“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?"

Do you understand what an ad hominem attack is? It is an attack on a person or people making the argument rather than on the argument itself. It is a rhetorical device used (consciously or not) to avoid dealing with the facts and substance of the argument. What you are doing is a classic ad hominem attack and by decrying ad hominem attacks while engaging in one you are, by definition, a hypocrite.

“So now it’s about my feelings?"

What, you are going to get morally outraged now that after listing to you complain about how emotionally wounded Obama supporters I actually dare bring your own feelings into the discussion?

“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."

I was pointing out that all this junk about "toughing up" is a rhetorical deflection. It keeps people from having to actually discuss the issues. It is a staple of modern politics and one which I believe most Obama supporters are tired of.

I do say what I mean and guts really have nothing to do with this. I'd also ask in what way should I toughen up? I don't feel that I've been terribly impacted by your arguments and certainly feel no need to cry, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to where this toughening up I apparently need so badly should be directed.

What makes you think Obama and his supporters can't handle Republican attacks? He hasn't even flinched yet and I don't see any signs he withering attacks of an old hypocrite like McCain or a sleazy PR guy like Ari Fleischer.

"'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."

First, "approbation" means agreement or approval, so how moral approval can be construed as a personal attack is simply beyond me. I suppose if someone else's foot is under yours when you stamp. . . but this is the internet so that's unlikely. Nope, I don't see that one either.

I always find it interesting how people retreat to "read my post if you don't understand". It's like American in France who decide that if they shout and talk really slowly people will miraculously understand English.

"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 … ?"

The issue is that the change largely about how you react to situations, so specifics would require precise knowledge of the future. Obama may be a lot of things, but Edgar Cayce he is not.

I just don't think it makes any sense at all to expect such specifics. Even if such specifics were provided any sensible person would have to understand they would be complete fabrications. They might be politically expedient, but I would hope Barack wouldn't choose political expediency over sense.

"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."

Virtually anyone who has done any such planning will tell you that only the most general ideas can be realistically set out in these plans. The future is too uncertain and contains far too many uncontrollable details to make anything resembling detailed plans more than a couple years out (if even that is possible). I think Barack has set such a plan out in his books especially, but that he realizes that going into further specifics would be pointless since the specifics would depend heavily on the course of future events beyond his control. To lay out specifics would be disingenuous as he would know the chances of events happening just as he assumes would be rather minute.

"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."

Again I would just as specifics on what? What specifics do you not have? This nebulous idea of specifics without any attached context is looking more and more like a hollow point fabricated just to provide some fodder for attacks on Obama.

“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."

Yet another nebulous demand. For someone demanding specifics you seem to be trying really hard to avoid them yourself.

“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."

Well you seem to conflate them in your post.

“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."

There is such a thing as intelligent outrage. Not everyone acts purely on emotion. Again the reason people want change so much is because they are so offended by the tone and process of modern politics. If they weren't offended there wouldn't be much point in calling for change.

“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."

I really don't see Obama claiming he is victimized. And I really don't see Obama supporters doing so either. It seems Obama has better things to run on than that.

“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."

Clearly you haven't recognized it, which might explain your argument here. You can look at the ads being run by each candidate and the difference is pretty striking, so is the rhetoric. Perhaps the most measurable difference is the money. While Clinton is in New York at big fundraisers, Obama is lapping her in contributions without having to court the big donors hardly at all. Obama is nearing one million individual contributers to his campaign. That blows everyone else in the race out of the water completely. Not only is he raising the most money (by far) but he is doing so with out the PACs and the lobbyists. That a fundamental difference that is real and measurable. If you refuse to see that, that's your business.

* The body of your letter is 1337 words, it must be less than 1000 words * haha