DISQUS

Michael I think this is proof positive how important this race is, especially in light of the last seven years; there's oversensitivity to go around. If there is any clear evidence of unfounded animosity, it comes from the MSM and Chris "Aqua Velva" Matthews in particular. But, I can't sit idly by and let this sort of conjecture go undisturbed.

I have firmly come into the Obama camp after a long, hard look at all my options. And I feel exactly zero shame in holding my head high in support of him. Does that make me cultish, to have pride not just in a candidate, but in a renewed sense of Country? If I were to say someone showed their claws, and that person is female, does that make me a misogynist? If a handful of random, anonymous people say mean things, do those reflect Obama's views as if he said them himself? If Chris Matthews (et alia) goes bananas, does that represent anything other than his / their own faults? (Is that not simply proof that the leading punditocracy is simply too far gone, and really nothing more?)

Critically, If a woman -- yes, a woman! -- no matter how self-identified, has a career even partially enabled by her notoriously philandering male spouse, exactly how does she score on the scale of Absolute Feminism? Are you, Mister Man, the judge? Does Steinem matter, but Paglia not? Does NY's NOW matter, but not Chicago's? Is she the ne plus ultra of feminism because she is the embodiment of feminism, or because she is simply the leading female figure of the day? And, do you get a feminist cookies for promoting Hillary, while I must be misogynist for challenging that position, even ever so lightly?

Tom, if you wish to support Clinton, please do so. You won't get any grief from me for positively backing your candidate. But sooner or later, you should realize that your comments & thinking convey the same Beltway mindset, the other side of the same (Bush) coin, that so many are lamenting ...and moving past. It's the view that things really just won't get any better, that everything is as you define it. It is the "change" as defined by Clinton herself -- to be anti-Bush, as he was anti-Clinton, as he was anti-Bush. It's the pinnacle of cynicism. And, unfortunately, that is precisely what a Clinton candidacy represents to me.

So say what you will about we cultists, we misogynists, we ... whatever out there. But between a high-minded sense of hope that discounts neither harsh reality nor glosses over hard work, and a candidate who, while perfectly smart and hard-working and skilled, will undoubtedly bring about more of the bitter sensibilities of the last um-teen years, I want to thank you for making my choice ever the more clear.

PS -- My apologies to Fred if this is out of line. Your house, after all.