...the last sentence. (Why'd ya' have to go and put that in?)

You clearly have an innate ability to narrate objectively about matters through a lot of haze. This impresses me to no end. Truly.

But, what the hell is this altruistic comment doing here?

The doom-and-gloom diaries about how this new "-gate" are going to prevent Obama or Clinton from winning in the GE are a part of the old, spineless, capitulating Democratic party, and have no place in the party of fighters we're trying to build.

If it's about winning in November, then it's about kicking the opponent's ass and knowing the opponent's m.o.

As far as the Rethug's are concerned, $100mm-$200mm in 527-sponsored media twists reality to the point where it coerces a lot of folks to vote as the sponsors navigate. Misstatements of truth--lies--are pounded into the word- and thought-tracks of the public to no end. Just ask Kerry about this with regard to the swiftboating media in '04.

Nowadays, the lie becomes the truth if you've got the financing behind it to repeat it often enough.

To not consider this in the strategic plans and efforts--and ultimately with regard to the support of any given Democratic candidate as our party's nominee--is to deny the reality of media manipulation circa 2008.

So, to conclude such an insightful and objective overview like your diary tonight with an altruistic and naive sentence is, IMHO, a bit of a disappointment.

Looking for an appropriate analogy, the only thing I can compare this to is the last few seconds of "No Country for Old Men." (A brilliantly done piece, with a really unfulfilling and abrupt closing scene.)

(I realize that comparing this diary to what many--including moi--consider to be the best film of 2008 is absurd. But, I've got to say that I'm going to make a point of reading everything that you publish from now on, with this being the first time I've had the privilege of doing that. Thank you!)

I simply disagree with you about the race baiting issue, to accuse the Clintons and Geraldine Ferraro of racism is essentially "going nuclear" against a politician, and places anyone who supports them at risk of being branded a racist as well, so it is calculated to make a candidate radioactive.

As someone who has know these people and deeply respects their work for civil rights over their entire lifetimes, it is unconscionable to me that some one is willing to got to that length to deride his opposition, it has burned bridges between long time allies, and I feel it has been destructive to society as a whole.

I hope it backfires, big time, against the campaign that did it. There is plenty of proof, although people cannot talk about it all openly.

That is a central outrage that divides us, and I believe it is sincere and valid as a division.

I'm not about winning elections at all cost. I care about the issues, and will never vote for someone I cannot ethically agree with, and there is much too much that Obama has done in his career that I find unacceptable. I will never vote for someone I do not trust at all.

thanks. I love the sig line, by the way.

I find these types of "above it all" meta-diary are usually quite unconvincing. You are an Obama supporter. The fact that you were once an Edward supporter has little to do with it. You say, basically, "Why can't we all get along," now, when your candidate has finally been subjected to some scrutiny. Where was this sentiment when the Obama camp found a new and phony "racist outrage" everyday with the Clintons?

This, right here, freemansfarm, is an ad hominem attack. You didn't address the substance of what I had to say, rather, you said that since I'm an Obama supporter, I must have an ulterior motive for my desire for civility. You made me point for me.

I'm going to take the bait, though. If you go back through my comments and my diaries (and, even in this diary), you'll note that I don't just call out Clinton supporters, I call out Obama supporters as well. Does that get me past your ad hominem bar?

As for your first point about Obama's race baiting, etc. You're, once again, making my point for me. Show me evidence that Obama engaged is systemic, duplicitous race baiting, and, please, since its a rather big charge, make it strong evidence that actually conforms to strength of your claim.

Finally, I'm recommending your comment, because this is one of those "why can't we all get along" diaries. Not that that's really a big deal, but you might as well lap up the civility while you can. An ad hominem attack on a diary that is about the silliness of ad hominem might actually warrant a TR.

How totally brilliant of you to deduce this about the man.

Last I checked, racial divisiveness in the U.S. was somewhere around....nowhere...in the top ten issues of concern to the average Dem voter.

In his brilliance, Obama has managed to turn this into his #1 issue, or at least he's used it to support his #1 issue: himself.

I'd love to hear what he's got to say, in terms of him making a conscious effort to shift the media narrative so that it's about his major addresses on housing, the economy, healthcare, the War in Iraq, etc. But, that's not happening. (I'm reminded about what he claims are his positions on these issues; but, I see little substance paid to these matters when the cameras are on him outside of a debate forum.)

Yes, in some ways, that's a sign of brilliance, in terms of how he's now driving this media narrative. But, in many other ways, it becomes loathesome to many voters to hear a candidate focusing on himself, or otherwise intangible emotions, slogans and nouns ("change," "yes we can," etc.), at what appears to be the expense of not concentrating on the meat and potatoes concerns of the typical John Q. Voter.

Did Hillary attempt to feebly inject new life into the Wright story over the past 24 hours? I'd say, objectively, yes. But, that was a tactical move not unlike many things Obama's done in recent weeks. So, I can't hold it against her. (I'm sure others responding to this comment will point out that this should be held against her; but, I disagree.)

So, to Obama, I now say something I've heard from others: "Show me something more than a feeling. And, if not for me, do it for the sake of shifting the media dialogue onto more substantive matters."

There's a lot of time between now and the Pennsylvania primary election, and I'm really getting awfully tired of this Seinfeld-like pissing war that's going on right now. Like Seinfeld, the Dem Primary's devolved into a show about nuthin' lately, IMHO.

Show me somethin' Barack! Show me somethin' Hillary!

First of all, you talk about sanctimony and civility, then you go right ahead and bash a pro-Hillary "celebrity diarist." You prove my main point to a T, meta-diarists, and posters, supposedly concerned about elevating the tone and restoring amity and good will all around, usually find that, oddly enough, most of the "bad stuff" comes from the other side.

As for the race-baiting, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm not sure where you came up with the 20% African American figure (it sounds low to me--I think you are confusing it with the percenage of Democratic voters in the general election), but, even if it's correct, that's a very large chunk of the Democratic nomination voters. As has been proven in many a primary, when Obama starts off with an 85 to 90% lock on that group, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for Hillary to make up those votes with the other groups. In addition, because of the way that delegates are apportioned by congressional district, African American votes are especially valuable in some states. Contrary to what you say, it was very much in Hillary's interest to retain support in the African American community during the primaries, as well as for the general election, but Obama saw to it that she did not.

Obama made himself "the Black guy" after NH, to secure his victory in SC, the other Deep South states, and the other states where Afican Americans are a big percentage of the primary electorate. And he did so after explicitly renouncing this tactic in Iowa and NH (which, obviously, have few African American voters). The Obama campaign intenionally and repeatedly exacerbated "racial tensions" in the whole run-up to SC and beyond. Apparently, he and his staff didn't share your viewpoint. It is only now, when Obama is being hoisted on his own "racist outrage" petard, and when there aren't so many African Americans left to vote in the primaries, that he has gone back into his racially "transcendant" mode.

"Take, for instance, the celebrity diarist and professional victim Alegre"

This a typical example of a foul ad hominem attack by an Obama supporter against someone who makes very effective arguments for Clinton and against Obama. It heightens the sense of outrage against the other side, when they resort to these tactics.

The Clinton's absolutely had no advantage to race bait.  It was the Obama campaign early on that needed to find a way to peel off the high level of support the Clinton's had with the AA community.  It was to Obama's advantage only to raise the issue of race in this primary season.  It is one of the reasons that I don't support Obama.  I watched his very calculated and cynical use of race to sink the Clinton's and there is no way they can fight back without being called racists.  This has created a very destructive division in the Democratic community.