I know you are gone, but....

Look, there is undoubtedly some truth to the notion that Barack is not as "vetted" as Clinton. I understand that the vetting issue has importance in the context of strategy and getting somebody elected.

I personally think it is meaningless in terms of a moral approach. I guess what I mean is that while I accept that getting elected involves dealing with many pointless but real "conversations", I don't learn anything relevant about McCain by in depth analysis of his previous marriage or how he treats the media or his temper. My choice is going to be 99% based on his ideas and my best guess at how well he can make them realities, assuming that failure is the norm. Obviously, I have no interest in McCain.

But if we are talking about "vetting" in regards to Barack and Hillary, it's fair to wonder if Barack's lack of exposure will make him a poor candidate in a general election. However, it seems to me that we then would have to take seriously if Barack's numbers aren't seriously affected by this, if we see him handle this "vetting"....My guess is that those who already don't like him or "know" he can't win won't find anything significant if he withstands this in a strong fashion. So I guess I'm curious who would let a Barack survival of this "vetting" mean something to them? I don't think many people are really looking at this Wright situation as a significant way of judging how he might fair in the general.

On the other hand, I read an article recently in which some inside GOP guy was talking about how excited they are to pull out a “special” box full of new things on Hillary. I guess for those who really use “vetting” as a metric to choose who they vote for it would be very important to know what that box might include about Clinton. Personally, I don’t care. I’m just wondering what people really mean when they talk about vetting and I wonder if most people really will be impressed if Barack’s number don’t budge much because of the current situation.

I understand why you focus on those Barack supporters who are really intense and say extreme things about his opposition to the war, how they make it sound as if THAT ONE THING proves they have the right candidate...It's annoying and unfounded, I agree.

But outside the sort of magical thinking that both sides engage in to prove they have made the right choice, I think the Hillary vote issue is more complicated than either extreme ever wants to talk about. I think Barack voting the fund the war is simply not as simple either. And I'm willing to agree that his opposition to the war should also be looked at in context. After you start letting the issues not simply be "proof", it becomes a far less satisfying conversation because rather than having that consoling feeling that comes with knowing you are on the right side of the issue, you are left a bit more confused and unsure what it all means.

I mean would it really matter to you if Hillary had opposed the war, not given Bush the authorization and then had funded it in the way she and Barack have? Would you see that as a sign of weakness in her or do you think there is a way to understand how she could have not voted for authorization but felt the need to, provisionally, support it via funding in those ways? I wonder if it would really have made a difference in how you feel about Hillary. It would for me, but not like that would turn her into a hero or prove she is the right choice. This is a little unfocused but I hope my point/question makes some sense.

p.s. I happen to think the kind of uncertainty and confusion that comes from letting these issues be a bit complicated is exactly the direction we'd have to move in culturally for any real, sustainable differences to take root. And I know that can't happen overnight. But I have no hope for the future if it depends on simply the "right" side winning elections more often.