I think at this point most of us know who the flamers are, but even the more serious and lengthy posters can inflame big time, perhaps without realizing it. Many of the back-and-forths among seemingly thoughtful people reflect "reality" through vastly different lenses, and it astounds me how few concessions are made. I'm wondering if perhaps people can't try harder to acknowledge the occasional weakness of their own candidate or strength of the other. I can't fathom that any intelligent person thinks either Clinton or Obama is perfect or blameless on every issue. If any of you finds yourself truly believing on every single issue that your candidate is right (or the victim), then perhaps you should examine your objectivity filter. And perhaps, for the sake of goodwill, when you believe that your candidate or his/her supporters or you yourself is in the wrong, saying so out loud (so to speak) gives you some credibility and others a little sanity and hopefulness.

Maybe we should remember that we are here for thoughtful discussion rather than persuasion. If you are on a mission to change people's minds about who to vote for, perhaps you are on the wrong site. (As a reality check, remember that most of us have already voted!)

PS: I don't mean to sound all goody-two-shoes, btw. I am fierce in my arguments but I try to keep them specific to narrow points rather than generalizations, which almost always get me in trouble. And staying specific doesn't in any way guarantee ultimate agreement, but it can reduce hard feelings. A funny story: One of my mother's four brothers wrote a memoir (The Priest Who Couldn't Cheat), and his portrayal of their mother as somewhat distant enraged the siblings. I remember telling one uncle that you can't argue with someone else's reality, that the writer obviously felt that way about his mother. At this point, two other brothers are furiously writing their "counter" memoirs. (Ah, But that my own three boys will grow up to defend their mother's name so...) At the end of the day, all we can do is put our own stuff out there.

PPS Oh, and Joan, good article on the poverty and stuff...:)

1. I totally agree with Fester and zip about salon's complicity in these flame wars. The headlines and some of the articles themselves (I Like Obama Because He's a Dude, Is Hillary darkening Obama?, It's OK to Vote For Obama Because He's Black) are inane at best, incendiary at their worst.

2. Sorry if I sounded preachy before.

He plans to stump for Hillary in much the same way that Strickland did here in Ohio for her. That man threw his heart and soul into marching around the state for her, and it worked big time. When a popular governor throws his considerable weight behind a candidate, his influence, not to mention his entrenched connections, makes a big difference.

Not sure I think this is fair, but I could be talked into it. What do you all think?

As I see it, an additional advantage to interviews like the Irish woman had with Bush is that they keep him grounded in the real world. So, the content itself is important--that is, whatever she can "get" out of him on that single occasion for the good of public knowledge--but another is that he can hardly remain in his protected bubble or echo chamber if he is consistently exposed to reporters like this who remind him what the real world thinks and sees and is. Ultimately, I wonder if better policy would result.

Totally anecdotal, but I'll report anyway. I teach in several Cleveland schools. I have been conducting rather informal surveys every time I'm in a middle school classroom. I ask the kids to tell me who is running for president. I usually have to explain that it's just the primary season and what that's about first, but they do manage to come up with the major names. Then I ask who likes which candidates or don't they have an opinion one way or another? My assumption is that they're giving me what's discussed at their kitchen table (i.e. their parents' views.) There is no doubt that the "brown" kids seem to prefer Hillary and the black kids inevitably pick Obama. The white kids are usually clueless. A couple of caveats:

1. Most kids cannot back up their choice with anything of substance at all. They don't know why they like their candidate or occasionally tell me something just silly or false. One Latina girl told me "Hispanics are supposed to vote for Hillary. Because we like Hillary." This makes me wonder about media influence on the whole topic.

2. These schools are filled with poor kids, for what that's worth.

3. There are lots of black and brown kids in the schools, some more than others. Some of the schools are predominantly brown (Cleveland's near west side).

4. Tons of kids appear to be both black and brown, an issue I've not seen discussed much.

5. For what it's worth, these kids mostly live with mothers or grandmothers, but a fair number have fathers picking them up, so I think even if their parents aren't together there are dads involved somehow.

Not sure if anybody said this

but I see Obama helping Clinton but not the other way around. I wouldn't want to see Obama concede anything if he's the clear winner in delegates, etc., but if Clinton comes through big, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama on the ticket and I think he could help her win.

I don't, however, think she could help him win. I think the whole argument about her bringing out the Republican base still applies if she's on the ticket in any capacity. I know this "bringing out the base" argument doesn't make Clinton supporters happy, but it seems incontrovertibly true in my world; I am surrounded by righties who verify it daily.

See my next post for more on this.