I think Joan has already said that she thinks this process helps whoever the nominee is...I don't think she has amended that, but she may have emphasized that she thinks Hillary should shift to a less anti-Obama gear. Not sure on this.

My two cents: I don't think we are going to have the healing type conversation some people are insisting is necessary for Obama to win. Just because those are important questions, it doesn't mean this is the context in which they can and/or should be adequately addressed. That doesn't mean we Ignore somebody who needs to be heard.

I think the party would do much better to take an intelligently ignorant stance on West Virginia (and all the rest) for now. It's fine not be sure who is to *blame* until later (not sure if I am using "*" correctly....am I?)

Did Joan recently say she was worried about the increasing numbers of Clintonites who are hating Obama. I'm struck by it. I think it is growing (not based in science).

I thought I read something by Joan on this, but now I can't find it. Didn't she say something about Hillary's responsibility in regards to an increasingly number of democrats feeling that Obama is not just a mistaken choice but an awful guy. Maybe my psychicness is kicking in and Joan is furiously typing away on this subject as we speak.

I'm at job #2 and buzzing around the net only to see some of the angriest comments yet coming from Clinton supporters. We know Joan is enthusastic for Obama and we know she does blame him for democrats outraged against him, so I wonder about this. I am NOT suggesting that Hillary is responsible for what her worst supporters are saying or that their comments teach us special things about Hillary.

I was trying to say that Joan does NOT blame Obama...

She won't give that sort of analysis because she doesn't actually think Obama's supporters are worse than Clintons. It's a prop upon which to hang the dissapointed feelings. And since she is not writing about her inner most thoughts, there is really nothing else she can do but constantly rearrange such props.

Here is what I find odd: I haven't supported Clinton during this primary; It isn't difficult for me to find those aspects of Clinton that I have massive respect for or those aspects that creep me out a bit. But once we place the racist voters on the shelf, why is it that I (more than Joan or even big time Clinton supporters) have no problem giving Clinton most of the credit for winning those states? I'm for Obama, but it isn't strange to me that those numbers that Joan is worried about are a function of people really liking Clinton. Take Clinton out of the equation, subtract all the negative comments those people heard from a woman they really like, and you have Obama doing democratically average there.

All this drama and worry seems to imply that Clinton hasn't earned a majority of the votes she has recieved. It's as if Joan and others are simply assuming that Obama caused himself to somehow lose those votes, as if Clinton really isn't all that those voters think she is.

Am I being dumb to think: She stayed in the race and because she is a strong candidate she still gets lots of votes? Does the fact that there are lots of people who will vote for Clinton have to mean that they really should be voting for Obama? Oh jeeez, all this head scratching and worry about the fact that Clinton is considered a great candidate by many people. If magic had happened and she had crept into the lead last month, how much worry would Joan have about the states she was blown away in. I hope not much. They both legitimately win people over. And there are demographics. Right? Can't we simply chalk up a huge chunck of Clinton's success to the fact that she deserves it?

I agree with you. It was good reading you.

What bugs me is that Joan (i'm in the camp of those who really do like her) will read your kind of post and she will respect it. She will even acknowledge that you are the kind of person that gives her hope for the future. You did not say who you support, so what really bugs me is that if Joan found out you were an Obama supporter::::::::::::

she would immediately continue respecting you. but she would also immediately go to the line she has drawn in her mind and put you on one side of it. you would be on the side of her Obama-Mind that has respectable people who want him to win. But even has she placed you there she would need to get worried because she can't help but see all the awful, mean, elite, rude and sexist people who are on the other side of her Obama-Mind.

But if you had said you were a Clinton supporter, Joan would:::::::::::::::

simply accept that another person she respects supports Clinton. No drama. She wouldn't dramatize it into a snag in her heart that makes her feel a little dissapointed in the Clinton phenomenon. It's great that you didn't let us know who you support because I'll let that prove my point that it is very counter-productive for dems to spend time trying to "figure out" what all these lines mean and who is ultimately to blame...it's constipated.

But loads of things bug me, Steve Hall. Like the fact that I still believe Arrested Development will turn up making new shows on a new channel. That is not healthy....Thanks for your post.