if it makes you feel better.

I'm inclined to suspect that a large portion of the electorate is simply unwilling to be threatened, browbeaten, guilt-tripped, or otherwise mau-maued in voting for a candidate who has failed to connect with them.

It was a very contentious primary season and the problem with this article (more specifically, the problem with the P.O.V. it encapsulates) is that it assumes that there's NO legitimate reason for not supporting Obama. And yet some 18 million people showed up to vote for the woman who was running against him. That speaks to his WEAKNESS and INEFFECTIVENESS as a candidate.

This article takes the conceit of simply assuming Obama is great candidate - without offering actual proof - and that therefore voting against him must be a racist act. The fact is that if he were a great candidate, then a record number of primary voters wouldn't have turned out to support HIS OPPONENT. This suggests that he's actually a DEEPLY FLAWED candidate who happens to have a souped-up publicity machine.

Just because Scarlet Johansen supports you doesn't mean you're a great candidate; the enthusiasm of young, pretty, stupid people doesn't ultimately mean very much - not as long as they still only get one vote like the rest of us, and they're not very good at showing up at the polls.

Furthermore, any complaint about Bush's low approval numbers (as though this means the country automatically owes the opposing party a turn in the White House) obscures the fact that Congressional approval ratings are much, MUCH lower. (30% to 18% according to an RCP poll). So, it's not clear to me why exactly Obama's opponent must be handicapped with Bush's baggage, and yet the author doesn't seem to see that Obama has to carry Pelosi's.