"The question all along has been whether McCain and Clinton are more (or less) unifying, because that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset (that and 'hope' and 'change'). "

Maybe we've been watching two different campaigns, but as I've seen, Obama's argument about being able to unify is but one aspect of his candidacy.

So when you say "that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset," I can't agree. It was one of many appeals that went into his frame. It was by no means his central selling point.

His opposition to the war immediately leaps to mind as another distinction of his candidacy.

The ability to unify is something we won't really know in any serious way until he's in office.

He's not speaking just of unity among the populace during an election cycle, though I'm sure he's aiming for this too, but lasting unity.

By definition, whether he can do this remains to be seen.

It's perfectly plausible that he can win people over over time, and in fact, hasn't his pattern been to close lots of gaps between himself and Clinton in surprisingly short periods of time? So it even appears that his campaign has, at least to some extent, borne out this claim.

Wouldn't you agree?

Oh, and as to choosing not to read what you refer to (if you must have reasons), is because I'm currently reading a book I have to teach on Wednesday, so I'm otherwise engaged. And in general, I prefer to speak to people directly rather than being referred to the arguments of others.

I don't expect eloquence, just sincerity, so please don't hesitate to speak on my account just for that reason.

Please, Tom, I appreciate you have strong feelings regarding Kate, but may I ask, for now, that you desist from gratuitous attacks for the duration of our exchange?

If possible. Thanks!

Please?

(I am enjoying the verse, btw.)

(Maybe get yourself some camomile tea, meanwhile.)

And I was only suggesting metaphorical tea!

:)

"There's a whole universe of truly new and interesting music out there that gets slept on because we're still transfixed by indie rock navel gazing and the sad, slow spectacle of pop eating itself. How come we never read about truly amazing acts like Toumast or Dengue Fever? They're just as obscure and sell just as few records as Destroyer does. "

I so appreciate your passion. Music matters. You probably would have been among the rioters at the debut of Stravinski's Sacre du Printemps. (That's a compliment, btw, I've always admired the fact they cared enough about music to rise up in opposition to it.)

That said, I notice this band is playing near me in the next month and thanks to having them brought to my attention, and to the rave review of one of the posters above, I might check them out.

After all, live music is live music, howsoever new, dynamic, whatever it might be.

Music's all about the moment, not hegemony. There's just two kinds of music, good and bad. If it works, it works.

I don't care how derivative something is; if it's real art, it will overcome this. If not, it's not for me and I'll move on.

You're a little insulting when you refer to "fanboy" or whatever, you know? You suggest that the scene is more important than the music to Mr. Berger. Maybe he honestly finds the music moving, though, in which case, why begrudge him the outpouring of affection for it?

"I wasn't taking a swipe at anybody's taste, just expressing frustration at the very, very narrow spectrum that most music criticism seems to cover. I think of Salon as a place where people think bigger and encompass larger ideas - so why doesn't their music criticism attempt to do the same thing? That's all I'm saying."

A noble vision. Agreed wholeheartedly.

Thanks, all, for your thoughts. Obviously, I find the perspectives of Fester and CB convincing.

Kate, maybe we need to start at the beginning.

Is your objection to Obama that he's not who he says he is? Or that he's polarizing? Or what, exactly?

Before I begin to take seriously the sources you throw at me, I need some more context, e.g., what are you trying to illustrate, exactly?

I see you make a lot of appeals to authority, which frankly I'm naturally sceptical of, which is why I'm asking you to make the argument in your own words, then, if necessary, I can go to those sources for clarification. But in general, I'm more interested in your ideas than theirs.

Ok, you state that Obama's racial politics need to be repudiated.

Again, if I grant your premise, viz., that Obama is indeed practicing "racial politics," why do you believe it needs to be repudiated?

Are you arguing that Obama, and Obama alone (not Clinton and not McCain) practice "racial politics?"

Is it possible that both Obama and Clinton practice "racial politics?"

And if so, why is it necessary to repudiate the one and not the other?

Further, is it possible that Obama, if he practices "racial politics," does so in a fundamentally different way than Clinton, a way that's less insidious than you think?

(I'm dealing in hypotheticals here because the charges your making obscure the real issues for me. I'm trying to get to the bottom of things to better make a judgment about what you're talking about and where you're coming from. You seem to really be trying to tell us something and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to work with me here.)

Point well-taken, re: Dawkins. I basically agree.

I'm really not sure what to say. I wasn't trying to "shut Tom up," just respectfully asking him to back off for the duration of my exchange with Kate.

For the rest, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.