Even though my initial reaction was bitter, I do want to state (for the Salon record) that while I appreciate Obama's comments today, he already had my admiration with how he has handled this issue. I know that you, Joan, found his race speech to be an example of his "talent" and power as a speaker while also taking issue with his suggestion that we treat each other like family members.

I'm not saying he is a better person than Hillary. But even though I'm suppose to feel naive for thinking it, I am convinced that Barack is a warm, intelligent, skillful politician who could handle the oval office. And the fact that his human flaws are as obvious as Hillary's and McCain's doesn't mitigate my hunch that he would make a great president.

I guess I was so bitter because it felt funny thinking that it would take him responding to this issue for you to pat him on the back. And that's my problem, not yours.

LeCastor, you say:

He seems as sincere as he's always been, which is, to most people, very sincere. I've always believed that he's just a very good actor, and this is as much a self-serving sham as most of his previous work.

I bet you're excited at the prospect of going from one "sincere" president to another! It must drive you crazy to see all the fine folks who think of Barack as just a basic guy with some political skill. Would you vote for him in the primary?

Yea, I obviously don't mind sarcasm but I hope to do it in ways that don't belittle another person and that's not always easy. I have such a strong difference of opinion with Ms. Walsh on the issue of the approach of her coverage that my sarcasm can easily be seen as taking shots at her brain. That's why I often want to "pop out" and make it clear that I honestly appreciate Joan as a person and a journalist. She just happens to be blogging in a context that we have very different opinions about.

The reason I apologized was two-fold: I wanted to make space for Obama's words and I feel my reaction to Joan did not do that. Also, I'm not one of those who think Joan "attacks" Barack and I know she has a very human response to him.

So while I'm sorry that I went a bit to far (by my standards), I'm not sorry about the content of my statements. I do think, unfortunately, that no matter how heartfelt Barack's recent statements are it is a shame that they were elicited in the first place and that we have no reason to think that Hillary are Barack will escape similiar contexts in the months ahead. But I will hungrily eat any articles that look at their different governing styles and try make sense of the stengths and weaknesses in that context. That kind of article can be made in a sexy way and still be very helpful in our considerations for this primary. But I shouldn't act like Joan is supposeto choose those sorts of topics jsut because I think they are more relavent. There are plenty of bloggers and I can always dive into Greenwald for media analysis.

Sorry, I chose the wrong word in "primary". I meant, would you vote for Barack in the general election?

I don't see him as particularly fake, but I agree with you that he and Hillary are each needing to "play the game" and that can come back to bite you. I do think that Hillary could be the victim of this sort of "bite" just as easily and that it tells us nothing about her as well. The problem is that we start pulling for one person and then it is all too easy to turn the others' flaws into very serious (and obvious) concerns. I think that once somebody "knows" that Hillary is awful, there really is no room for conversation. There is nothing I could tell you or show you that would give you a different impression of Barack.

That is one of the things I do appreciate about Joan; it's clear to me that she isn't locked into a moral view on either one of them.