I'm voting for Obama, rufus11. Big time. Did I bash you? If so, I'm sorry but I have memory of saying something mean about or to you.

I'm trying to figure out what your recommendation means that we move forward together as "one nation". Do you mean that you are ready to move forward with people who support Bush? I can't stand what that guy has done and I have actively worked to mitigate it in my little ways, but I am ready to work with him or any of his supporters. That goes for Clinton as well. I happen to not really care for her politics and I have reasons why I'd really prefer Obama having his shot. However, that said, I hardly think Obama (or any president) can do all that much. But it does matter, nonetheless. That's why I try my best to have reasonable conversations with people who disagree with me.

I find that conversations tend to fall apart the moment one person decides that the other is an example of what's wrong with this country. Maybe because this is cyberspace, you and I won't do all that well talking about any of this (the fact that you feel I bashed you and that i'm confused by this points to this probability), but my hunch is that if we were sitting on my porch drinking some cold beverage, we could have a real interesting conversation in which we wouldn't need to instance each other as "The Problem". My confidence is based in my basic assumption that if somebody is sitting in front of me interested to hear my thoughts regardless of agreement, we've already "moved forward" in the way you request.

But I'm not sure what exactly you meant by move forward as one nation. And in this land of sarcasm (which I am a fan of), it might be that you were playing with terms. Anyway...

For those of us emphasing the importance of looking at the ideas of this election and not getting distracted by the various forms (bowling, attire, word-choice), it should hardy mater wat the woords looks like. Plus, I don't spell well and am way to impatient to spell check most times...

I might need to reread her article, but I think Joan is saying that regardless of what Obama meant (which she seems to get)she still sees him as often patronizing and condescending.

I don't. At all. And I don't worship him. I just hope he gets elected president.

What will bug me is watching how Joan (and all those who, for whatever reason, see Obama as more narcissistic than the other two)will have to basically agree with the McCainites in the general election.

No doubt she will be passionately pulling for Obama and clearly articulating all the reasons she wants him as president. But, as she also makes clear, she likes to write about her perception of character as well. Fine. But she can't really say anything to those who will be arguing that Barack comes across as condescending and elitist.

She will simply honestly retort, "I know, I know, I think so too, but we have to focus on his ideas now."

This always happens. Once all the folks decided that Kerry was a cold and distant geek, they suggested we try our best to realize that he's got some great ideas. Same with Gore.

As this primary wears on, I just hate seeing a growing group of Hilary supporters who will undoubtedly support Barack but with the,

"I want Barack as President, but I can't deny that he's overly arrogant and patronizing and that he somehow attracts more awful and repugnant supporters than other politicians."

But hunch is that this will always be the case for Democrats. At least as long as they accept the basic interpretation frame that is used by the press.

Eric, I don't know if you've read any of my recent letters, but I definitely appreciate the question you pose to Joan.

I think she would say that she writes about her negative perceptions of Barack out of her journalistic duty to really check him out. She wouldn't disagree that we should be very concerned by any policy issues of Hilary that might be dangerous or a continuation of the type of foreign approach we don't want, but I think Joan would want us to place all of her (somewhat)negative reactions to Barack in the "strategy box", think of them as concerns less about how he will govern and more why he might lose to McCain. I've asked her if this is a correct hunch on my part.

That's my best way of making sense of how she writes about this tuff. I don't agree with it, if it is, but I can make sense of it that way.

I'm curious if when republicans are slinging mud about Barack's apparent"arrogance" and personality flaws, Joan will consider that type of "observation" to be particularly important as we try to figure out who should be president. But then again, so far we have yet to hear back from Joan as to whether she really believes that Barack has a higher percentage of awful supporters and if that reflects on what kind of president he will be. And that's my biggest question about her most recent musings.