I hear and agree with your post.

Sorry, no one has had this conversation before, at least not with me.

And maybe you ought to read the WHOLE article before you make your claims. There's a whole history there that has NOTHING to do with losing the national because either party fights until the convention. That means nothing. That's actually what the convention was originally for if you go and study your democracy in America.

The idea that a nominee fighting until the convention is damaging the party is myth fabricated by Obama supporters to intimidate Clinton but more important to intimidate the voters. It's self-serving fear-mongering at it's worst. It's antithetical to democracy at it's core. And it's dead wrong in it's thesis!

Dear Joan,

As to several of you most recent posts, a few comments:

The woman is fearless. No matter the polling on her "negatives," it is becoming a truth understood about her as a person. It matches her ability to work hard. I am voting for Sen. Clinton because I am betting (guessing, putting my trust in the hope that) she will increasingly display political courage. I think I base this on a belief that the first woman elected to the presidency will carry to it (will embody perhaps) a sensibility that has a different point of balance, something off the fulcrum that has been predominant. This is the hope part because figuring out how to please others (men importantly) is a cultural and political force field always hard to resist.

Of course, I see that Sen. Obama embodies something off the center point as well. It's just that he is a rookie. Exceedingly talented, but he has leap-frogged over some crucial work years. He may pull it off anyway, but as a life-long Dem who came to age in the sixties in learning about the oppression of blacks in American history, the genocide of Native Americans, the genocide of Jews, and the universal oppression of women, I believe we need more than one presidency to achieve any real change. Mrs. Clinton first, then Mr. Obama because stopping the destruction of the economy is the first order of business (ending the war immediately is subsumed within this). People only have their lifespans, which if they are lucky includes some of the grandparents' lives and some of the lives of young people. The common weal and the basic well-being of all must be resecured first. Going for the "new" comes after that.

The so-called purity of Mr. Obama's stand on the war makes no difference in the long run. It is what has to be done now that must matter. I want above all to stop feeling like I have been made to be a "good German" in Cheney's fascist vision. There are none of us free from the horrible responsibility for all of it. I refuse to vote as if I can be absolved.

Finally, as to Reverend Wright. It's not over yet. It will come back again. I've known since January that there are some iffy aspects to the social-political gospel of his church. No one in the press has questioned Mr. Obama about the "black value system" published as a commitment of the church and thus urged on the parishioners. I know this will run in ads or on the Internet immediately following Mr. Obama's nomination. There may even be other fodder for questions, but my concern has been this: why would someone whose politics are as he insists "postracial" attend a church that is bound to the preservation of an identity forged under oppression. Perhaps this is not a question he has to answer because it is a choice taken out of his own needs and experiences. What he I think does have to answer is why he would perpetuate this consciousness in his little girls. Is his family life multi-American or Rev. Wright American, in which you know every day who the oppressor is and you name them, you choose to avoid doing business with them, and so on. This does not make for new politics, but for something quite old in this world.

Thank you for providing your posts and encouraging responses.

Didn't Dean say something about June 3?

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Honestly, that's about the most coherent argument for Clinton I've heard in quite some time. It's plausible and I respect it.

I ultimately disagree, but I can follow your reasoning.

"I am voting for Sen. Clinton because I am betting (guessing, putting my trust in the hope that) she will increasingly display political courage. I think I base this on a belief that the first woman elected to the presidency will carry to it (will embody perhaps) a sensibility that has a different point of balance, something off the fulcrum that has been predominant."

I wish I could share your faith that indeed, as a woman she would bring a genuinely fresh perspective to the office. I see no evidence of that, personally, but I'm actually curious to hear if you have some.

Thanks for an honest and productive contribution.

I think I'm starting to see where the analogy falls down, and it's mostly related to my wanting to rid it of substance when we just can't, can we? In other words, I wanted to intellectualize the concept without getting into why or how Clinton agreed to "meet with enemy."

Needless to say, weeping, I certainly agree with your substantive points about Obama's strengths. I was merely trying to reconcile Hillary's apparent manifestation of Obama's talking point. I'm still not sure whether this whole "legitimizing the enemy" argument--either side--depends on motive. Expedience/political rationale seems less than some other (trying to honestly reconcile differences or whatever) but nevertheless better than the whole macho, we-won't-speak-to-our-enemies schtick. I'm particularly sensitive to that last b/c I've always felt like that's how we got into the first Gulf War--a whole pride, not wanting to back down to our enemies thing. And kids got killed over that! It always amazes me.

Ugh--I'm honestly all confused. But to be clear, this was never a make-or-break issue for me, just an intellectual exercise to exorcise a nagging dissonance in my brain. Perhaps I can sum up my own conclusion, which is that Hillary is capable of getting together with enemies and former enemies when necessary, and I'm honestly comforted by that ability, but her motives are political and her goals (on some issues) still do not match mine. It's really interesting to imagine how this particular question--whether HRC would be using FOX News--would be answered would she be comfortably in first place.

As far as the pandering (flag burning, etc.), I think they both do it, but I agree that Hillary does it more. Nobody quite knows whether her hawkish positions are pandering or genuine hawkish tendencies, or a little of both, but there's all kinds of other right-wing kind of stuff. On the abortion thing weeping, it was that she came out a few years ago seeming all middle-groundish, saying that we all want the same outcome, which is fewer abortions. It was honestly no different than Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare," and I remember feeling frustrated that the press treated it like it was something new. Some feminists felt that the "rare" shouldn't even come into the lexicon--that abortion can and should be unapologetically employed, etc., but I am more of the Clinton thinking on that particular issue. That is, let's actually try to reduce them but not use legislation--rather attempt prevention through contraception, education, etc. As for Obama pandering, he's done a little in terms of NAFTA and even Iraq exit strategy, imo. I'm glad for those two b/c I prefer his unspoken policies on both to the strict campaign-speak going on. It's always interesting how much we choose to believe out of the mouths of our preferred candidates.

Weeping--I absolutely loved Mario Cuomo. He was my gov. too, but I'm older than you by 10, if I remember correctly. (OK, 11 but who's counting). I so remember him talking about how important it was to raise kids with the notion of giving back to others and the community, and of course I always remember his principled stand on the death penalty.

I'm really tired, guys, and not sure I'm even making sense any more. It's been a great discussion tonight. Weeping, I want to talk lots more with you later about Wright and racism--you seem really angry and, dare I say, bitter, about it, and I can only say I agree with you 100%. I feel great resentment about the lack of nuance on this issue.