If I was a better writer I know I could make the following point without sounding at all condescending. I really do understand what it is like to listen to a person whose tone of voice annoys you for one reason or another (they sound whiny or preachy or disconnected or dumb or out of touch). I get that, big time. I also thing that at times that might be a clue that helps you learn something really important about the individual. It's not like you can just repress the annoyance, so I think it is healthy to acknowledge it.

In regards to Barack: to me he is rather normal. There are aspects of his speaking that I give an A, but other aspects hang out around C+. Hillary, for me, is mainly a strong B in the speaking realm. They each have aspects to their style that annoy me and that I enjoy.

But the only reason these folks should matter to us is the degree to which we think they can help with our present political/cultural crises.

There are things about Hillary that bug me to no end. I don't think I've ever yet written about those personality things, specifically, because...(not because I'm above it)I can't see reason to connect those to how she will function as president. Fortunately, I think it is possible to argue for Barack based on issues that have nothing to do with him being better (as if he was less whinny, less ambitions, less patronizing...)in those personality ways.

so, yea, I got annoyed reading your last post because I felt like, "Ok, so you find him to be not so perfect and have character flaws too." But then what. My annoyance is so stupid because all you are sharing is your experience and, to you, Barack comes across in some not so great ways. And, yes, I know the fantasy is to have a president who not only has useful ideas and the skills to work hard to implement them but who also is somebody we can stand behind 100% as a really, really good person. To the degree that our fantasy isn't coming true, we feel slighted and really annoyed that some people scream how perfect the humanly human person is!

I guess my fantasy is for a day when we don't collectively and individually project so much on these weirdoes who want to be president. I'd rather we look at them like people wanting to be our plumbers;

It's like how the Oscars get people fighting over fairly good films. Because they get nominated, then you naturally really liked one more than the others, then you have to hear people praise the other movies and insist their choice deserves to win. Then you start to really notice how unworthy the other one is and how shrill and basically idiotic the supporters of that movie sound.

And the truth is that when you just sat and watched the now "bad" movie the first time you basically appreciated it. And if your friend had made it you could easily have been genuinely impressed. But now if you found out your friend made it, you'd be embarrassed to share your "insights"...

Barack is fine guy, I'm sure. And Hilary is as well. They each are smart and effective people.

Well, suzyqueue, thanks for being my cyber-therapist and I retract my projections. The annoyance is really aimed at myself for not getting what I want.

I doubt I'll get a chance to hear what you've come up with in regards to your notion that Barack actually has a different kind of awful supporter AND that his awful supporters tell us something important about him that we should consider (excluding Hilary's awful supporters because they are less and number and "better" in kind).

But here is another example of where it would, to me, reasonable for you to share how you form a link. You end your article saying that on Tuesday we will know if what you perceived as Barack's stumble has hurt him. How? How will you know that? I have friends who tell me that because I don't believe in some of their religious type ghosts (Holy Spirit) we will see how this lack of faith effects me . When something rough happens to me they look at me with knowing sympathetic concern, hoping I now see the effect of my error.

Let's say Barack loses by 9%. Joan, tell us what metric you are using to measure the effect of what you perceived as a blunder by Barack.

I know that people are calling you names again and wanting you to talk about why you won't quit working here, but I'd like to ask about what you wrote. Again, would this be considered a post in which you are simply looking through the lens of strategy and, therefore, are not interested in applying the same criteria to Hilary. I'd like to know this because it does provide a context in which to view your consistent focus. If you are reading today and sending out little responses, it would help (most people, I think) to about those two things.