“... you can't define cultural change in neat terms ... ”

Maybe,but as I said, it’s time to hear some specifics. It isn’t too much to ask a candidate to provide those, is it? Or do you think we should just say, Obama seems like a good guy, let’s sit back and see where he takes it … ?

“... make up some numbers and use some pretty terminology to placate the critics …”

Analogy: In large organizations (considerably less complex than the US government), you have a strategic roadmap that says here’s where we’re going, what we’re trying to achieve, and here are the specific programs to get us there. At a minimum, policies consistent with vision … when you’re talking about big sweeping changes, the details might be lighter, but the consistency has to be stronger and the vision more articulated.

The country's in a big fix. We need that roadmap. Otherwise, it’s all personality, and that's not sufficient. I’m not alone in this. A lot of us have seen the personality parade before, in every election local, state &national. I’m leaning toward Obama, but it isn’t too much to ask for more specifics about how all this is going to happen. No specifics? That's a serious weakness.

“If you don't think tone is enough, you can look at the way he has handled the attacks...”

Nope, neither are enough. Specifics. Not down to the sub-atomic level, but enough; we’re way short of that now. And let's see how the tone works out when the VRW gets started.

“Well, I think it is a very poor and cliche point ... but if you want to make go ahead.”

Gee, thanks. Glad I have your permission.

“... I don't see how that is taking anything personally.”

It isn’t. I was responding to your comment about how there’s nothing new about dirty politics. Taking everything personally is a separate issue.

“It is also quite possible to find something offensive and not be personally mortified by it.”

Fair enough. But why all the outraged language if one is not, in fact, outraged? Is that the cynicism coming out? Not too consistent with all that cultural change, politics of hope, etc.

“Or attacking Obama supporters as a cult ... Or. . .”

All that may (or may not) be true. The point, again, was that if Obama is now the front runner, then less of the victimization and more of the substance would be helpful. Unless you intend to run the rest of the race based on what others did up until this point.

“Obama is running a fundamentally different campaign.”

Heard it before. In spite of Obama’s obvious gifts, it’s not clear that it’s so new or fundamentally different, though of course, supporters like you keep saying that it is. Nor is novelty necessarily a selling point.

“Again you complain about ad hominem attacks while attacking Obama supporters. The hypocrisy is fairly astounding.”

Great, now I’m a hypocrite.

Do you really not understand the difference between criticizing the tone of Obama supporters generally and making personal attacks? Or are you just being purposefully obtuse?

The stupidity is fairly astounding.

“make you feel better to act as if Obama supporters are oversensitive crybabies, but it doesn't really fly especially when you are complaining at least as much as any Obama supporter...”

So now it’s about my feelings? What would make me feel better is if I could get an actual response, instead of more of this bullshit. I made one critique (not complaint), which I've clarified several times; I can easily demonstrate to you (and have cited already) that this is not even close to the number of ‘complaints’, even in a single thread on Salon, to say nothing of anywhere else, that Obama supporters have mounted about the alleged bias or moral failings of anyone who disagrees with them. I would have to be posting an awful lot more than I am to even keep up.

“It'd be fairly easy to say you should toughen up, but I won't because I think that sort of thing is a rather silly rhetorical game.”

Then why did you say it? At least have the guts to say what you mean, and not come across with the mealy-mouthed ‘I could say this but I won’t’ bullshit. You aren’t half as clever as you think you are. And take your own advice about ‘toughening up’, because there’s more and worse to come from someone who isn’t on your side to start with. Which I am.

“Just going to point out that foot-stamping and moral approbation (I'm not sure what you mean by that one) aren't personal attacks.”

Yep, they are, by definition. Reread my post if you don’t understand.

“I think constantly assuming those who disagree with you ...because they are personally offended is generally just a way of hiding from the real debate. If you can make the issue your opponents emotional fragility, then you can avoid having to actually debate them on the real issues.”

I didn’t ‘assume’, I ‘concluded’ based on the evidence of what was being offered, including in your posts. Do you understand the difference between an ‘assumption’ and a ‘conclusion’? Who are my opponents here, and how have I made their 'emotional fragility' the issue? What are the 'real issues' being avoided?

And who is avoiding the debate? I made the original post you responded to. What you’ve responded with has been a) as far as substance, well, it’s complicated, b) your point is basically stupid (I don’t have to offer specifics, it just is) and c) you’re a condescending hypocrite who I would say needs to ‘toughen up’ against something undefined, except that I can’t really bring myself to say it.

Gee, I feel the country coming together for all that hope and change already.