"Obama is not that man. His attendance at Rev. Wright's church for 20+ years and raising his children in that atmosphere of Anti-Americanism and race hatred is enough alone to sway my vote against him."

Could I ask you to elaborate on this?

There are a lot of premises here that perhaps deserve the light of day.

What, precisely, do you consider "Anti-Americanism" and "race hatred?"

This characterization, in other words, is a contested one, so let's treat it as such.

What's your take on the matter?

Thank you.

I don't think the issue is sorelosership, actually, but something much deeper and more sinister.

Racism, fear of the unfamiliar, free-floating anxiety, profound economic insecurity, who knows.

I'm not saying that Clinton supporters embody these things and Obama supporters do not.

I'm saying that we're seeing lots and lots of ugliness released that runs really really deep in our society.

It's not about Hillary v. Obama v. McCain, but about something far more intractable.

It's about incivility, and ignorance and animosity and resentment.

It's about being a broken people.

I don't know, I'm not an American historian, but if I were, I'd probably be able to articulate this better.

Any American historians out there who'd care to weigh in?

...how to be constructive about such sentiments, or where to go from here?

"Not noly does Obama attend this church, so did Colin Powell and Oprah Winfrey. This campaign has done one thing positive: No longer will most white Americans feel any latent guilt over the history of slavery and the horrible treatment of the black Americans in years past. I will not be "guilted" into preferential treatment in scholastic endeavors due to racial influence. It has become clear that black America is the most racist group in the country. Seldom do I hear that Obama is the best candidate from my many black friends, rather I hear "he looks like us"."

So much pain.

"Lividly undead!"

Brilliant phrase!

:)

You're a small man, Ben.

"Either Hillary is stupid for lying about things she knows the media and Obama will examine or it's the way she felt when they landed in Bosnia, which was a war zone at the time. I find it hard to believe she would outright lie. "

Fair enough.

But this is the crux of the matter. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this: the question remains, so what?

Chelsea was still with her, no? As was Sinbad?

The question being, bullets or no bullets, how is this anecdote evidence that she's qualified to answer the phone call at 3am?

That's the real question, isn't it?

"Obama frankly doesn't have the experience. "

Would you elaborate on this statement, please?

What are your criteria of "experience" and how does Obama fall short?

(The follow up question is whether you're sure your criteria are sound.)

Your analysis re: the vetting is plausible.

Thank you for sharing it.

Ok, let's develop your theory, if we're talking about political calculus.

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit to vetting Obama is outweighed by the missed opportunities to challenge McCain?

This week being of course the perfect example: how might we measure the lost opportunity of seriously damaging McCain on his claims to foreign policy expertise as well as focussing on his aloofness to the economy?

That's one issue.

The other is whether or not the vetting inflicted by Clinton can go beyond vetting and become the infliction of permanent damage.

The one thing to consider, I think, is that criticisms of Obama coming from a fellow Democrat are not quite the same as if they come from a Republican. The fact that a Democrat is making them, I think, lend them more credibility than they might have if the Democratic party put forth a united front in rejecting out of hand such attacks.

In other words, if McCain questions Obama's patriotism, it's par for the course, because you'd expect no less from a Republican. When Clinton does it, though, it's harder to write off as typical Republican smear tactics.

I totally get your point, but I think these factors should be considered as well.

What do you think?

...if Clinton really wanted to help (and I know you're not suggesting she's vetting him for the good of the party), she would simultaneously bring forth potentially damaging stories like Wright, while at the same time dismissing their relevance or legitimacy.

That way, they'd be out there already, which would still serve the purpose you suggest, which is to preempt McCAin's using them, but the actual smearing would be left to McCain.

Since McCain has made intimations about not going negative, the ball would be in his court and he'd run the risk of making himself look venal if he tried to capitalize.

Your enthusiasm is infectious.

At a time of so much acrimony, that's pure gold.

Keep up the good work, the good vibes, and I'll be out there knocking on doors with you when the time comes.

Speaking of a dose of reality, at what point does it become fair to start pointing out the similarities between Clinton and Bush as far as this issue goes?

At what point is the evidence sufficient for us to draw comparison between the two as far as cronyism/loyalty, the inability to ever admit a mistake, siege mentality, hubris, etc.

While their policy positions are for the most part quite far apart, I'm noticing more and more parallels as far as how the two do business.

It alarms me.