarize themselves with issues. There is a reason we don't operate like Australia, where you're fined if you don't vote. It's a free choice made by people in a free country, and our campaign contributions should be equally free (i.e. to be given or withheld.)

The problem with many if not most "liberal" goals (including campaign finance restrictions, socialized medicine, and the welfare state in general) is that they are approached purely from a utilitarian point of view. Namely, "campaign finance reform" supporters think about some pleasant-sounding goal they'd like to see, such as rich people having less influence on elections. They approach the issue with an ends-justifies-the-means mentality, leaving them willing to trample on rights...from free speech to freedom of religion to freedom of association. (The right does similar things on social issues, and I oppose the "religious right" on most such things although I find their abuses somewhat less damaging than the left's attack on true economic and political liberty.)

So, while you might not like the concept that "Americans with money essentially pick the winners in our elections", there is nothing in our Constitution or in fundamental political ethics that gives you the right, responsibility, or duty to do anything about it. And, I repeat, as long as contributions are fully, immediately, and publicly disclosed, you have no legitimate moral case to make for either restricting how I contribute political money or for extracting campaign contributions from those who would rather not participate.

Finally, as I was re-reading your posting, I noted the moniker "clean elections" being applied to publicly-financed (socialized) elections. What a frighteningly Orwellian term! While we want our electoral system to be as free of corruption as reasonably possible while still respecting the primacy of our rights, there's no doubt that part of the "clean" term refers to people who don't like the "messiness" of our political process. You show me a "clean election" and I'll show you Castro's Cuba or Putin's Russia. Supporters of "clean elections" are probably the same people who want all kids to get prizes at the science fair or awards at the track meet, people who hate and fear competition in any and all of its forms. But our political system is meant to be rough-and-tumble. It's meant to be messy. Can you imagine what Jefferson or Madison would say if they heard someone implying that our elections should be "clean" in the sense of minimizing the intensity of competition? Yes, that goal is perfectly consistent with much of the liberal agenda, but in my opinion it's as repugnant and anti-American as Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin or to or put his hand over his heart during our national anthem.

Rep. John Salazar (D) is the wealthiest member of our Congressional delegation, with an average personal net worth of $1.8 million, according to a new website, Fortune 535, launched today by the Sunlight Foundation.

The new website allows you track, for the first time how much, or how little, a particular lawmaker's wealth has grown while in Congress. The data stretch over 11 years, the amount of time they are available.

For example, Rep. Mark Udall (D), who in 2006 had an averagenet worth of $1.7 million, was worth $1.5 million in 1998. Rep. Edwin Perlmutter (D) was worth $1.7 million in 2006. Sen. Wayne Allard (R), had anaverage net worth of $848,005 in 2006, and $695,857 in 1995.

There are also charts showing how much average American households were worthfor comparison purposes. For example, in 2006, the average net worth for a typical American household was $93,000.

The Sunlight Foundation (note: I am a consultant for the group) compiled the data on lawmakers' personal finances-assets, liabilities,outside income-and the gifts and travel provided for them by outside organizations.

While doing the project, the group found that it was quite difficult to measure a member's net worth because the personal financial disclosure forms they file require them to report this information only in ranges. Sunlight supports changing the law to make these reporting requirements more precise.

Why is this information important? Armed with it, voters and the media can see whether and how lawmakers are getting wealthier or poorer while serving in office. Sometimes a jump in wealth might mean a lawmaker is taking advantage ofhis or her position. Sometimes a drop in fortune is also noteworthy. The poin tis that the information should be there for all to see.

Thanks to America's health care system, today was a very stressful day for me. My story is so typical as to be boring - which is a really sad commentary.

This morning, while thumbing through some routine paperwork, my wife discovered that I have no health insurance. Without going into the details, we missed a bi-annual deadline for payment - a deadline that the company buried in fine print, and one that the company didn't even bother to tell us was approaching, or even missed after the fact. They just ended my coverage, with not so much as a letter or a phone call.

Fortunately for us, we discovered the situation before a 60-day continuity-of-coverage window closes, and I got temporary insurance. Of course, for bureaucratic reasons that I don't understand, I'm not allowed to re-enroll in the same plan I thought I was on. I have to wait to do that. Put another way, the health care company that had been gouging me, and then tossed me away without so much as a peep, is perfectly fine leaving me without coverage - even if I'm willing to pay for it.

My initial reaction this morning was raw panic. Until the situation was resolved, I felt like I was going to periodically break down and cry because I felt so completely helpless. But now that the initial shock has passed, I can say I'm lucky in all of this.

I am a sole proprietor so I get gouged on health care, but my wife and I have worked hard to save diligently to pay for coverage through her graduate school (and to those who have flippantly claimed that because I'm a columnist and writer I make a whole ton of money, I will only say that the term "struggling writer" didn't come out of thin air - I ain't complainin' but I also ain't swimming in money). We have the resources, and thankfully, we caught this problem in time. But for every one of me who discovered the problem and had the resources to rectify it, there are probably 10 or 20 who either never figure out the problem until it's too late, can't pay to rectify the situation - or both. Just as frightening is how tiny an error you can make to watch your entire health care safety net be ripped away from you and your family.

Had I, say, been in a car accident in that time period that I didn't know I was cut off from coverage, I would have been bankrupted, and possibly not been able to pay for medical care that I needed to stay alive. That's not an exaggeration. Had I needed any kind of serious medical care in that time period, its very possible it would have cost me my entire life savings - and the reason would be that we innocently missed a bureaucratic deadline that a company didn't even bother to warn us about - or warn us that we had missed.

In a world of unending email and junk mail - a world where the average person is flooded with paperwork - this is an unacceptably small margin of error, especially considering what is at stake. I mean, we're not talking about losing a gym membership or a magazine subscription or your cable television for missing a deadline - we're talking about losing access to life and death medical coverage. And yet, the margin of error that could lose you your coverage is less than the margin of error that a gym or a magazine or a cable company will grant you for their services.

This situation is emblematic of a health care system that is both immoral and broken. Throwing people off their health insurance with no warning because they accidentally misread fine print is sick and wrong - and should be criminal like it is, say, with housing. In many localities, landlords have to give you at least some warning before evicting you for a missed payment. But unbelievably, that's not the way it is with health care.

The behavior is perfectly legal thanks to government policies that allow health insurance companies to do whatever they want, to whomever they want. And the behavior has created a whole new culture of fear. We now not only have to be afraid of Al Qaeda and hurricanes and evildoers, but also of the health insurance companies that we are customers of - and executives from these companies still have the nerve to go before Congress and publicly wonder why so many people hate their guts.

That this fear is now becoming an anger-based political uprising shouldn't be surprising. A population forced to live under this kind of terror - and that's what it is - is one that will start fighting back when the survival instinct kicks in. And by the looks of the polls on health care, the survival instinct has most definitely kicked in. Better late than never.

Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.

On my personal blog, I’m “hosting” a debate about global warming, following the submission by a PhD economist of a note to me discussing “global warming and libertarians”. It’s a bit off the usual topics of the Gang, so I will only post one article on these pages about it (unless the discussion takes off). Here is my main addition to the discussion (although I’ve written dozens of other pieces on the subject). If you find it interesting, please join the debate either here (by clicking on this note’s title, and then on the “Add new comment” link) or on my blog at Rossputin.com.

This is the fifth in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link.

Yoram Bauman makes a somewhat interesting though typically liberal pitch about climate change. Although I think Dr. Bauman makes a mistake framing the issue as something between libertarians and non-libertarians, his points are each worth refuting. So I shall.

First, I can’t remember ever seeing anybody, no matter his political persuasion say that climate change is not a “theoretical possibility”. Indeed, one would have to be insane to say that climate change would not happen. I’ll assume that your wording of your first of the “Three No’s” (“No Recognition”) was just poorly constructed since I can’t believe you think that I or anyone else denies that climate changes over time. The question is how much, if any, climate change is anthropogenic (caused by people).

The economic theory of externalities is sort of irrelevant here; we’re not disputing economics and we’re not disputing whether human activity puts things into the atmosphere which wouldn’t otherwise be there. It’s a very straight-forward question of whether our chances to the atmosphere (or anything else) are enough to cause global climate change.

My belief is that the answer is no. I don’t want to get into a long scientific debate here as I have described the science in detail in other postings on my blog, but here are a few of the basic points:

• Climate (temperature) measurements have been declining for 10 years now, and there has for years been a very suspicious gap between measured surface temperatures (going somewhat higher) and atmospheric temperatures (not going higher), leading to a possible conclusion of urban heat island effect and changes immediately around a measuring station such as roofs being painted.
• Data show that CO2 concentrations follow, don’t precede, temperature changes
• Our current warming cycle began before humans were putting substantial greenhouse gas concentrations into the atmosphere. (I should note that even the term “greenhouse gas” is tremendously misleading because even if these gases do cause warming they do not cause it in the same way that a greenhouse works.)
• The planet has been warmer than this before, including in the rather recent past, such as with Greenland being a beautiful vacation spot within the past century
• Even if one were to accept CO2 as being an important greenhouse gas, models show that it would not be a linear effect, and that each further increase in CO2 concentration would have a smaller climate effect than the prior (same-size or same-percentage) increase, and
• Antarctica has steadily been gaining ice mass for decades…and it holds over 90% of the world’s sea ice despite all the wailing about Greenland and Arctic ice.

So, Dr. Bauman’s “No Recognition” argument is a straw man. Opponents of global warming alarmism, whether libertarian or not, recognize that the climate changes. We simply dispute whether or to what degree humans are part of those changes. I do not believe the data is on the side of the alarmists.

To Dr. Bauman’s second point, “No peace with the IPCC”: I find this a rather strange point for someone who just came back from Israel and who, I presume, is at least a modest supporter of Israel. Arguing that the IPCC’s report is good science without substantial political bias in its creation (both of which are patently false) is like arguing that the UN is a fair arbiter on issues surrounding Israel. Does anybody believe the UN treats Israel with anything close to fairness? Does anybody believe the UN is not overall a profoundly anti-Semitic organization? Dr. Bauman, do you believe we should have “peace with the UN” when they call Israelis murderers and Hamas freedom-fighters? I mean, even if you weren’t pro-Israel, you’d have to think that worst case should be they’re all murderers or all freedom-fighters. You get my point. The idea that we should accept the IPCC report simply because it’s the product of a UN bureaucracy is not just muddle-headed, it’s downright ridiculous.

Collusion at the IPCC is not, as Dr. Bauman suggests, difficult. Enough former or current members of the IPCC have made it clear that only a very small number of people draft the reports and even fewer draft the summaries (which are primarily what politicians and bureaucrats read) for us to know that these documents intentionally exclude the views of “skeptics”. Ask Pat Michaels, Chris Landsea, Fred Singer, etc. You may not like their free-market political views, but they are pointing out corruption, not arguing about the best solution to an economic problem.

Again, Dr. Bauman, you mock the idea that “global warming stopped a decade ago”, but given that temperatures have indeed cooled over the last decade, it’s no sillier a statement than arguing that “global warming” started (insert number here) decades ago. And you make yourself look particularly unbelievable when you suggest that the fact of cooling temperatures over the past decade has been even somewhat widely reported. Indeed, it is “virtually never reported.” Why is it never reported? Not so much because of a left-wing conspiracy, though I do believe that media’s left-leaning biases also make them want to discount any evidence against the mania, but more because bad news sells and good news doesn’t.

Still, of the three of your “Three No’s”, this is the most ridiculous, arguing (especially as a Jew) that a product of the UN is almost certainly free of collusion, bad science, or leftist propaganda. Those are the coin in trade of the UN and the IPCC is no different.

Finally, to your third point, “No negotiation about climate change science”. That’s simply wrong. There are dozens…make that hundreds…of peer-reviewed papers which point toward Al Gore and friends being wrong. The fact that you don’t read them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Here’s one page with links to more articles than you can shake a stick at.

And, the NIPCC report (pdf) remains a valuable resource. They deal in some depth with the IPCC’s claim that humans are “very likely” causing global warming, a statement which you as an economist should know much better than to accept if you look at the IPCC’s methodology. (Furthermore, I do not see evidence supporting your claim that the NIPCC report is wrong about the “hockey stick” graph being discredited and no being “no longer emphasized” by the IPCC.)

So, Dr. Bauman, in my opinion every argument you made is incorrect and demonstrates a certain ignorance of science, statistics, and especially politics. Furthermore, you’re incorrect to frame this as an issue of libertarians versus everybody else. But to the extent that this has become a partisan debate, I think that very fact is interesting. Why should a question that on the surface (pun intended) become a partisan debate? Because both sides realize that what is primarily going on is a move by liberals, leftists (i.e. left of liberals), radical environmentalists, unions, and yes, even some big corporations, to try to massively increase government interference in economics, especially the economics of developed countries. Like everything else, this debate is more about power than about what it seems to be. And that’s part of the reason this particular angle, as opposed to something like global free trade, has been so successful: since it’s a debate about command-and-control government cloaked in scientific jargon that most Americans can’t (and don’t want to try to) understand, they miss what’s really going on. And of course, it’s no surprise that this attack on the US economy in particular comes from an organization that is the most profoundly anti-American global organization in existence. No peace, indeed.

Ross, you ask whether the fact that the 2008 elections are already at $2 billion and counting is a bad thing. You say that there "should be no reason people should be restricted from any level of publicly-disclosed support for a candidate."

However right now the great bulk of this cash comes from a tiny sliver of Americans. Only about one quarter of one percent of the American population gave a campaign contribution more than $200 in 2006. And even in the 2008 elections, when the presidential race is drawing attention for attracting the attention of more small donors than ever before, the majority of the cash flowing into federal races and party coffers comes in amounts that ordinary Americans can't afford.

Far more often than not, money determines which candidate wins office. So that means a small, elite group of Americans with money essentially pick the winners in our elections long before anybody has a chance to pull a lever at the polling booth.

Publicly financed elections, or Clean Elections, based on the model of what is now law in Arizona, Maine, and five other states and two cities, changes this dynamic. There is still money in races, to be sure. Indeed, candidates prove their viability by collecting a set amount of small contributions, typically $5, from constituents. And candidates receive adequate money to run their races (although there are also limits to what they get). The difference is there is more of an even playing field. The $5 contributed by a corporate CEO is no different than the $5 given by a construction worker.

Good morning, Gloria,

I agree with quite a bit of what you've said. Before I proceed, I want to be very clear that I am not trying to, nor am I interested in, calling Hillary or Obama, or black voters or white voters, "racists". People may include race as a factor in their decision-making, sometimes for what you and I would consider to be legitimate reasons (though I'm not 100% sure there are any) and sometimes for reasons based on ignorance or fear. I simply want to discuss politics as it is...which doesn't require deep analysis of the motives behind peoples' choices.

Yesterday I heard Terry McAuliffe thank George W. Bush for being the greatest galvanizing force in recent memory for the Democratic Party. He has a point. But, it's much easier to win election when people are voting FOR you rather than against the other guy. Just ask both of George W. Bush's last two opponents.

I don't actually believe Obama is a galvanizing force. He may have been at some point, but not now. Sure, there are plenty of people besides blacks who will be upset if Obama doesn't get the nomination, but no group as important. The second-most upset group will be college students, and they don't matter much despite all the hype (just as there was in 2004) about the upcoming rush of participation in elections by young people. If you want to break it down by race, I think whites on average would be ambivalent, Latinos might actually be happy since they tend not to support blacks very much, and I have no opinion about how Asians would feel, though I don't think they are an exceptionally important voting block or very different in how they vote from the American population overall.

One group which hasn't been mentioned a lot is "the Jewish vote". Jews (like me) are a small percentage of the population but tend to have a higher than average likelihood of voting. One study I read suggested about 50% more, so, for example, a Jewish population of 2% in a state would have a voting impact as if they were 3% of the population. This could be a big deal in Florida (about 4% of the population, but much higher % of seniors and voters.) And, even though the percentages are smaller, the Jewish vote could make an important difference in PA and OH. We're talking about fairly small numbers, but in elections as close as some recent contests have been, it's interesting to see the Democrats about to nominate the worst possible choice for Jewish voters.  There's a very interesting article about Obama's problems, not helped by an endorsement by Hamas, at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080512/EDITORIAL/134701177/1013

As far as "getting the white vote", I said that Obama wins caucuses, regardless of how white the state is. For a variety of reasons, caucuses are likely to have minimal participation from people who might not vote for Obama because he's (half) black. Winning "white states" caucuses is not representative of anything with the possible exception of showing that college students in those states were motivated to help Obama. And I remind you that Obama won't win most of the caucus states in November.

New Hampshire is not a caucus state, but it is very early and very politically active, so it's not too surprising that Obama would do OK there. Again, it doesn't really matter in comparison to the states I mentioned in my prior note.

You're right that Hillary plays the race card at her peril, but it doesn't mean she's wrong if you look at the electoral map. It's true that the race has been unorthodox so far, but that doesn't mean that Obama's losing almost all the "swing states" isn't worth considering.

I'm not saying this stuff because I like Hillary. I can't stand her. I can't stand Obama either, although he seems like less of a back-stabbing, lying, cackling, worthless typical politician. Instead, he's a naïve, union-loving socialist, slightly atypical politician who has very few ideas and those he has are mostly quite ridiculous, anti-capitalist, and, despite his cries to the contrary, anti-American.

This country is probably ready to elect a black as president; it's certainly ready to elect a woman. I'm somewhat confident, however, that we won't elect this particular woman candidate, and I hope we're not stupid enough to elect a black guy just because he's a black guy, given that he's patently unqualified for the job. I'm all for "making history", but not at the expense of our economy, our health care system, and our national security.

I have an idea...I'll work with you to get Condi Rice elected. How's that for making history?

Ross, first let me thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to offer your answer to my blog question of why Hillary can't close the deal.

It is indeed true that Hillary is perceived as a congenital liar. I mean Stevie Wonder could have seen the difference between a hail of bullets and receiving flowers as Senator Clinton said happened to her while getting off a plane in Bosnia. However, I could not disagree with you more about her electability. I do not think she is more electable than Senator Obama.

No doubt the Democratic Party is in a pickle over how they are going to resolve the issue of taking a chance on an unknown who seems to be galvanizing voters to do what no other politician has gotten them to do in very large numbers - VOTE. Hopefully, that decision will be made May 31st. What your response failed to mention is that it will not only be black voters upset if the nomination goes to the candidate who has NOT won the most delegates, who has NOT won the popular vote and who is ahead by just 2 super delegates (although I'm sure that will change soon if it hasn't already). It will be all voters upset - white, black, Latino, Asian and everything in between.

You say I can't say that Obama is getting the white vote (citing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina as examples). What about Iowa where the population is majority white? What about New Hampshire where Clinton may have won but she only won by 2% - 39% to 37% over Obama? These are 2 of the whitest states in the country. Obama is getting enough of the white vote to win....and a win is a win! Besides, Hillary is not running away with the white vote in every single category. Barack won 57% of the under 30 vote in Iowa and I guarantee you the majority of voters in that state are white. And let's not forget that no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning the black vote. So Hillary can play the race card at her own peril. I do believe that if enough new and frustrated voters - regardless of race - come out and vote for Barack, he will be the next President of the United States. And all these race, gender, economic percentages will be buried next to all those hanging chads in the political bone-yard in the sky.

As for Obama not being able to close the deal because he's lost many of the most important Democratic states, I say everything about this election thus far has been unorthodox and unusual. Think about it - a prior First Lady who's a United States senator running against another senator who happens to be an African American named Obama. But if there's one thing I know about politics is just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen. There are many voters from all walks of life who are tired of the "old guard" which Senator Clinton represents - and just like Senator Obama - they are ready to make history!

Thanks sweet-pea for your response.

Gloria, Let me take a stab at your question.

Hillary can't close the deal because although Obama has been weakened lately, Hillary is still dogged by her perception as a congenital liar and because people are as tired of the Clintons as they are of the Bushes.

Obama can't close the deal because Hillary really does have a strong case to make regarding electability.

Two other reasons: Hillary can't close the deal because the Democratic Party is justifiably scared to death of an outcome that makes blacks feel like the black candidate had the nomination stolen from him, even if it was not only within the party's rules but actually exactly what those rules were designed for if the people were about to nominate someone who wouldn't win in November. Democrats believe, and I think they're right, that Hillary getting the nomination means a decade of lessened black support for the party.

Obama can't close the deal because he's lost many of the most important Democrat states.

I don't think you can say Obama is "getting the white vote". He lost by 20 points or more among white voters in both Indiana and North Carolina...and by a similar amount in Pennsylvania. 

I'm not looking to characterize that vote as racist or as not racist, any more than I'd try to characterize the over-90% support for Obama by blacks. It is what it is. But it explains a lot why superdelegates are not rushing to Obama even though Clinton can't close the deal: they realize they have a true electability issue.

Obama has won states with large black populations and states which had caucuses rather than primaries. Many of these, especially the latter category, will go Republican in November regardless of which Democrat is nominated.

Hillary has won primaries, whose turnout (in comparison to a caucus) is far more likely to be like the general election, in Ohio, Florida (yes, Florida), Pennsylvania, California, New York, and New Jersey.

I agree with Hillary that she's more electable...and I agree with the unspoken fear of Democratic superdelegates that they must nominate the less electable candidate, accepting a lower chance of winning in 2008 instead of lower black support for the party for the next decade.

So, to get back to answering your question: Hillary is still in the race because she rightly believes she's more electable and because she knows that if Obama wins she'll probably never have another chance whereas if she wins she gets her chance or if McCain wins she could try again in four years instead of eight. And don't forget, she's a Clinton, so her desire for power just for its own sake is stronger than you or I can probably imagine.

That said, despite all the reasons for her to stay in all the way until the convention, I have a sneaky feeling she'll surprise us and get out before then, claiming it's "for the good of the party". She'll be offered some senior committee position in the Senate, she'll half-heartedly support Obama, hoping McCain wins so she can try again in 4 years, and she'll consider running for governor of New York.

Could someone please explain to me why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. I mean what is the case she is making to the super delegates about her electability?

What could she possibly say which could persuade them to vote for her or change their vote? I can't think of a thing. And I've heard all the arguments about Obama not being able to close the deal.

But what about Senator Clinton' inability to close the deal?

After all, the Clinton's have been in the national spotlight of politics for the last 15 years.

You would think someone with that much pub under her belt would be able to swat down a candidate with a name like BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Not to mention he's no where near as wealthy as the Clintons. I mean REALLY - here's a guy who just finished paying for his student loans for crying out loud!

In the beginning it was '...he doesn't stand a chance' or '...no one with a name like Barack will ever be the candidate for either party and he certainly won't be the president' and here's the one which cracks me up the most '...besides, the country is not ready for a black president.'

To each one of those points I say...
He obviously stands more than a chance because he's getting votes many said he would NOT get - like the white vote, the female vote, and the senior vote. Oh and don't let me forget to mention the black vote.

You know initially some black folks said he wasn't black enough but then we learned he could play basketball. Now he might be too black - HONEY HUSH!

As for his name well let me just say...with a name like BARACK he has to be good!

Lastly, the country is not some organism operating inside a vacuum. It's made of people - like you and I who make decisions and those decisions form this country. Therefore, I say as a member of this country - I know I'm ready.

I'm ready NOT because he's black, I'm ready because I am
inspired; because I am hopeful; because I am ready for change and who better to represent change than someone who doesn't look like, sound like and has a name like anything we've ever seen, heard or pronounced in the White House. Senator Clinton can't close the deal because the deal is done...she's just too stubborn to admit it.

Responding to David Sirota's "Recognizing the Race Chasm"

David: While I agree that racism or at least race-as-a-factor is a real part of the results in the Democratic primary/caucus process, I would point out that it seems a much larger factor for blacks than for whites. Obama has, as you pointed out, won every state with more than 17% black population. In both North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary Clinton received only a single-digit percentage of the vote. I'm not condemning blacks for blindly voting for the black guy. (I don't believe it's possible that Hillary would only get a single-digit percentage if blacks were actually thinking about anything other than skin color, and with numbers that skewed I think such a generalization is appropriate.)

This will sound a little crass, but as opposed to the people you describe who deny that any racial issues still exist in America, my position is more than I don't care if they exist, at least not until a substantial section of black leadership stops trying to reinforce a racial divide for their own political and financial benefit.

On what basis do you believe that we deeply need a "national conversation about race" particularly if one side in a conversation finds it in their interest not to come to any solutions or agreement? Bill Kristol is exactly right, in the NY Times article you linked to in your piece. Indeed, by at least initially running as a candidate who is beyond racial politics, Obama was showing his belief that he could win election (including votes of blacks) without pandering to race-baiters like Al Sharpton.

Responding to Nancy Watzman's "Two billion dollars and counting"

Nancy: Are you implying that the cost of elections is inherently a bad thing? My guess is that you are but I don't want to respond based on what would just be my assumption about your position. I will say, in case it isn't obvious, that I don't believe expensive campaigns are inherently bad. If the Schaffer/Udall race ends up costing $2 or $3 per Coloradoan, so what? There's no reason people should be restricted from any level of publicly-disclosed support for a candidate, any more than we should be restricted from how much food we buy or charity we give away.

Responding to John Andrews' "Hoping Ross reconsiders"

John: On my own blog I have had a debate with myself (with interesting comments from several readers), weighing the pluses and minuses of John McCain versus either of the Democrats. Of course, from someone with my political views, John McCain is superior to the Democrats. But somehow I just can't see that as a compelling reason to vote McCain.

When I asked McCain in person about whether he had any regrets regarding the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act (OK, I didn't use those last three words when I asked him), he responded that what we need is more regulation of 527s rather than a recognition that McCain-Feingold is obviously unconstitutional despite what the black robed idiots said. (Really, those are the same people who said that "public benefit" means the same thing as "public use", so it's OK for government to take private property and give it to other private organizations simply to get more tax revenue.) To me, this position is not just unacceptable, it disqualifies McCain from higher office.

People say I should be very worried about the next Supreme Court justices, and I am, but look at John Paul Stevens, David Souter and even Anthony Kennedy, all appointed by Republicans. I would bet that McCain would try to find a judge who would find McCain-Feingold acceptable, and if that happens then that judge can't be counted on to be decent on anything else either.

I understand we're at war, but I believe that the realities of the real world and a few briefings by generals and admirals will constrain the Democratic nominee from being as aggressive in surrendering as they are suggesting now, as they pander for the MoveOn.org loonies.

Most of all, I believe that while the GOP is a big tent, we must be very careful to understand the differences between being under the tent and burning the tent down. McCain's contempt for the Constitution strikes me clearly as the latter. Just because a Democrat would be even worse does not mean I could live with myself telling the GOP that someone with McCain's views is acceptable.

Along these lines, I strongly recommend this article by Reason's Matt Welch.

To me, John McCain is less appealing now than George W. Bush was several months before his first election to the White House. Much less appealing, actually. And I didn't vote for George W. Bush, so I can't today see how I'll be convinced to vote for John McCain.

If you pitch a tent in the yard, be careful of bears, mountain lions, and elk. It's pretty wild out here by the Kaminsky home...though some of the scariest creatures in the area are the wild-eyed environmentalist Democrats.