In that well-known pinko, commie, surrender-monkey-loving, scurrilous rag 'The Economist" (tongue firmly in cheek, in case you missed it), August 14-20th 2004 issue, Lexington (the US columnist) talks about Obama vs Keys in Illinois. He certainly doesn't pull any punches in his opinion of the stupidity of the Republican Party here (e.g. "The thinking behind this is beguilling in its simplicity; the Democrats have a black man who can give a rafter-raising speech, so we had better find a rafter-raising black man too. Beguilling, but stupid. Mr Keyes' Senate race will produce nothing but disaster - humiliation for Mr Keyes, more pie on the already pie-covered Illinois Republican Party, and yet another setback for Republican efforts to woo minority voters."). However, it's not the travails of Republicans that caught my eye, but the following: "The point about Mr Obama - as the Republicans might have realised if they had paid greater attention to his speech in Boston - is that he is a post-racial candidate." (my emphasis) Intriguing! Is this accurate? The Economist is, after all, a UK magazine (even if it counts among its readers and subscribers a veritable galaxy of US political figures, right and left). If it is, is it evidence that the US public is beginning to get over its hang-up with 'race'? That the issues have to do with poverty, opportunity, etc and not the colour of a person's skin? US PF members, please educate me!