Beginning with their stunning inability to defeat the most detested politician in American history, Richard Nixon

Apparently, Moore is not much of a student of history. Nixon won in '68 because he promised to end the Vietnam War -- a failure of the previous Democratic administration. He won again in '72 partly due to inside information gained from a little thing called the wiretapping of the DNC and a hotel with a famous bakery called The Watergate.

How would Lincoln have fared today?

frankly, he'd rip both mccain and obama new ones, either in debate or solo speeches, he was just that good. as well, he'd make an excellent administrator.

actually, mr. moore, in his own way, is on to something: the people actually have no interest in non or bi-partisan politics. if it were true, they'd always elect exactly the same kind of people to office, and there wouldn't be any such thing as different parties. why bother, the two are mutually exclusive, by definition.

It might also help if we learned to unite behind and support our candidate.  I voted for Hillary but I have no problem supporting Obama over McCain.  McCain a continuation of George Bush's failed policies.  

Outside the auditorium where he was going to speak it was like a political circus.  Most of the crowd were either anti-Bush or uncommitted but curious, but there was also a vocal minority of pro-George Bush Republicans protesting against Moore.  There was excitement in the air as both pro and anti-Bush students engaged each other in a lively discussion mainly about the war in Iraq.  This was the first time that I could remember a large group of students who were engaged in politics rather than being apathetic.  By the way during the question and answer portion of Moore's presentation, Moore asked if there were any pro-Bush students in the audience and insisted that they be allowed to make their points which I thought was very fair and civil of him.

The New York Times August 9, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Racism and the Race By CHARLES M. BLOW

This is supposed to be the Democrats' year of destiny. Bush is hobbling out of office, the economy is in the toilet, voters are sick of the war and the party's wunderkind candidate is raking in money hand over fist.

So why is the presidential race a statistical dead heat? The pundits have offered a host of reasons, but one in particular deserves more exploration: racism.

Barack Obama's candidacy has shed some light on the extremes of racism in America -- how much has dissipated (especially among younger people) and how much remains.

According to a July New York Times/CBS News poll, when whites were asked whether they would be willing to vote for a black candidate, 5 percent confessed that they would not. That's not so bad, right? But wait. The pollsters then rephrased the question to get a more accurate portrait of the sentiment. They asked the same whites if most of the people they knew would vote for a black candidate. Nineteen percent said that those they knew would not. Depending on how many people they know and how well they know them, this universe of voters could be substantial. That's bad.

Welcome to the murky world of modern racism, where most of the open animus has been replaced by a shadowy bias that is difficult to measure. As Obama gently put it in his race speech, today's racial "resentments aren't always expressed in polite company." However, they can be -- and possibly will be -- expressed in the privacy of the voting booth.

If the percentage of white voters who cannot bring themselves to vote for a black candidate were only 15 percent, that would be more than all black voters combined. (Coincidentally, it also would be more than all voters under 24 years old.) That amounts to a racial advantage for John McCain.

And this sentiment stretched across ideological lines. Just as many white independents as Republicans said that most of the people they knew would not vote for a black candidate, and white Democrats were not far behind. Also, remember that during the Democratic primaries, up to 20 percent of white voters in some states said that the race of the candidate was important to them. Few of those people voted for the black guy.

Some might say that turnabout is fair play, citing the fact that 89 percent of blacks say they plan to vote for Obama. That level of support represents a racial advantage for him, too, right? Not necessarily. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic in the general election anyway. According to CNN exit polls John Kerry got 88 percent of the black vote in 2004. Think racism isn't a major factor in this election? Think again.