The only thing that was ill-advised about Obama's words was the response of those unwilling to explore the meaning of those words. If Obama was pandering at all, he was pandering to those willing to engage in a thoughtful reflection about the state of political -- well -- pandering!

"Hmm," he might have been saying. "How do we talk about the ways in which government and citizens can work together to create hope and opportunity with all of this pandering to hot button issues?"

The crowd ponders for a moment and then they all say in unison: "Just kidding! Who would want to talk about opportunity and hope when we can slam each other over word choice?"

No, I was being silly and sarcastic because I didn't think my posts were very pandering. In fact (I have no desire to prove or argue you out of you view of me), when I read back the two previous posts, I noticed that each contained statements of my basic problem with Joan's stance. But hey, I'm sure you know that arguing about this type of perception issue can waste a lot of time in which actual ideas and observations can be discussed. That is part of the reason why I really want to hear Joan say more about her actual observations/thoughts related to the nature of Barack and Hillary's supporters. She mentions them a lot and even though it is not a topic I know how to generalize from, she obviously does. I do respect that she acknowledges the merits of the question and that it might do well to really consider it. But no hacker, just silliness.

As the media assault on Obama's "character" intensifies using the petty, cliched personality themes that are the hallmark of their leader, Matt Drudge, Obama hasn't appeared to suffer much at all. To the contrary, he has steadily gained on Clinton in Pennsylvania beginning with the lapel pin/Michelle Obama/Wright/bowling/"bitter" controversies.

The style in which a person chooses to craft his or her response is always up to the individual, of course. I don't think any one style is necessarily better than another. I only object to wild rants and profanity. It's really not necessary and only serves to alienate people. I also tire of those who write lengthy diatribes, which I'd be astounded if many folks actually take the time to read. Better to keep it to a paragraph or two, I think. I also don't like when readers hijack the thread, posting comments ad nauseum -- trying to turn it into a chat room.

PS: If you are truly curious as to why I've lost respect for Joan, you need only read my posts that respond directly to her articles, rather than the comments I've made to others.

Today I totally forgot to go to Salon.com to see what's going on.

OMG.

As I've said, for YEARS this was my #1, FIRST-place to surf, go-to, alternative news site.

This has never happened before where I COMPLETELY forgot to go take a look for the day. It's all due to the new non-objectivity being discussed on these boards.

You've done it, Joan!

Was talking about this Chablis, methinks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDcf06OUYo

Joan, journalists always discuss Obama's charm and charisma, but rarely mention his less appealing traits -- he can be at times glib, haughty, mocking, defensive and holier-than-thou. These qualities turn me off greatly and, I'm embarrassed to say, they are probably the biggest obstacles to my supporting him. Do you think this could be a "woman thing"? I know younger women like him better than older women do, so maybe there's an age factor there too. Maybe you have to already be part of the "team" to appreciate the mockery, say, because this is something that is obviously more fun to give than receive. I just find him a tad whiny and hypocritical sometimes, especially when he complains about, say, yesterday's admitted one-sided debate against him and its focus on trivia and slander. He's complaining now that he got a dose of this kind of treatment, but never expressed outrage when Hillary was getting hammered on equally specious grounds and equally unfair ways, long after she was the frontrunner. What do you think?

If I was a better writer I know I could make the following point without sounding at all condescending. I really do understand what it is like to listen to a person whose tone of voice annoys you for one reason or another (they sound whiny or preachy or disconnected or dumb or out of touch). I get that, big time. I also thing that at times that might be a clue that helps you learn something really important about the individual. It's not like you can just repress the annoyance, so I think it is healthy to acknowledge it.

In regards to Barack: to me he is rather normal. There are aspects of his speaking that I give an A, but other aspects hang out around C+. Hillary, for me, is mainly a strong B in the speaking realm. They each have aspects to their style that annoy me and that I enjoy.

But the only reason these folks should matter to us is the degree to which we think they can help with our present political/cultural crises.

There are things about Hillary that bug me to no end. I don't think I've ever yet written about those personality things, specifically, because...(not because I'm above it)I can't see reason to connect those to how she will function as president. Fortunately, I think it is possible to argue for Barack based on issues that have nothing to do with him being better (as if he was less whinny, less ambitions, less patronizing...)in those personality ways.

so, yea, I got annoyed reading your last post because I felt like, "Ok, so you find him to be not so perfect and have character flaws too." But then what. My annoyance is so stupid because all you are sharing is your experience and, to you, Barack comes across in some not so great ways. And, yes, I know the fantasy is to have a president who not only has useful ideas and the skills to work hard to implement them but who also is somebody we can stand behind 100% as a really, really good person. To the degree that our fantasy isn't coming true, we feel slighted and really annoyed that some people scream how perfect the humanly human person is!

I guess my fantasy is for a day when we don't collectively and individually project so much on these weirdoes who want to be president. I'd rather we look at them like people wanting to be our plumbers;

It's like how the Oscars get people fighting over fairly good films. Because they get nominated, then you naturally really liked one more than the others, then you have to hear people praise the other movies and insist their choice deserves to win. Then you start to really notice how unworthy the other one is and how shrill and basically idiotic the supporters of that movie sound.

And the truth is that when you just sat and watched the now "bad" movie the first time you basically appreciated it. And if your friend had made it you could easily have been genuinely impressed. But now if you found out your friend made it, you'd be embarrassed to share your "insights"...

Barack is fine guy, I'm sure. And Hilary is as well. They each are smart and effective people.

Well, suzyqueue, thanks for being my cyber-therapist and I retract my projections. The annoyance is really aimed at myself for not getting what I want.