"To borrow a phrase from John Edwards, Joan, you're better than this. How about treating this election as though it were a matter of life and death (because it is) and each column was your last chance to illuminate the choice before the voters. How about that?"

Amen.

How 'bout that?

Why not strive for greatness, Joan, worthy of your platform and your audience?

What makes you so privileged and complacent that you can take so abysmally for granted the nature of your vocation?

It's a public trust, Joan!

Show your vocation, if not your audience, the respect it deserves!

Thou shoulds't not have been old, til thou hads't been wise.

I'm amazed.

It's like you've undergone a transformation.

What a nice, thoughtful, balanced, perceptive piece you've written.

And you cracked me up with your self-deprecating humor about being in Clinton's demographic.

I have nothing really to say other than, well done, well done! I'm especially pleased that, for seemingly the first time, you've articulated with great fairness and precision the underlying premises of the two campaigns: transformation of process v. delivery of goodies.

And as an Obama supporter, I agree with you when you say Obama's goal is a tall order for one election.

It *is* a tall order, to be sure, but a most worthy one.

And the goodies Clinton promises are worthy as well, of course, but the question is whether she can deliver given what "the process" is.

The reason I believe the premise of Obama's campaign is more realistic is because of the anecdote he tells of having tried to get legislation through in Illinois only to find that the People weren't behind him. He claims he learned a valuable lesson, which is that it's not enough to fight for something legislatively, but that the People have to be enlisted in the fight in a serious and meaningful way. They cannot be passive.

This is why Clinton's way, imo, is fatally flawed. It's premised on a passive citizenry that entrusts Clinton as the expert to just get it done.

In the long run (and probably in the short run, too) this is a losing formula.

There's no way in hell that an ethos like that solves global warming.

The only way to do that is to activate the citizenry as they were activated in WWII, each with a serious sense of mission, purpose, and commitment to something greater than oneself.

As you say, a tall order, but really, it's the only way.

It's just so clear to me where Clinton leads us, which is basically nowhere fast. I say this as an historian, accustomed to thinking in terms of decades and centuries, so take it for what it's worth.

Anyway, Joan, good luck to your daughter and thanks for finally writing something that's both honest and thoughtful.

Rock on.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

As I was watching Clinton and her supporters the other day, I suddenly asked myself: why do they like her so much?

Why aren't they punishing her for exactly the reasons you adduce?

I've gotten so wrapped up in Clinton's misdeeds in running this campaign that it's been awhile since I've actually thought about the reasons I've detested her these past years, the real and consequential reasons that she's shown zero leadership on anything of consequence in this country's darkest hour.

Now suddenly she's a great champion?

This is what I don't get.

Why is she not being held accountable for her rank cowardice?

Or do people honestly think she displayed no cowardice?

It's just like, here we go again, with good old American amnesia.

And she's still making noises about Iran.

Why aren't people disturbed by this?

Really, I'm not being rhetorical here; if any Clinton supporters would like to address this, I'm all ears.

I'm not an expert on the middle east. By any means.

But, as I understand it, the people of Iran are, well, people. There is a wide range of opinion and orientation there. Tremendous potential for building connections and alleviating international animosity.

As I understand it, one of the reasons Ahmadinejad won the last election is because of his promise to stand up to US aggression, a very real threat to the people of Iran.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not just *this* administration that the US needs to deal with, but the entire country of real people.

It's hard for me to see how bellicose talk coming from this most bellicose of countries is likely to effect something like a detente with "sensible" Iranians. Rather, it would seem more likely to "radicalize" otherwise ordinary people who will feel frightened into supporting there own more bellicose elements as a counter.

Don't you see?

The problem is fear-mongering.

It's *never* a good idea to frighten people, either your own citizens or those of other nations.

It ratchets up tensions to the point where there's only one way out: direct conflict.

Because to me, fearmongering is deeply, deeply problematic and self-destructive, Clinton is part of the problem.

The real question is, why are Americans so eager to be afraid.

I think I see your point. But when you say "worse than ok," are you talking as a president, or as a candidate?

Because one of the problems I've seen in Joan's "analysis" is that she focuses inordinately on "electability" over potential performance as president. But worse than that, when she does focus on electability, she does so based on anecdote, the talking points of the talking heads and intuition, rather than in a more scientific way.

So are you suggesting we think about Obama's deficiencies as a candidate or as a president or both?

But maybe I'm not following you.

Ok, Carol, now you're cracking me up.