Sorry, but if Sen. Obama does not win the general election, "bigotry" has nothing to do with it. "Being new to the national political scene" is very true, and 1/2-term senators with no other significant experience under their belts have a high mountain to climb to demonstrate any potential competency to be POTUS and fulfill all of the responsibilities that job entails.

Is there racial/gender/ethnic/age/education/religious/regional/"looks" bias in this country? Sure there is, as there is everywhere on Planet Earth. However, in this day-and-age, especially with all that has happened civil-rights wise since the '50s (pushing 60 years now!) Sen. Obama's skin pigmentation isn't an issue of note. As an example, if Gen. Colin Powell ran today, there would be a stampede to the polls on election day in his favor.

Fringe elements (which always seem to get their unbalanced share of press coverage) may attack Sen. Obama for his racial background, as other fringes will attack Sen. McCain and refer to him as a Papist. Stupid is as stupid does, and "stupid" fringes tend to balance each other out.

If the Democratic Party's candidate comes out second, and the party plays a post-election "race card" excuse, allegation or alibi, that action will alienate people against the DNC for a long time - as such a post-election action would be an insult to all of us.

This election is starting to boil down to whether the majority wants: 1) a grandfatherly type who emits an image of relaxed control (despite private temper explosions) and a soothing "Don't worry, I've got it covered" attitude; or 2) an energetic firebrand who says top-to-bottom "change" is necessary now or the country will self-dissolve. All of the other issues will fall second to the "radical change" or "take it slow" persona.

Whether either candidate truly matches the the public persona being hawked, how good the advertising is and whether folk want to investigate beyond the billboard image will answer that.