XH: Again, why? I mean, you really are just being self-congratulatory if you think you're telling people something they don't know. Where in Rebecca Traister's article does it suggest that Obama is going to change the entire ballgame? Which post here made such an assertion or implication? Nothing did. You're arguing against a phantom of your own imagining, and then patting yourself on your back for it. It's wankery.

Of course it's obvious that Obama will not make a difference. I'm merely emphasising how little a difference he'll make. This was an article praising Michelle Obama's speech, and, (to me anyway), was filled with an implicit heavy tone of unconditional praise and support for the campaign. This is just my opinion, but that's how it seemed to me. You can be left-leaning and not agree with either party politics or the Obama campaign. I guess I was foolish for hoping for a broader analysis, particularly of the dog and pony show/corporate brothel that is a party convention. I was also apparently stupid for voicing my disapproval of this website's attitude or the wider ramifications of representational democracy, both tied to the broad editorial tone of salon.com and this article. I also thought the comment section was a place for opinion, not just consent. Are you saying I shouldn't say it here because you don't personally see a connection? Or that I shouldn't say it at all? Why do you care so much anyway?

XH: You seem to be underestimating the Bush administration's incompetence and their other failings. You might have noticed that they conspired to start a war that has not gone so well.

I most certainly do not underestimate the administration's capacity for hideous decision-making, bankrupting of it's citizen's future welfare and the wholesale murder of tens of thousands of non-US human beings. I also don't underestimate the systemic predeliction for such activity fostered by current power structures, nor do I overestimate the competence or human-friendliness of the previous democractic administration.

XH: Okay, then please describe a theoretical political candidate whom you would consider as bringing something fresh and new to politics. Let's hear your description not in terms of what Obama is not, but in terms of what you're positively looking for.

I'm not looking for a political candidate at all. I'm looking for people to stop relying on abstracted power and look to themselves and their community. The closest politician who even remotely approaches my view is Ron Paul, and I hate his pro-exploitation policies a hell of a lot.

XH: Obama does, however, show signs of having more principle than most of the politicians who have climbed as far as he has up the ladder. His approach to leadership does seem to be more inclusive and respectful than most, but he also seems to have some backbone at the same time. His approach to policy seems to be a sort of principled pragmatism, but undoubtedly he is going to have to (and already has) dilute some of that principle to get things accomplished. I don't think you've been following the race very closely for very long if you really need to ask these questions.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm too stupid to properly parse what you're saying but that sounds terribly vague to me.

He "shows signs of having more principle than most of the politicians who have climed as he has up the ladder" In what way? Yes he gives great, broad, inspiring speeches. How is he more principled?

His approach "seems more inclusive and respectful than most, but he also seems to have some backbone at the same time.". How exactly? Can you give concrete examples?

He also "His approach to policy seems to be a sort of principled pragmatism".

These are all nice generalities, but how are you quantifying them? What has he done that you'd define as principled pragmatism? How can you know what his principles are at all?

XH: If you really think Salon's been uncritical of Obama then you CLEARLY have not been reading it for very long or very closely.

Yes they have, in the past, been critical of Obama. But this has all subsided as the race has begun to hot up, Clinton has fallen by the wayside and (this next part is speculation), salon.com has decided to pull out the stops and give their support to the Democratic candidate. I find that a bit disappointing.

XH:People have been making this point for eons. We're not going to correct things in a forum about whether Michelle Obama did a good job with her getting-to-know-you speech.

No, but we can stop surrendering the endless pro-representational barrage that is most of the media. We can be motivated not just to realise there are problems, but to actively address them. Maybe nobody's mind has changed. Maybe it's a waste of time, but why not here? Why not now? Not for everyone of course, but maybe even one individual will become disenchanted with the inanity of our current systems of power distribution. If my comments do anything to help them along. Great. If not, well it's no skin off anyone's nose for me to say what I think.

XH: You're arguing a phantom...i>

But a lot of people aren't even considering alternatives and compromising their own agency for the sake of party politics just because one right wing party says prettier things than the other one, thus stifling their ability to self-manage or ever gain greater independence.

XH: Okay... I feel I already largely answered this, but I'll reiterate. Why not? Why do you care at all? It's not like I'm recruiting for a fascist party, or saying we should burn Obama alive for being non-white. I'm just dissatisfied with the unwillingness of salon.com to engage in a wider structural crititicism of our institutions, particularly when the rest of the media is making all this silly hoopla about our wonderful "choice" between suit a or b.