The most obvious policies increasing the suffering of the poor are cuts in social services, and the Republican Party has always been miserly in this regard. One step up from that is the impact on low-wage earners of the Republican aversion to raising the minimum wage, among other pro-business anti-employee policies. The effect on solidly middle-class people is the result of that increasing wealth gap and of unfettered corporatism. The reallocation of wealth upward is by definition anti-democratic, because there are far more people below average income than above it. When Reagan cut the top tax rate, it cost the federal government tax revenue, which either reduces services, raises their costs or increases debt. Actually, tax revenue would have fallen far more except for Reagan's other “innovation” which was to borrow massively from future generations, rather than adhering to the former Republican belief of paying one's own way (a quaint concept).

Finally, let me note again the crushing impact of the accumulated debt. The “birth tax” is currently $31,000, your personal share of the national debt. The interest on that debt for every taxpayer is about $235 per month (interest divided by taxpayers). Each of us who pays taxes will continue to owe that indefinitely without ever paying off a penny of principal. Obviously, that is a far greater burden for people of middle income and lower than it is for those above average income. However, currently we are still not paying our own way, but rather, borrowing money to pay the interest on money already borrowed and passing the whole stinking pile of debt on to our children.

Take, for example, tax cuts for the rich. Thos benefit the rich to the extent that their tax liability is reduced should their income remain static. However, tax cuts have no effect on those that do not pay taxes, the poor. So, if you could point out an example of what you're writing about, it would be helpful.

You would be correct that race does not determine party affliliation is african-Americans were not such a monoculture. It is not like there is a huge amount of diversity in black culture in the U.S. The limited range of sports interest, music interest, and political interest ensures block voting.

Race is a better determiniation of political leanings for all non-whites in the U.S. In the U.S., whites are basically the only swing voters.

I don't think race determines party affiliation at all. Class does seem to influence it though.

GreenDreams is correct, I think, in saying that the GOP has unfortunately branded itself as the party of the upper classes. They will welcome anyone with a big bank account, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

I am sure, in my younger impoverished punk days, they would set the hounds upon me the moment their Wallet Sniffing Dogs turned up their noses at me

Now as for Ifill, what difference does it make, other than perception, that she is an Obama supporter? In the current debate format, both candidates get the same question, and it is not Ifill who wrote the questions.

Also, race does not determine political affiliation. Look at the number of Republicans in the NBA! When you have fifty million in the bank, you are white.

Personally, I think McCain lost a lot of credibility in his dealing with the economy. Go to Washington, fine . . . but then he had to do something . . . and he did nada. So it was pointlessly political.

In tough times people tend to turn to leaders who are at least serious and reassuring. Even though Senator Obama may be a flaming RED BOLSHIE he is at least serious. That scores him points in my book.

But, as Chris says, it could all change.

BTW: The latest is that Ifill is writing a book on Obama! Hahahaha…the McCain campaign was totally blindsided. What a bunch of maroons. A good campaign manager like Rove would never have allowed this.

However, as long as the Democrats are saying that they will tax rich (read whites) and give the money to minorities, there is no way that the Republicans can ever hope to appeal to minorities.

Take McCain and Bush's signature issue, tax cuts that predominantly help rich Americans. Is that really an issue that is going to win over any demographic group at this point?

When you realize that less than 50% of the children in kindergarten are white, you should forget about a comeback for Republicans or conservatives.

I wonder in what year the media will first decide that the general election is irrelevant because the Democratic candidate is so far ahead that it is pointless to report on the election (see mayorial general election in most large urban cities). The second question is how will politicis function in the coming one party state where the Democratic primary will be the only important eleciton. How willl people like Ms. Ifill function in the coming one party state and will blacks inside the Democratic party function as a separate political party.

It's no different than any other conflict of interest. You wouldn't excuse a researcher who works for a pharmaceutical company with financial interest in the stakes of the research outcome, although if the same researcher participated in a different project without a conflct of interest it would be fine. The fact that he/she could perform that latter in a competent and professional manner doesn't make the former situation acceptable.

The perception problem is real (on both sides- McCain/Palin supporters will have a built in excuse for any bungled performance, and Obama/Biden supporters will have the excuse that Ifill bent over backwards to be tougher on Biden if he happens to stumble more than she does.) It's not just a perception that we all need to get over, it's a taint that has to be avoided in order for the debate itself to have any real meaning.

So, Palin if asked the questions that need asking, may end up looking worse than Biden, but that's not necessarily indicative of bias.