(That's a joke)

Seriously, how awful to put up with anyone screaming in your face about anything. Sorry about that on behalf of all Obama supporters.

But I wanted to make a few points if I may:

1. You say that that 16-month withdrawal date is a major point of distinction for Obama supporters in choosing between him or her. Although you've offered anecdotal experience to that effect, I can honestly tell you as an Obama fan that I've quite literally never said or heard anyone else say that the big difference between the two candidates is their plan for troop withdrawal. I mean, honestly. I wonder if you'd even be able to find a single posting to that effect on salon. I'm happy to see it if you do, and I acknowledge that like all of us here, I'm not sure I catch all the stuff that doesn't support my own view.

The major Iraq distinction that most of us Obama supporters make, and that I've articulated many times, is that he was against authorization of the war in the fall of 2002 and she voted for it. We acknowledge that he was not in the same position that she was but offer that nevertheless he had something to lose politically in that oppressively nationalistic climate. To Clinton's attempts to conflate their views, simply because they have voted the same way since he joined the Senate, we Obama supporters say (as does he) that there is a big distinction between the first position, whether or not to go to war and the second what to do once engaged. So I would say that that you've read us wrong if you think the withdrawal date is something we've focused on. In fact, I was never, at any point, clear on what the specifics of each of their plans for withdrawal were. I understood, from watching the debates, that they both *really* held the position that Samantha Power articulated and that anything they said that narrowed that position was forced.

2. You say that his promise of withdrawal "turned out to be bullshit." Well, that's an overstatement, no? I mean, his adviser says to a third party that of course they have to look at the facts on the ground before they would implement carte blanche his campaign policy....That's not the same thing as saying his campaign policy is bullshit. I assume from everything we know that he will attempt to stay as close to his stated policy as possible.

3. And finally, for what it's worth, I'm not one of the Obama supporters you refer to who criticized her for it and then excused him. I've remained consistent in my shades of gray, and here is my post from the instance where it seemed she was in the same boat:

I'm one of those Dems who's not sure whether we should yank everybody out right away. I was vehemently against the war (and am voting for Obama for that reason), but I distinguish between the decision to go in and the subsequent decisions once in. I agree with those who have predicted that these promises by both candidates will blow up in the face of whomever gets to the White House.

At any rate, it seems unfair to hold Clinton responsible for someone else's interpretation of her words and record. Count me among the disappointed that Obama would exploit this issue.

We're not all bad, really.

where j'all go?

I'm trying to look at that debate again but can't quite get it. Anyone found it? I think Tim Russert moderated it. (I'm sure each of them solidified their positions since then, but I think that was where they were first pressed.)

but in case you come back to read this thread, I wanted to address something you say:

I do think it is a failing of the media that we now have to spend a week talking about how naive and inappropriate Ms. Powers was, without debating whether or not Hillary is running the kind of campaign that makes brilliant people so angry they call her a monster.

I agree with you entirely. We've gotten stuck in the "Samantha called Hillary a monster," cycle without evaluating anything else that was said in the interview. I have posted elsewhere that her comments, if reflective of an insider's view of the Obama campaign, are revealing in that she seemed genuinely impressed with the level of deceit going on by Hillary. Knowing firsthand what goes on in political campaigns, her seemingly genuine distress and surprise seem worthy of some investigation.

It reminds me exactly of the helpless feeling I got as I watched the whole Dan Rather demise unfold in slow motion. Remember the fake memo indicting W's going AWOL in the National Guard (or whatever the specifics were)? ALL anyone talked about from the moment that memo became suspect was that the memo was suspect. There was absolutely no more talk WHATSOEVER of the original story, which by all accounts was essentially true. So, here Dan Rather was crucified by the right/press and the real story was being ignored. God, that frustrated me.