So, when you say “There has to be a hypocrisy tripwire somewhere.” should that responsibility go to the press? The press has to be accountable.

For example, when the nightly news shows begin their campaign coverage on a Monday night with quotes from Wesley Clark saying McCain’s POW experience is not qualification for the job of president – when Obama was giving an important economic speech and talking about issues that actually affect voters – that coverge is a distortion of the real campaign between McCain and Obama.

The same thing with this race issue. Report that McCain challenged Obama on race . Report how Obama responded. But let the voters decide whether it is an issue or not on their own. Then move on. Endless discussion not even about race but about who said what, when and where – distorts the importance of that particular McCain/Obama exchange within the campaign as a whole, as certainly within how race is dealt with within the campaign.and how Obama answered.

It’s the fault of the 24/7 news cycle! If we don’t keep up with cable we’ll fail. We have to respond to bloggers! Why doesn’t somebody try a counter-trend. After this campaign people might actually crave a newspaper with tiny print (like the old WSJ) and newscasts of the BBC vanilla type.

I was driven to NPR. They give you both sides, but don't speculate on who is right.

SQUEEK: How did McCain "challenge" Obama on race?

Even most liberal pundits on the Sunday morning shows (like Chris Matthews) admit that Obama was playing the race card on his own.

Damn right-- I'm reminded of that every morning and evening... LOVE NPR.

Few would debate that Obama was being sort of a bonehead with the faces on money comments.

Not sure I said that. But I do have a different view on the whole thing than the lliberals and Matthews who you refer to.

I first heard Obama speak in Iowa before the primary, in a snow-packed, small-town gym, before about 200 locals. Soone after he began, Obama said things like ‘ now I know I don’t look like every other Candidate….’ and ‘ …I’ve got this funny name…’ in humorous way..’ that the audience appreciated. It cut through the ice and in tacitly acknowledging race (500 lb gorilla), it put them at ease. Obama never used racial terms like ‘white’ ‘black’ even ‘hispanic’ before South Carolina when he was forced to.

The entire primary was aimed at the red/blue state model and hyperpartisan bickering that created log-jams in Washington and got nothing done.

Acknowledging race is not race-baiting. Using race underhandedly is. Rick Davis, cunning political operative he’s reputed to be, surely scoured all of Obama’s early speeches looking for things to attack. He got his opportunity when Obama made comments in Missouri. He charged Obama was specifically referring to McCain which he was not. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has used race as a reason for his wins or defeats. In fact, he once said that he will not lose this election because of race, it would be for not running a good enough campaign.

To take a routine paragraph from Obama’s stump speech and use it out of context and then blame the whole incident on Obama is sleaze. I don’t think blog or MSNBC or other ‘new-media’ forms of liberalism are any more immune from running with the pack and spreading conventional (and wrong) wisdom than the MSM or conservative opinion makers.

sorry, response above meant for porium