I ran into Dennis Kucinich's brother at the gym the other night and told him about this website. (I mentioned that the front page article for that day was about his brother, which is why it came up.) I said I thought he'd like it, that it was full of intelligent commentary.

Wow, am I kind of embarrassed. (and now my cover's blown if he happens to be reading this exact letter).

I am shocked at the tribal thinking that characterizes these camps, at the complete abandonment of logic by seemingly otherwise intelligent people. Like the people who are actually suggesting that seating the current Michigan delegates is fair. WTF? I mean, really, WTF? Pointblank, are you out of your mind? That people who were told that the election wouldn't count AND Obama wasn't on the ballot BECAUSE HE FOLLOWED THE RULES AND HILLARY DIDN'T and you think it's fairer to count the existing delegates rather than hold another election? Jesus. It's a concession to begin with that Obama would even agree to another election rather than demand, mantra-like, that we made the rules, now we have to stick with them. What is it about that that you don't get? It's a concession to Hillary to hold another election there.

For the Obama supporters who think we should just stick to the rules and who are sure that a Hillary win involving seating the current delegates would taint her victory: What is it about your scenario that you think wouldn't taint his victory? I mean, really, do you think all those FL and MI voters (who want Hillary--b/c the Obama ones are on record as preferring disenfranchisement over counting the current results) won't completely see not counting FL and MI as tainted?

Neither should want to win this way, which is why they need to broker some kind of deal. I've suggested something here and in another thread, which upon reflection probably will end up not solving the problem. While no scenario is going to please everyone, and all parties need to concede something, we can start by eliminating the asinine, illogical, undemocratic, and mean-spirited positions of the extremes.

Now, go to your rooms and don't make me come up there again!

(LOL - Sorry for the lecture--but, really, I'm kind of embarrassed)

So she thinks Hillary is calculating. So do I. You think Obama is arrogant. So what? Slackie takes the time to provide lots of thoughtful commentary. She has opinions that you don't share. That's OK here.

1. I'm sorry--I honestly have to run out the door, like 1/2 hour ago, so I can't look up where ever it was that I heard or saw that there was a rule they should take their names off the ballot. I will when I get home tonight, if only for my own satisfaction. Anyway, it was my understanding that they were asked to take their names off--maybe someone here mentioned it and gave a link to an NPR interview from the fall?--and all the candidates but she and Dodd followed through. So perhaps it wasn't a rule, but a request? I just don't know but someone will surely follow up with this.

2. I fail to see how that particular detail changes my point. Whether they were asked to do so, or even if they were not, the outcome is the same: the Michigan voters could not vote for him. "Uncommitted" is just not an acceptable alternative. Did the others--Edwards, et al--remove their names as stunts as well?

3. I've offered reasonable solutions here and elsewhere on salon and have tried really hard not to play dirty in my support. Would you kindly give me the benefit of the doubt about my intentions in the future before throwing around my inclination to spread "disinformation"? If I got that detail wrong, it was entirely in good faith.

And now I have to run.

It's funny: I used to say to people "No way," when asked about a combined ticket. I thought I was so sophisticated and they didn't know anything--that it was some kind of kid's pipe dream, that those of us who had a clue understood that she would NEVER be his VP b/c it was beneath her (age and experience) and that he would NEVER agree to be her VP b/c it would really mean being 3rd after Bill and who would want to get involved in that. Not to mention they really are the same on issues, neither has the kind of foreign policy gravitas that a Biden-type could add, and neither is from the South.

But guess what? Today I found myself seriously contemplating the combined ticket as perhaps the only solution that could keep the party together. If salon is a microcosm of the rest of the Democratic world, god help us! (by putting them on the same ticket).

I've said from the beginning that Obama's personality is a strength. Both his unflappability and his "charisma," that oft-derided quality that has Clinton supporters in hysterics, contribute tangible benefits to a leader. While some see these issues as tangential or even, inexplicably, as evidence of superficiality, I say being calm, cool, and appealing can reap rewards when negotiating with Congressional opposition or dealing with a world crisis.

(To be clear, I am not conflating the likability and the unflappability. They are separate qualities, they are both abundant in Obama, and they are both genuinely beneficial. Personality isn't the whole story, and those who want Obama exclusively for that are misguided, but it's an authentic issue.)

because I actually laughed out loud at The Notorious WES's watermelon and fried chicken contribution. Does this mean I'm racist? I've lost track.