Thanks for your thoughtful response.

"Your logic is flawed. You have decided that the fault must be Obama's since he appears to have an easier or smoother path to Edwards than Clinton. You fail to account for the motivations that john Edwards may have had in meeting with Obama. We know Obama wanted an endorsement. We know that."

I'm not stipulating that Obama is singularly at fault. I'm suggesting that, if indeed Obama alienated Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards, regardless of whether that alienation was justifiable, it calls into question his ability to be conciliatory. As the story is presented (and again, we can argue about whether it's accurate), Obama displays the haughtiness he has determined is one of the reasons for what he calls our current political stalemate.

"What about Edwards? Did he want some kind of tacit agreement on a role in a possible Obama White House?"

Perhaps, but my point is, whatever he wanted, he should not have walked away with resentment. Obama's message is that resentments need to be allayed, not aggravated.

Now, perhaps there was no pleasing Edwards and even had Obama been gracious, he'd have walked away resentful.

I don't know.

But as far as being president, a huge part of the job lies, in fact, in not making enemies where none need exist.

This is especially true with foreign policy, imo.

Now, do I think this is evidence of some deep hypocrisy? No, not yet. Obama has established a lot of credit with me.

This one episode, though, does not show him in a favorable light, imo, but I can give him a pass.

Still, I'd like to know more about just why he displayed what is portrayed as a cavalier attitude towards Edwards' advance.

It's a fair question, isn't it?

"As for Edwards, I don't get him. He states that he wants to help the working poor and middle class in this country. And yet he hesitates to endorse a candidate that has spent a considerable portion of his adult life as a community organizer."

Edwards was my first choice, tentatively (after Kucinich).

I agree, I don't get him either. He seems to have two sides: the real person and the politician. I don't know. I want to believe in him and basically do, but there's something about him that seems phony, though I've seen much to convince me he's genuine.

But anyway, as to Obama, I think this episode is fair game.

Thank you, well said.

Thank you, AA.

That's writing.

It's insightful, non-polemical and above all, honest.

I'm a firm believer that one's emotional responses should be on the table in political discourse. We all respond after our fashion, for reasons rational and non-rational.

We're human.

What's critical is honesty. Honesty is the foundation of trust and productive dialogue, imo.

Hey, lj.

"He may not even lock up the Black vote in Pennsylvania's urban areas, at least not in Philly"

???

Why not?

I really love reading your posts, let me say. They're fair, thoughtful and humane. I find your analysis consistently spot on.

Thank you.

Why, indeed, is Hillary considered so blue collar.

I've often wondered this myself. Why is this touted as her "natural base?"

I think it's a combination of her evidently having cultivated this demographic (in upstate NY, I suppose?) as well as race.

Having grown up black among this demographic (anecdotal evidence, I admit), I can testify that "uppity negroes" are not heartily embraced.

The simplified answer, then, is that race is more of a factor than gender.

I could be dead wrong, but that's my whack at the question.

I appreciate your response, lj, and especially your civility.

Cheers.

I see nothing in that story to suggest Obama won't "lock up the black vote" in PA. The piece was about the mayor's support of Clinton and no pole data was cited.

I think your conclusion, that he might have trouble locking up the black vote, is unfounded. unless there's some way of actually gauging the ability of this mayor to deliver black votes to one candidate or the other.

Ha ha hah!

Please, let me amend a bit my last response. It's not just racism, but also anti-intellectualism, an ethos of conformity, and suspicion of "the other" that this demographic mistrusts.

I'm speaking only from personal experience here, so please don't take this as any kind of scientific study, but in my experience, Hillary would appeal to this demographic because (in the simplest of terms) she doesn't come off as sophisticated or as someone who will rock the boat. She's a problem solver rather than a dreamer.

In my experience, dreamers are abused as faggots. Clinton's appeal is far more earthy, pragmatic, and lacking ambition.

I think this is probably more of a factor than race, frankly.

Fair enough.

We shall see what we shall see.

Thanks for that.

So the question is, what percent of the black vote does Obama need to...to...to what?

He's already won the nomination, barring a deus ex machina.

Ok, but let's play this out, as far as the media is concerned.

If Obama gets, say, less than 70% of the black vote, the media will make a big deal of it.

Or if the mayor of Philly can somehow deliver educated, suburban whites to Clinton in unexpected numbers.

I don't know.

At any rate, Clinton needs what, 2/3 of the remaining popular vote to pull even with Obama? Something like that?

What are we talking about here, lj?

To quote John Lennon, "They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool."

(It's a great opera, btw.)

What are you talking about, "Inflated notion of himself?"

Can you elaborate?

Let me guess, is it the "mysterious stranger" bit?

Good God, that was funny, and yes, I thought of the Onion too watching Obama "bowl."