Thanks, weeping for brunnhilde. That is actually why I do post. But I felt chided, with some good reason, by Uncle Fester, and it reminded me of my own reservations about showing up here: Man, the odds are against me! I can talk to you, and answer your questions, and maybe not convince you on everything, but still have both of us come away feeling like, hey, that was a great conversation. (I believe that has, in fact, happened.) And then someone else will pick at something I said to you, or something I didn't say, and dozens of nasty comments will follow.

I feel I've gotten the rhythm of this wrong, at minimum. I'll be looking for advice. And candidly, advice like "Answer my question the way I want it answered" isn't terribly helpful.

Last note to weeping: I read your first post on the gay marriage piece, and why (as you see it) I don't just say "that's the way it is" about the voters who might reject Barack Obama. It was a smart question. The best I could do is: I don't believe Barack Obama is equivalent to gay marriage, which is for me (and Republican Justice Ronald George) an absolute moral, political and legal requirement. I really admire Obama, I will vote for him, but I have issues with him (as I do with Hillary). I haven't felt like the Democrats should simply nominate him, no matter what flaws we find; I haven't been ready to say if he is nominated but he isn't elected because of those flaws, well, his overall greatness and political rightness is simply worth the risk, that's just the way it is.

Right now, I think he has run an awesome campaign, and all but won the nomination, and thus should be elected, despite the flaws I've talked about. So we agree on that! But what you don't understand -- maybe because you're paradoxically trying to be on my side and not find fault with me -- is that I do, personally, have reservations about Obama, that you and the Obama supporters I respect here don't seem to, or don't seem to be bothered by as much as I am. They're not deal-killers, but they concern me, and especially when I see them concerning larger blocs of voters, I try to point them out so you see what I see. (You don't have to thank me!) I've tried to explain why Rev. Wright disturbed ME, not generic white people -- there are too many Rev. Wrights in inner-city anti-poverty work, glorifying themselves, demonizing white people and preaching simply wrong theories about how to eradicate cruel disparities in education, employment, health. I've been there, I've seen it, I've been discouraged, I'll still care and I'll still fight, but...I'm not just concerned about Rev. Wright because I think other white voters will be bothered by him; I'm bothered by him. Dislike me for that, but don't call me a concern troll.

Likewise, I prefer Hillary's health plan, and I saw Obama's failure to embrace a mandate as a sop to independent voters, who I believe he cares more about reaching than progressives like me. More power to him; that might be the way to win in November. But don't expect me not to complain. And do expect me to wonder if Elizabeth Edwards is gonna say what she clearly feels privately.

So yeah, I'm frustrated and I think my method of engaging hasn't been useful. But I'm looking for feedback, and I do appreciate yours, weeping!

Thanks, Uncle Fester. My misunderstanding probably underscores my need to take your advice and go somewhere, if not L.A. I do appreciate what you're trying to say to me, but a lot of this has happened while I've been ignoring it. Still, I'm getting the projection thing, and I need to work it out better. Seriously, thanks for your advice, I appreciate your good intentions.

Wow, I was signing off awash in good will when I read kenkapkk's condescending post. Do I know how angry Dr. King was? Yes, I do. I've read his speeches, I've written about them (search my thoughts on Birmingham Jail); I've read Taylor Branch's fine trilogy, I was even semi-conscious (a 9-10 year old whose father was just transformed by the civil rights movement) when he was alive. I know about his legendary last speech. I've read the famous Riverside speech. In my opinion, Jeremiah Wright is no Martin Luther King Jr., and I'm just not going to play along with that. Wright is a provocateur and a sabateur of race relations, in my opinion, and you can disagree with me, but don't call me stupid about it. I'm sorry you're disappointed in my "limited intellectual scope," but your post really makes me worry about yours.

And again, what disappoints me is, you all can disagree with me, for sure, but the notion that anyone thinks they can dismiss me or silence me by simply saying my opinion is racist, stupid or driven by a bias for Hillary is disrespectful and offensive, because it's just not driven by fact. And that's the POV that drives way too much commentary here, and that drives me away. I regret ending on this note, but, well, this is the last post I saw, long after several of us were having a productive conversation. But this is a venue where it's been perfectly OK to refer to my "limited intellectual scope" -- it's probably seen as a kindness, as opposed to attacking my racism or deliberate elderly white feminist shilling for Hillary.

Night, everyone.