The Barack Obama thing leaves me puzzled. "Time" magazine, one of the biggest rags ever published, wants him elected so badly that they've abandoned all pretense of objectivity. I mean, they don't even try and pretend to be objective or non-partisan. Time Magazine wants Obama elected, period.

As I've already noted, his platform leaves a lot to be filled in. At this point it's basically "I'm black, I'm good looking, I'm black, I have a nice smile and I'm black". He also advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which is naive in the extreme. Yep--let's abandon Iraq so it can turn into the sort of lawless vacuum that Afghanistan was. A magnet for Islamic extremism. That's not an option.

And, as I noted in an email to a friend the other day, I will not ever vote for someone who refers to himself/herself as an "African-American". Just a note--African isn't a nationality. Africa is a continent. But anyway...If Obama wants to refer to himself as an American who happens to be black, then fine with me. But if you have to put "African" in front of "American", there is no way in hell that you are getting my vote. Period. Same goes for any other appellation, not just "African".

I'd vote for Condaleeza Rice. I probably wouldn't vote for Colin Powell as he's a bit liberal for me, but I find him more palatable than some of the current candidates.

Now here I am, a white male cracker, and I'm smashing three preconceptions at once: I'd vote for someone who is black, a woman, and good looking (bear in mind the myth that you have to be severe looking to be taken seriously as a woman). But I will never vote for anyone who hyphenates his/her nationality.