Thank you.

But you see, that's what's so beautiful about the way Obama sees the world. It's his overall ethos of (God help me) "peace and reconciliation."

The idea that we talk to our enemies, not just our friends.

I've not seen a candidate in my lifetime who so embodies the vision of Martin Luther King: "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

I so fervently believe that.

Now, I can understand how that might look naive to detractors, and I understand how the Clinton ethos of (and forgive me, Clinton supporters, if you feel this is an unfair characterization) "kill or be killed" is attractive, especially in a political sphere where the VRWC is real and is malevolent.

Clinton's parody about the heavens opening and angels singing was snide, of course, but it was fair in that it got to the heart of the issue: do we get what we want through peace and love or through hardball.

I'm a hippie at heart, and I was raised to revere both Martin Luther King and the sixties generation and, yes, the Christian principles of love and martyrdom and turing the other cheek, so of course Obama's message appeals to me.

I can see how that might seem facile to some, and maybe it is, but after a lifetime of wrestling with philosophy and history and politics, to the best of my ability, I believe Clinton's way at best can yield short-term boons, but since it can only do so through direct, mortal combat, it simultaneously plants the seeds of its own undoing.

Overreach, in other words.

The 1960s created a backlash which gave us Reagan and Clinton.

I want the 1960s without the backlash. I believe Obama stands for 1960s style radical change, but that he seeks to do so in as unconfrontational way as possible, so as to keep resentments at a minimum.

That way, any gains that are made are more likely to last.

This is my analysis, at any rate, fwiw.

Points taken. Kind of like phone tag, eh? :)

Nothing wrong with sensitivity. Imo, our society is racked with agonies in part because sensitivity is something to be ridiculed rather than a source of strength and peace.

Nothing wrong with being sensitive to one another as human beings.

Nothing at all.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Except...

When he last tried that, he fell into cruise control, and, by his own admission, it cost him. He recognized that complacency was not the strength of his campaign.

The risk of such an approach is that Clinton can swiftboat him to death. He'd have to respond, else he'd look weak, aloof, etc.

Clinton would bait the living shit out of him and then, by the time he got around to responding, he'd look foolish.

So I guess I think he shouldn't ignore her altogether, but still maintain something of a rapid response approach, but one that simply brushes off the attack and moves on.

I don't know. I basically agree with you, but I do worry that such an approach might entail a bit more risk than you suggest.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure quite what the appropriate response is, but I'll give it some thought.

And thank you as well, lateagain. I appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I23fjRN-PGc

Agree wholeheartedly.

My initial, charitable response was precisely that: "Well, she must just be confusing Bosnia with some other incident."

If only she could tell us the basis of the misstatement, e.g., "Oh, right, sorry, it wasn't Bosnia, but Somalia." or whatever.

Anything.

Instead, we got GWB-style combativeness, "[Fuck you, sniveling worms,] I misspoke."

Seriously, the body language she exhibited spoke volumes, just like when Bush began raving during that debate in 2004, the one where he became so unhinged (gesticulating wildly, practically drooling with misplaced rage) I thought, "This is it, for sure, he's finally crossed the line."

Clinton didn't go that far, of course, but it was on the same end of the spectrum.

Twice.

I can't take it.

Eight long years.

God help us all.

For offering substantive and useful criticism.

Much to consider here.

Just to amplify the salient point made by Gams on Glass:

"The bit was about what Obama did wrong given an obvious positive. In fact, the presupposition is that Edwards WANTED Obama from the get go, and that a face-to-face meeting dissueded him on personal grounds."

Now, we can certainly question whether this is an accurate account of events, but if we accept the premise, namely, that Obama mishandled Edwards' ego or otherwise alienated him through personal interaction, it's cause for concern.

Obama is arguing that he listens and can bring people together. If this account is accurate, by no means does it undermine out of hand Obama's contention, but it certainly merits an explanation, no?

I'd be interested to hear Obama's side of the story.