Thanks for those polls. It makes me think that Obama and/or Clinton can't win if enough democrats and independents believe what their worst supporters say about each other. Imagine how freaked out Clinton would be if she thought it was her sole responsibility to make the worst Obama supporters start to like her. I don't think Obama (even with the help of his average decent supporter) could do it either.

It makes me wonder who's ultimate responsibility it is for the extremity of your opinion about either candidate? I didn't put that well, but I think it might be decipherable...

But did you read the latest? It drives me nuts. After that slew of scientific articles came out that proved Clinton could not lose an election, I was ready to let go of my Obama support. I figured, "hey, I'd be a hypocrite to support Obama AGAINST the science."

But then I read about those scientists! Did You? Now I don't know what to think. Also, I've heard that we will soon see a double-blind study out of the folks from the NATURE journal which, supposedly, proves that Clinton's chances of victory have slid considerably. They take into account about 17 variables that, thus far, have been excluded from the research you and I find so compelling.

But the good news: for those who are in this for the "I TOLD YOU SO"...many will get there chance! And you don't need all the science for that.

Hey, part of my dissertation was looking at how Wittgenstein's take on the nature of certainty is actually better understood, and put in practice, by folks with no "higher" education.

One of my methods was to show that when you presented the guys at my auto shop with an unpretentious account of Wittgenstein's thoughts, they grasped it (and practiced it) much more ably than myself or anybody in my degree program.

My supervisor (and buddies in the program) was not very inclined to agree! What fun!

The certainty surrounding who absolutely and obviously can't win in the general is one of the most interesting things discussed here, and I'm NOT being sarcastic on that...

Well,there was the orginal group of researchers, but now everbody knows the fact. I'm talking about anybody who can list all the factual reasons why it is stupid to think Obama can win...Those are the scientist that matter now (they vote!)

Shiral, but what do you think of all the decent people who saw Obama say those words but KNEW he didn't mean them? I hope you are not discounting their voices by suggesting they might be wrong.

The problem with most Obama supporters is that they constantly think Clinton is wrong on some issues and they think it is important to talk about this stuff. They bash her. But don't pay attention to the ones who say it respectfully. Only respond to the ones who are awful; they represent his type of support (kidding).

Weeping, yes! I look at the shape of our conversations on this board as examples of what WE ALL do to make sure things don't really change. I do it to. The best any of us can do is to say the things that we really think matter, that will really make a difference and help things move forward. That's what I do, that what you do, Joan and even all folks who hate Joan and know I'm an idiot.

My hope is that each of us, in our own creative ways, begin to distinguish that even when we are right (in terms of some content or other), we are mostly being wrong. And it is the damn "being wrong" that is the ugly thread you can trace through history. But there are scientist (even on this list) who know I'm being an idiot for saying that. I'm trying to learn from them!!!!

First,

Hecate, I really enjoyed reading your post. Somtimes I imagine what might happen if Walsh (just for fun) decided that she would only respond to those commenters who wrote respectfully and who respected multiple perspectives. Imagine that! She mostly picks out really awful or rather dumb comments and uses those to highlight the "point" she makes in her post. That said, she is very cool about showing her respect and appreciation for a wide range of folks around here (of all opinions) who do write respectfully. I just wonder what shape things would take if it became a given that she wouldn't reinforce the slime.

And Hecate: after reading your comments, I had to click and see what else you've written. And there it was. Your comments on the Castaneda piece way back. I had the same response to you then. Great stuff. Read This:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n11/runc01_.html

This was written by the kind of decent Clinton supporter that I think mirrors the kind of decent Obama supporter that I think actually reflect reality more closely than how Joan paints it. I'm not suggesting that the average supporter is as intelliectually sharp as the writer, but that they match him/her in tone and capacity to be ok with difference. I wish Joan would use this kind of approach as her template rather than the t.v. media. I think it would serve her noble and overall goals better, but that's just my opinion obviously.