You're welcome, and I agree with everything you said in your subsequent post, especially this:

The decision needs to be made soon as I wager a major sea-change in American Politics is upon us.

A lie is not an "opposing view". It is a LIE.

I think you just outed yourself as a fan of "The Wire". :>

I don't think Obama has to adjust his demeanor or speech to be more 'familiar', or 'regular' and he certainly shouldn't pander. Bill Clinton had enormous personal charisma and people connected to that, but so does Obama. I think more people will respond to that here, if they're exposed to him.

Mostly, in his personal appearances he needs to listen, ask questions and take people seriously. Not, 'tell me more about how you're a victim of this or that so that I can feel sorry for you' (which is unfortunately the Dem template), because people here do not see themselves as victims. Instead, how does this thing or process work, what happens, what does that do to your yield (or whatever), etc ... show someone you're smart around here by asking them about their own interests, show that you're listening and getting it by asking good questions, and you'll win anyone over. If Obama established the rapport in that way, it almost doesn't matter what he says.

When he does speak he needs to provide details: the balance between inspirational rhetoric and wonkspeak needs to shift in the latter direction, but in a specific way. No jargon, no intellectual constructs, no theories (okay, so it isn't wonkspeak ... but as detailed), plain presentation about the actual details relevant to the place he's visiting, the specific anxieties of whichever corner of Appalachia he has to be in. HRC is very good with details, and knows how to talk about them, and that's been a part of her appeal.

Finally, and this one is me personally -- I like it when Obama shows that he has some fight in him. I know others do too. Lots of people get a little queasy when they hear the hope and unity stuff not because they don't want it, but because they've heard it before AND things are bad enough that they don't imagine it's going to change unless someone is willing to fight.

Nicely said. Thanks.

To your points -

(1) I'm glad you wrote that. I was thinking the very same thing today.

(2)Agreed. The Dem party has a broad 'natural' base, and will only be a healthy party when it has most of those segments under the tent. Contentious as it may become, the diversity is key.

(3) I'm really glad to hear that. Among my peers, there are a lot of Obama supporters as well as Clinton supporters who have no problem voting for Obama in the fall. I'm pleased to hear your perspective, because mine has been quite different (outside my friend/peer group) and it alarms me ... .any sign that is isn't representative is welcome.

(4) I agree that people can be persuaded, though they're less likely to be persuaded by name-calling and contempt. I've been away from here a long time, and I'm astounded by the changes and progress. It isn't where I would want it to be, yet, but it's really no longer the case that the 'modal' story about race, gay rights, abortion, etc is really the dominant one, as far as I can see. Even people who harbor old ideas about these things have a weaker hold on them than they used to, as you can see when you talk to them. They'll even tell you that themselves.

So, the work continues ... here and everywhere else in the country, right?

Wow, that was great! Thanks.

So go fuck yourselves ... Respect is a two way street.

You pretty much summed up your entire head-up-your-ass me-first position right here.

No need to bother about your 'we've been reaching out to YOU PEOPLE for decades' horseshit. Especially since it's clear you yourself have done zero reaching out, if you've even been alive for 'decades'.

You can now STFU.

I guess it's everyone's day to act like an asshole here at Salon. Glenn deletes a couple posts, and suddenly everyone is popping up with their own suggestions about who to delete, how to regulate their comments, and who ought and ought not to post.

Rowan, you need to shut the hell up about Celery. He's been here longer than you, or I have. He's shown his value and others have said how much they appreciate his posts. So concentrate on making your own posts coherent, something you've struggled with lately, and leave Celery alone.

It was pretty disgusting that last night, when at almost 10pm his time William Timberman was trying to solve your idiotic desktop problems, all you did was give him a lot of crap (you couldn't even ask politely!); he tried to engage you substantively and all you did was tell him "I don't care about your feelings, didn't I tell you?", just seconds later. You can't even engage in a conversation where anyone disagrees with you .... it's like you're only here because you want an audience. You've got a lot of nerve telling anyone else to stop posting.

Now grow up! You've got an interesting perspective, and as both I and William Timberman have told you, we're interested to hear it and engage with it. But it's a conversation, not a stage, everyone has a right to post here, and there's no excuse for such rotten behavior.

no one sees his funny mental cartoons, except himself.

Wrong. You're the one at fault, not him. We like him just fine, as you've now heard from Pedinska as well. So you're only speaking for Rowan.

Now get over yourself.

"Real World", indeed.

Anybody else got any 'cloying' bullshit they'd like to add? There're people out there who haven't discovered the scroll bar or 'next page' link who are waiting for you ...