Sorry... referring to my previous post.

I just wonder if someone like Barack Obama were to become incensed by a similar development and gesticulate while raising his voice in front of a crowd of supporters... if it would look just as bad.

I am glad that he is a thoughtful man. I am just worried that he won't be able to think quickly enough in a debate against McCain to fend off assertions that he is too inexperienced for the job. When I look in my magic 8-ball, I see him pulling out the rhetoric; I don't see him countering effectively with ideas.

And I know Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and capable woman, regardless of how canned she sounds by this point. She just doesn't connect with people the same way Barack Obama does, and she's been in people's faces for much longer.

All in all, I'm not as worried about the shrieking as much as I am about the outcome of a McCain-Obama matchup. Just have to have faith, I guess.

There is no denying that Obama's style of speaking can be "tentative." He is a thoughtful man and chooses the best words he can. I'd rather have a president who speaks precisely and with care than a president who just runs at the mouth yapping canned and forced lines like Hillary did at the debate, or worse, a president who gets unhinged and starts shrieking, like Hillary did today:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/hillary.speech.cnn

Here's Obama's reply:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/obama.speech.cnn

Did we watch the same debate?

Obama took her to school, and Hillary gave a concession speech at the end.

--Anonymous

Yes, and Hillary took Obama to school, despite a lapse in good judgment ("Xerox" comment). Obama just repeated what she said so he could look presidential.

Come now, you can't possibly think Sen. Obama outdid Sen. Clinton in that debate. I tuned in for the first time of all the Democratic debates, just to see what the difference was, so I have not been (very much) tainted by preconception. I was impressed by Clinton's showing and astonished at the praise being heaped upon Obama for his demeanor and debate skills.

Obama was tentative and at times reminded me of George W. Bush when presented with an opposing candidate's response that he couldn't match, choosing instead a line of rhetoric he was good at delivering and which elicited applause from fervent supporters in the audience.

One can admit Clinton is a more qualified candidate than Obama and still express the hope that Obama will turn out to be a formidable foe for McCain.

Obama will win the nomination. I will vote for him for president. But I hope to God he bones up on substance and learns his figures.

AKA is the new Chief Joseph.

Pretty soon Hillary will announce that she, too, will fight no more forever.

DeeperTruth: "It's not worth my time to go through all your posts and show you."

I will take that as an admission that the thing you are accusing me of (criticizing Bill Clinton for making money off of speeches) is not anything I've ever actually written -- nor implied.

DeeperTruth: "I came here because of my passion and interest in these issues."

Evidently the passion is not enough for you to make honest arguments.

See?

There's no point.

You know the truth Hutman.

It's not worth my time to go through all your posts and show you.

I'm not quoting you word for word, you know all the things you've implied.

I came here because of my passion and interest in these issues.

I write about things that are of vital importance to me - I truly don't care enough about movie reviews or other cultural trivia to write letters to the editor about them.

Writing about culture itself is really quite fluffy to me when there are so many more important things going on.

Once again,

Goodnight ~

Thank you John for the poem

DeeperTruth: "For the rudimentary premise of all your arguments is this: If Obama does it is good. If the Clintons do it is bad."

Then you must not be reading what I've written. My argument is much more complex than that.

DeeperTruth: "So if Hillary gets a record-breaking advance for writing a book, according to you, it's somehow 'bad,' or suspect."

Why are you putting the word "bad" in quotes? I never used the word "bad." In fact, I never ascribed any value judgment to Hillary's book deal. I pointed it out in response to the assertion that Bill Clinton's speeches were the main source of income.

DeeperTruth: "If Bill gets paid for being asked to speak, it's implied that he's 'making money off public life' in some kind of indecent way."

Actually I didn't say anything about this subject at all. You are either confusing me with somebody else, or you're completely making things up. I defy you to find a message where I discussed Bill Clinton's speeches as if there were anything wrong.

DeeperTruth: "If Barack uses someone else's words, identically in a speech, it's ok, if Hillary any thing at all even remotely near that, it's bad."

Again, you are completely off here. You are completely avoiding a discussion of the hypocrisy of Hillary making this into an attack issue. That is the basis for the entire discussion.

DeeperTruth: "If I support Hillary, I must be 'getting paid,' or part of the campaign or it's 'so weird' that my posts support Hillary."

I backed away from any accusation that you worked for Hillary. However, I still think it is unusual that this is the only subject that you've ever commented on. Do you read the other articles on Salon? Movie reviews? Cary Tennis's advice? Glenn Greenwald? Broadsheet? Video Dog? Garrison Keillor? Camille Paglia? Etc.

DeeperTruth: "But if all your post support Barack, that doesn't mean there's any such conspiracy on your side is there?"

But all my posts are not on that subject. And I already pointed out that I've taken a pro-Obama poster to task as well.