This is a riot. Reporters from around the world are looking for the guy named Bud, the laid-off tire factory worker who leaves his pickup truck only to go bowling or stop for a beer at the Elks Club. I have no idea who's going to win this state on April 22, or whether it matters in the least. But it's great fun watching y'all scurry through the mountains and hollers in search of the essential idiotic Pennsylvania voter. He is the key --- the key!! --- to victory in November. Good luck in your travels.

Your posts Lies; Lies II; and Liesiii, are great. The truth will set the nation free of an Obama Presidency, let's hope.

Thanks, Kate. I don't think I was generalizing about his ability to unite, though. I think I was just speaking of this case, the way that David and I apparently came towards Obama from two different perspectives. And not just to him as a random Democrat, but because we both were drawn towards Obama the human (not to speak for David).

Honestly, I don't feel like clicking to those links, but if you'd like to paraphrase for me, I'd be happy to listen.

I don't believe in heresies, btw. So long as what you have to say is intellectually honest engaging (polemic has its uses, but it's generally spectacularly unproductive, if serious engagement is your goal).

But let's grant your premise, that Obama's not a "uniter." The question then becomes whether McCain and Clinton are more unifying, and then the question becomes, unifying to what end?

i haven't wanted to vote for anyone for decades - in fact EVER. the only one was obama - that's why i don't object if someone calls me an obamabot. it's true in a way - a willing suspension of disbelief. for instance kucinich always seemed sort of a drip - with his two foot taller irish wife. whatever. the tribal thing i can understand - though i don't share it. i know that lefties have this underlying New Soviet Man ideal - where everyone is the same. i don't have that problem. i can differentiate. white people aren't like that, true, but a lot of jews here are - they feel they have to bend over backwards for the backwards bending palestinians. pas moi. and i have no problems voting for someone who's biracial just because he's biracial - but that wouldn't be enough. as i said, it was his MIND and second, his not talking down (true, if you don't come UP to his level, i'm sure you would find him arrogant). he's really a unique commodity - as even richardson sees. and it's not his inspirational nature, but WHY he's inspirational. see? how can i complain if i'm called an obamabot. and really, i don't have all that much against hillary, EXCEPT, she's IN THE WAY! And so to bed.

Hillary is "great"

deep in the erratic wilds

of her own diseased mental state

I'm surprised that such a well-educated, conservative Southern man would take such a sketchy looking, unreferenced blog at face value. Oh wait, I'm not.

You say: "But let's grant your premise, that Obama's not a "uniter." The question then becomes whether McCain and Clinton are more unifying, and then the question becomes, unifying to what end?"

The question all along has been whether McCain and Clinton are more (or less) unifying, because that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset (that and 'hope' and 'change'). This in itself was an entirely false premise - something more in the nature of a crusade rather than a political campaign meant to deal with concrete issues, but initially at least, Obama got away with it. And that's where all the trouble started.

BTW, I'm not clear as to why you chose not to read the NoQuarter essay. It expresses far more eloquently and comprehensively than I am able to, the deep unease and distrust which Obama has inspired in so many.

I looked at the article you linked to and the very first thing that popped out at me was this sentence:

Can you see the dignified Colin Powell using this dog-whistle?

I'm sorry, but someone who lies to drag our country into a disastrous and totally unnecessary war is hardly "dignified".

Colin Powell forgot "The Powell Doctrine" as soon as it became disadvantageous for him politically and literally millions of innocent people are paying a horrendous price.

Why should I bother to read the rest of the article when the very first thing I see is total garbage?

By the way, I'm no Obamaton, you can check my previous posts and see that I'm a very harsh critic of Obama.

For you the word "hope" only means smokin' a nickel bag of Hillary's dope. "Have a toke of Clintonian hope or just piss up a rope" is your motto, while you hold on to slim hopes that she'll win this years big lotto.

"The question all along has been whether McCain and Clinton are more (or less) unifying, because that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset (that and 'hope' and 'change'). "

Maybe we've been watching two different campaigns, but as I've seen, Obama's argument about being able to unify is but one aspect of his candidacy.

So when you say "that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset," I can't agree. It was one of many appeals that went into his frame. It was by no means his central selling point.

His opposition to the war immediately leaps to mind as another distinction of his candidacy.

The ability to unify is something we won't really know in any serious way until he's in office.

He's not speaking just of unity among the populace during an election cycle, though I'm sure he's aiming for this too, but lasting unity.

By definition, whether he can do this remains to be seen.

It's perfectly plausible that he can win people over over time, and in fact, hasn't his pattern been to close lots of gaps between himself and Clinton in surprisingly short periods of time? So it even appears that his campaign has, at least to some extent, borne out this claim.

Wouldn't you agree?