I do believe, however, in "innocent until proven guilty" and think that it does our cause harm, and is an insult to real discrimination, to fling out unsubstantiated accusations with very little to back them up. Somebody with a racist sign, is clearly racist, although it is not always clear what is a racist sign (is it really racist to call Obama a socialist?). However, a racist sign in a group of 1,000 does not prove that the entire group of 1,000 are racists.

Finally, I don't think this

Wilson: Obama is lying.
Liberal Blogosphere: Wilson is a racist.

is as relevant or effective an argument as

Wilson: Obama is lying
LB: Wilson is wrong, Obama was telling the truth.

The first tactic is just not gonna convince people who are against Obama's plan or who are not sure which side they should support. It also increases the enmity. If we have a national argument between Plan A and Plan B for health care reform it does not help if the two sides are attacking each other instead of discussing the plans on their supposed merits.

One side screams "People who support Plan A are socialists!" and the other side screams back "People who oppose Plan A are racists!" Ultimately something gets passed and it does not make for "domestic tranquility" if each side is nursing anger over the battle.

I always said that it was wrong to attack my patriotism or character just because I was against the war and just because I demonstrated against the war. I bet their side could find some nasty signs at one of our demonstrations, but there is nothing inherently dishonorable in protesting a President or his policies. I can not, or will not, defend my own right to protest and then turn around and applaud character smears against others who protest just because they are protesting something (or somebody) I support.

I expect and hope that their side will admit that there are some good people on our side and will hold to the belief that there are some good people on their side too (at least until it is proven that there are not).