I enjoyed your comments...

I'm thinking about how much I agree with Joan's basic observation that Clinton has faced major sexism. And Joan has even stated that this pisses her off and she has been affected by it in a big way. I agree with her 100%, only I find it necessary to let sexism be one significant factor among at least a dozen others. I think Joan is more confident than me that she knows precisely the role that sexism has played in Obama's victory. I also think Joan is fairly confident that she grasps Clinton as a person and- based on her sense of Clinton's character- feels pretty clear that Clinton's decisions mainly reflect a genuine fight for the people of this country.

I can't figure Clinton out. That bugs me because typically I don't find it all that difficult to get a basic and accurate sense of a person's motives.

I guess I'm most frustrated by how Joan lets a few issues color so many others! It's not that she is ever that off on how she sees facts, but the way those facts get positioned is what I don't get. See, in my fantasy world, Joan and I can sit on a porch and talk about this election. I'm frustrated that she is going to have to agree with all the folks who will be saying simple things like,

"There is just something very off-putting and snobbish about Obama."

"Obama hasn't really tried to show the working-class that he cares about them. With McCain it is as plain as day that he is fighting for them.

Or those republicans who are already pointing out that, "McCain has treated Clinton with more respect than has Obama." It's kind of babyish of me but it frustrates me that in many ways Joan is pinching her nose to vote for Obama. I understand she respects much about him and very much prefers him over McCain, but because of the filter she has viewed Obama through the last 5 months, she really is in agreement with many of the personality critiques that will be made.

I should repeat that I agree Obama has flaws. But Joan places such worrying weight on the fact that candidates have personal weaknesses that it goes from being just a normal fact to a moral dilemma for her. When you add to this the fact that Joan supports critiques based on these weaknesses (not needing to tie them to how they would translate to leadership or policy), it means that she will be (reluctantly) agreeing with much that is said about Obama.

Maybe Joan's concerns about how people can see Obama as a snob are actually tied to bigger concerns about the consequences of his presidency. Don't most actual reports from dems and reps that work with Obama claim he isn't a snobby guy? Does it even matter if actual people who actually have worked with him find him to be wonderful to work with? It bugs me just to know that Joan will be in casual conversations saying, "Yea, yea, I agree that Obama is snobbish and that he inspires the worst type of supporter, but you've got to focus on how his policies are better than McCain's. You've got to just pay more attention to the practical things and less on Obama himself."

She can't really argue that people are misguided if they are voting for McCain because Obama doesn't really reach out to working class and all that stuff. Joan would be the first to say you should vote for the person who actually cares about your plight. Obama just says fancy words and is stiff.

It's petty of me. I guess the degree to which we place genuine value on the criteria of the horse-race, is the degree to which the primaries will always function to create the democratic pinching-the-nose phenomena (I don't care what people say, Kerry was tough stud). At the same time, I guess the personality analysis and the (more legitimate sounding) strategic analysis based therein is an accurate reflector of what our elections are primarily about: do enough groups want to drink beer (or eat caviar) with you. Rather than judge it as a mistake, perhaps I need to ask myself what it is I actually expect and why I think that would be any better.

I simply don't think Obama or Clinton are responsible for the intricate mesh of reasons that "make" many democrats hate them.

If a magic (and very reliable) genie from the future came to you and shared that Hillary loses almost every time they run her against McCain and Obama wins about 84% of the time, would those of us who mico-analyize your writing notice a change? What do you think it would be?

I understand you probably don't have time for this sort of question, but what you just wrote to HealthisNation made me think it.

p.s. have you ever been asked to speak with Mr. O'Reilly? I want that to happen! Has it?