Hi RBL,

Yea, I think you give a great example with the Bill/Monica topic; for the moment let's leave aside the unadultrated as#$#$les who obsessed on that topic. Let's limit our focus to those folks who we would consider decent, intelligent, and basically socially responsible. I think you and I agree that no matter how intelligently a person analyzed Bill/Monica from a political, moral or strategic perspective their brain cells were wasted. But more than wasted brain cells, I believe that by simply reiterating the assumptions behind such analysis, the underlying social pathology (is that too dramatic?) is reconstituted: arguing about Bill's worth (and potential effects on democrats, etc,.)implicitly ensures that we are not talking about the way in which Bill/Monica usefully distracts us from how his presidency actually was functioning in regards to issues like homelessness, terrorism, social injustice, etc,.

I don't blame this sort of thing on various personalities or lack of moral intelligence. In fact, no matter what side of the argument we are on, I think it serves everybody if we each notice whether or not our principal point(s)implies the problem is due to "sin". I agree with many points people are making against Joan's analysis, but to the degree that they tacitly or explicitly make it about "sin", I'm more concerned with the "theology" involved.

Joan might be wrong, but she's good (as far as I can tell). She's very decent and can have conversations on these issues (maybe not with ALL of us in this particular context). The moment the issue steers towards anger towards Joan, I'm "on her side" no matter what the content of the discussion is. But that doesn't mean I'm against using this blogspace to refuse her approach wholeheartedly!

Your question:

So how can the discourse elevate, when we would all rather gossip and participate in primate territorial rituals?

is THE question, in my opinion.

Part of the answer must be that there is no hope unless each individual discover what it is in him or herself that reacts in a moralizing manner when such a reaction is not only ineffective but is, mostly, unjustified. This is only possible if we each individually find it absolutely necessary. We mostly don't. It's easier and more consoling to stick with how correct we are. And we very well may be!!! Peronally, I notice I begin to become a prick whenever I'm scared or feel threatened in some way. At those times, I look to blame somebody. I'll even take a nice and well intentioned person like Joan and act as if she is involved in some horrible activity. When I relax and realize that it is up to me to make the kind of social "space" i'm hoping for, I can passionately share my ideas/concerns without the need to make war. Or at least I can apologize when I think I've gone too far.

I'm fairly certain I'm "correct" when it comes to what is lacking in Joan's analysis, but the moment I find myself making Joan's writing about hidden "sins" in Joan, it doesn't really matter what I say; at that point, I've made the discourse, tacitly at least, "religious" (even if I profess atheism or whatever). The moment I make Joan the source of the problem, I've left any hope for a constructive discourse behind.

How do we encourage each other to dig deeper and stay friendly? Beats me. Maybe Nike has it right and we should "just do it".

p.s. Let me make clear: nothing of what I said above should imply I am against strong, passionate statements of one's ideals, hopes, concerns. Typically when one makes the kinds of statements I just have, he or she gets met with the passionate arguement that we must not just roll over and play nice when so much is at steak! Agreed.

Joan says:

That controversy {Joan's speculation that newly disclosed Wright/Obama associations might get loads of attention} might not go away. But this latest flap about Michelle Obama's comments ought to.

It would be helpful for me to hear Joan detail why, exactly, she knows Michelle Obama's comments ought to go away and why Barack's comments/associations ought not go away.

So far I don't see why she is applying a separate criteria to the two. Again, more important than Joan's conclusion would be simply reading how she comes to it. for me.

That helped a lot, thanks. I'm new to blog comments so I had never heard of "concern trolling". That leads to my question:

I would appreciate it if somebody would clip a few Joan quotes that are good examples of her "unabashed cheering for the Clinton campaign" or her refusal to post anything critical (are there counterexamples to this?).

When I briefly looked back at her past posts, I see all sorts of positives and negatives being bestowed on each candidate. On October 19th she said:

I went into the early primary season assuming I'd vote for Obama, his landmark Boston Democratic convention speech having transformed my thinking about politics in 2004. But I'm not sure. He's starting to get tougher on Hillary Clinton, which the conventional wisdom says he had to do, but he hasn't found a galvanizing issue or role that sets them apart.

Joan states that Barack Obama transformed her thinking about politics. That's HUGE. The question is if he has done much since then to let her down? I do see her criticisms of Barack that people here point out, but they seem light and superficial compared to her experience of transformation. This is partially why I see her still supporting him. But go back; I'm interested in see examples of her unabashed enthusiasm for Clinton. I see that it is fairly easy to find criticisms she makes of Clinton. Again, I'm less interested in proving who she is for and more interested in seeing if there is any substance to the charges.