A business model that relies on "support" for revenue actually creates a disincentive to produce the "ideal" piece of software (i.e. powerful, intuitive, easy to use, stable).

"You only have to look at Sun and IBM to see that they are on track with the need to change."

I don't know about IBM, but Sun's version of "being on track with change" includes massive layoffs and near bankruptcy.
Sun announces 6000 layoffs, 15% of its workforce (Nov 2008)

Microsoft, for all its "problems" and outdated/maligned business model, is hiring lots of people while its competitors are doing the opposite.

LOL
Obama doesn't support the "fairness doctrine", that's a srawman you right-wingers have created. I keep seeing you guys talking of how Obama and Pelosi want to bring back the "fairness doctrine" but there's zero evidence of that.

Biden's "gaffes" were boring. And Biden himself was relatively boring, compared to Palin, who was a fresh face. EVERYTHING Palin did got more coverage than whatever Biden did, both the good and the bad.

Secondly, the press absolutely swooned and fawned over Palin until she made a complete fool of herself in her Katie Couric interview (so much so that SNL didn't even have to "parodize" her statements; Tina Fey was able to just say what Palin herself had said, which was parody in itself).

Even so, the press still declared her the overwhelming winner in her debate with Biden, before the polls showed that the public felt the exact opposite. So they were still biased *for* her even at that point. They didn't really turn on her until polls showed that she was a drag on the ticket, her approval rating kept dropping, she was spouting mean-spirited rhetoric ("real America" vs "unreal America" blathering), and McCain's own staffers started leaking bad stories about her.

At the end of the day, most people don't think she's qualified for the job she was seeking. Live with it.

"I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential race"

That sound you hear is that of your credibility being flushed down that toilet. You vote for a wacko and then expect us to take you seriously? Please...

Anyway, as shown above, the Democratic candidate ALWAYS loses among white voters, even when they win (i.e. Clinton, Carter, Obama, or Gore (won popular vote)). Just as the Republican candidate ALWAYS loses Blacks and Latinos, regardless of whether they win or lose. The fact is, Obama performed better in all of those categories than previous Democrats since LBJ, and his overall percentage of the vote 53% is the highest of any Democrat since LBJ. You think that was done simply on the backs of black votes? Get real.

It was reported, you ignoramus (that's not an insult, but the literal truth).
Hillary's campaign brought it up in Dec 2007, right before the Iowa caucus, and the media spent a whole week on it.

Obama himself not only wrote about it in the 90's in his first book (which diffuses the issue anyway), he spoke about it a couple of weeks before Hillary tried to run with it.

Romney and Guiliani also brought it up around the same time.

The media covered all of this.

Then NY Times did an extensive article on it in February.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

It was reported.

If McCain thought it would help him, he would've brought it up himself or run ads on it. He didn't waste time because even he knew nobody cared.

You're not stating the whole of what Obama said regarding public funding, but let's grant your point for argument's sake. My response is: So what? Once he saw he could raise more money directly from the public (rather than indirectly from the public via the government) while still not taking lobbyist money, he changed his mind. There was nothing stopping McCain from doing the same.