You need to hear the candidates in their own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UabzJm8HNNU

The best, most informative substantive display of the candidates and what they believe, their thoughts and ideas.

Through a velvethammer tweet [tweet here] talking about Obama closing offices in 4 states linked this blog post.  Gateway Pundit points out Andrew Malcolm at the Top of the Ticket tries to tie the closing of offices to a recent AP poll about racism.

That prompted me to tweet this.

In case that doesn't make sense, here's an explanation.
Personal typed transcript of The Dennis Prager Show. Thursday, September 18, 2008. Hour 2. Race in the Race. [around 42 min:50sec in]

Prager
Hello Patrick of Des Moines, this is Dennis Prager. Hi!

Patrick
Hello Dennis! Um, I just uh, was curious, I loved your point you brought up that if people agreed with Obama ideologically, 100%, wouldn't vote for him based on his race, that they would be racist.  But the people that would agree with him ideologically would be Democrats.

Prager
Yes!

Patrick
Which means that if we're talking about racism, we are talking about Democrat racism.  Are we not?

Prager
That is so interesting!!!

Patrick
I try!

Prager
Oh, I would like, I would drive to Des Moines right now just to shake your hand.

Patrick
You know I got a spare room.

Prager
Give it real estate prices... you know, send me an e-mail.

Patrick
You know, I just in fact, I just moved here from Los Angeles, and the down payment in Las Angeles bought the house here.

Prager
I believe you and I hate to say this because I don't want my own state to lose people but it makes sense.  Actually California I think had a net loss of, was it 50 or 500 thousand last year?

Patrick
Uh, I would uh...

Prager
500,000? Really?  Uh... anyway, but that point, you know, that's so terrific I'm trying to figure out am I missing an obvious rejoinder and I don't think so.

Patrick
I tried to think of one myself. [inaudible] ...challange myself.

Prager
Yeah, because a Republican... You're right because a Republican isn't going to vote for him because of ideas.  [Patrick: Right]  So the only possible racists are among the Democrats.

Patrick
The only ones!  As far as I see it. [inaudible] ...calling out own party.

Then Dennis said he would get the guy a Cohiba for the guys call and great insight.  [I thought of it first.]

And note the AP poll was making note of racism among white Democrats.  The link I gave to the poll goes to Hot Air and the post is titled: AP poll: Racism among white Democrats could cost Obama the election which also had to say this:

"Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown."

So that goes to the idea that Republicans will vote for Republicans and Democrats will vote for Democrats.  [Generalization:] If someone is not going to vote for Obama based on race, it'll be a Democrat.

And I find it interesting Andrew Malcolm in his Top of the Ticket article does not mention that the poll and the percentage he uses was for racism among Democrats, white Democrats at that.  Mr. Malcolm leaves it ambiguous and if one was not aware of the specifics of the poll, could attribute it to whomever they like, i.e. Republicans.  It's disingenuous.

So hope that clarifies if there was any questions.

on another note:

Join in getting Hugh Hewitt connected with his listeners, us, via web 2.0 and twitter.

video below -- scroll down

Looking for the skit, look no further, scroll down a bit [obtained via Sweetness & Light].  My two cents:  The part about Todd Palin being involved in incest may be overblown in some part [hear me out] from those screaming foul.  SNL was bashing the New York Times.  That's what the skit was.  A bash fest on the NYT and their [general] willingness to print anything and everything they don't like or understand about something or someone.  NYT + fact checking = [false statement, can't compute].  That their universe doesn't excede past the confines of Manhattan.  So I don't think SNL's addition of the comment was condoning or trying to spread disturbing and disgusting information as truth.  Rather it was showing that they, like other MSM, would/might be willing to jump on doomed disgusting myth bandwagons that we have seen perpetuated before by the likes of a DailyKos diary and Andrew Sullivan or current viral campaigns.  Printing it before it's been confirmed or validated, so in essence, feeding the fire with gasoline before realizing they burned half of the forest for no real justifiable reason.  Sweetness & Light posted below it's embeded video, a working script I believe.  Here is something that was cut out for whatever reason [emphasis mine]:

JAMES (CONTD)
Now, you all know why you’re here. You are, quite simply, the fifty finest investigative reporters in journalism today. Thanks to your work, it was The New York Times that broke the story about our government’s secret program to track terrorist finances overseas. A program so secret that, until our series, even Al Qaeda didn’t know about it! Great work on that one, Dennis.
(GROUP APPLAUDS)
HIGGINS
(FROM WAY IN THE BACK)
I had some help.
JAMES
But we don’t coast on reputation here. We are The New York Times. And in Sarah Palin, we’ve got a Vice Presidential candidate about whom we know virtually nothing.

Ouch!  That's a major dig.  Saying NYT compromised our efforts to fight terrorist; the likes of Al Qaeda.  The whole skit was a scathing rebuke of what NYT does and doesn't do.  The idea that everything is an assault rifle.  Someone thinking a snow machine is a baptism machine, probably showing the wanting of some MSM to attack her faith and/or church.  Anything to destroy McCain Palin and exalt Obama Biden.

Dennis Prager mentions every now and then that he has had talks with people who are amazed that there are people voting Republican.  Prager says they say they've never met one.  And it's because people are surrounded by their own kind.  They live in a bubble.  An echo chamber.  And Prager has said that it's people he knows in New York.  That's the New York Times, in it's own uni-bubble-verse.  Echo Chamber: "Palin is evil! [~palin is evil!~] Confirmation!!! [~confirmation!!!~] Print it quick!!! [~print it quick!!!~]"

Could the line have been taken out like other lines apparently were?  Absolutely.  Would it have made the skit less impactful?  No.  Would it still be mocking the NYT?  Yes.  But I really think it was crying foul big time on the NYT, making fun of the extremes they go to.  The lack of "...fine investigative..." reporting in MSM journalism.  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Video:

SNL Makes Light of Incest Slur on Palin Family
by bustergonad1

on another note:

Join in getting Hugh Hewitt connected with his listeners, us, via web 2.0 and twitter.

Update: Lagomorphic was informed that twitter has a auto-follow feature.  When a twitter-er follows your account, twitter can set your account to automatically follow them [view their tweets].  Even with this, I think there should be a little oversight and discretion.  If one is trying to portray an image of a clean and a non-divisive campaign, I'd try and keep up on it.  Even if it was an oversight, once it was pointed out, I would go to great lengths to correct it, blocking their account.  Let's see what happens, if nothing, then that would be telling.

Whoever is manning the Obama twitter account should think about having a little discretion. [note: To follow someones "tweets" takes the physical act of the account holder to click a Follow button.  Whoever is overseeing Barack Obama's twitter account consciously and voluntarily added the accounts mentioned below.]

Lagomorphic gives the lowdown on who the Obama twitter account is following and it's a reference to Sarah Palin's private parts.  [I wouldn't let kids see.  It can get personal.]

velvethammer, at Ironic Surrealism II, gives a couple more of who Obama's twitter account is following.

Just saying.  Might want to take a second look.

on another note:

Join in getting Hugh Hewitt connected with his listeners, us, via web 2.0 and twitter.

[via the ap]:

At the root of the dispute is McCain's decision to call attention to a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election."

...

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,'" Obama said. "And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."

The Illinois senator added: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."

[via foxnews.com] we get Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef' words:

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

(Full interview)

First, it's offensive?  To point out Hamas seems to have a preference for one candidate over the other?  Second, it's a smear?  It's their position, right?  McCain hasn't said Obama likes it or accepts it or is grateful for it or endorses it et al.  It's just the facts.  Third, it's name calling?  Ok, I haven't heard every time McCain has brought this fact up or read everything on it but what name is he calling Obama?

Obama to his credit did say, "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction... We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

But McCain is drawing the distinction that it's Obama's stance on foreign policy that seems to get Hamas's thumbs up:

The McCain fundraising e-mail says Obama’s stands have earned him “kind words” from Hamas. “John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama,” writes Ferry. “While Senator Obama would surrender in Iraq and hold talks with the Iranian regime, John McCain will never surrender in the struggle with Islamic extremists."

If I was Hamas and I'm hearing a presidential candidate who wants to pull out of/surrender in Iraq, says he believes we should be having talks with the "Iranian regime" [who seem "...intent on Israel's destruction..."], I would like him too, despite Obama saying "we must not negotiate with a terrorist group..."  Because it means there is hope that I won't get shocked and awed.  I might be able to convince him not to attack us, that we just need to talk just a wee bit more.

McCain is saying nothing more than Hamas likes Obama's foreign policies better then his own.

~tohu.va.vohu