Ok, then I think you are demonstrating exactly the pattern that I don't like in Joan's approach to arguing her case. I think it produces that "ratcheting" up as you say. It definitely doesn't do much to "open" up the kind of space she wants to have.

I think the reason I stick with Joan is because it's clear that she really wants a healthy conversation. I think it should be a bit like operant conditioning; you reinforce the instances of the kind of conversation you think is "healing". You definitely don't reinforce the opposite by demonstrating it yourself! I see Joan contributing to the exact thing she wishes to avoid. That said, I don't think she does it disrespectfully and I give her HUGE points for that.

Look, there is no reason to believe Joan would refuse to vote for Obama. She never pins her harsh critisisms to him...at all. She worries about his reach and how is can be seen, but she always respects him as an individual in a fairly big way.

But I get it. If you see her take on this issue as extreme, it might seem possible to extend that..

Ok. it's true that Obama said:

“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here,” Mr. Obama told Radio Isla. “Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that.”

But imagine what he couldhave said. If you just take Obama at his word, you miss the point, but if you imagine what he could be saying and doing for Clinton you'll start to understand why more and more democrats simply can't get into him.

So Obama might have said that he takes Clinton at her word, but he also denies that she is winning the primary. Why won't he take her at her word on that? If you try to answer that queston, you will soon see why an increasing amount of democrats are starting to believe Hillary when she says she is actually winning by every count.

That's an interesting point. I agree that if Clinton had not said "assasination", her comments would need to at least be seriously corrected. Joan is certainly of the opinion that it is important to go way beyond a mere correction and look at why Hillary might be making such highly inaccurate comments and what affect they would have if she was running for president.

I'm voting for Obama. I don't have a problem when he is corrected as he recently was about his great uncle's history. I like Obama just fine, but it would bug me if when he was corrected for getting certain facts wrong he NEVER acknowledged the factual mistake. And worse: in explaining his error if he lied.

I don't think it is a HUGE lie when Hillary says that she repeatedly said she was fired at in Bosnia because she forgot that she wasn't because she mispoke. It makes no sense, but it really isn't that giant an issue. It has to be noted that her explaination makes no sense, but we don't have to make her the devil for that.

If Obama had said he was shot at as a teenager and then somebody exposed that as untrue, I would hope he would not join Hillary in the "well, I chose the wrong words when I spoke of being shot at; I was simply trying to repeatedly say that I was not ever fired at in Bosina and that they did not cut the ceremony short..."

But even if Obama had the same type of inaccuracies and false explainations, I wouldn't think he was evil. I don't know why Clinton does that, but I know it has anything to do with her gender.

Anyway, farnsworth, Joan would agree with you, most likely, if Clinton had been Obama when she tried to use that false information about the history of primaries to peddle her story that she is winning this primary and that "people" are trying to suppress the truth. I still don't see Joan's overall point that this is helping democrats win in November...

I don't know if it is your invention, but I love how you put the post that you were responding to in parenthesis. That should go in our "best practices" basket...

Weeping, tell me (if you don't mind) about your local environment/workplace(s) in regards to Obama/Clinton.

I don't want to over generalize, but this is what I notice (and I don't work- in job #2- around a particularly "evolved" group of people):::

Yes, there are those who like Obama and those who like Clinton: Yes, many of them feel very strongly. But, No: MOST of the people around me (at work and in town) are able to get along quite well despite these opinions. I hear and take part in conversations in which we don't bash and deride Hillary or Barack. We raise our eyebrows and voices, but, mostly, I'm seeing your basic political respect. And of course moments of extreme frustration.

My family back in Missouri reports the same thing. People at work and in town are still liking each other, still able to laugh a bit when they argue. I understand the media gives us its version.

Joan is worried. And I'm not sure how she wants people to articulate the serious problems they have with Clinton. Has she given examples of how a nice and intelligent person can articulate such feelings/ideas? I'm increasingly convinced that it is not possible in Joan's present framing of these issues...

But what are you seeing and hearing in your neck of the woods. Is it all out war?