Last Ohio Poll numbers have Clinton over Obama by 9%

I've never heard Obama condemn paid voting organizers. I don't exactly think of that as a major problem in politics. I couldn't believe that people cared that Clinton paid people to hold signs in Texas. That's what campaigns do.

A lot of anti Obama backlash seems to be anti Obama-supporter backlash. Or am I wrong in this instance?

I agree Mikkel - I don't think it's a tool that should be condemned - what upsets me is that Obama-supporting blogs in Ohio are using it against Clinton to say that it shows she's desperate - while ACORN is paying just as well for Obama canvassers - they should either report that both campaigns are doing this, or, as you and I might think, forget about it since it's a commonly done or accepted practice. It's the one-sidedness in reporting when I know that these are bloggers who KNOW that ACORN is paying for people to do the same for Obama.

And yes I think you make a great point - I am really unhappy with how my blogger buddies who support Obama have been showing their support. I've been around long enough to know - that's how supporters go.

AND - TO BE FAIR - it's not as though Clinton supporters are any better - I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of them being equally annoying etc.

LOL - I guess the bottom line is, if you've read any of my other comments in threads here over the last week or so - I VANT TO BE ALONE! Or left alone to agonize in this decision. :)

Jill I have long come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people that belong to any organization or self identification do it for the wrong reasons or at least are giving their group a bad name. Of course I'm a bit of a misanthrope when it comes to group behavior even as I find individual interaction with basically any one to be pleasant.

To me it's a lot easier to learn about the basic tenets of the group and seek out the people that really seem to live by them in order to have a dialog, while ignoring the rest. I've been an Obama supporter since 05, because I liked his DNC speech and read everything about his views and supported them. I have to say, I find it perplexing how it seems the vast majority of people follow him for the wrong reason, even as it's perfectly clear that what they think he is for is not what he is for at all. (Just like it's amazing how many people dislike Hillary for things that are completely untrue).

Sometimes it's worth remembering that any religion inevitably loses touch with its god, and that for some reason, most people treat everything like a religion.

I like your comments!! Don't go away, please.

I agree 100% with what you've written. Thank you.

Note reader remarks

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/...

DLS - there are 37 comments there right now - any one in particular you are thinking of?

Talk about blogs go to huffington and say something positive about Hillary see what happens. That is the problem but it is on both sides too. I will probably get blasted because this is something that no one wants to talk about. There is a race and gender issue lying under the surface. The problem and yes I was guilty of it until I talked with a good friend about it so here goes. Yes this is a historic election. Both candidates have a loyal following based not on politics but a basic connection. Men like Louis, Owens, Robinson, Tiger Woods and many more broke the color barrier and lifted people up shoued them that they too could reach the top. Now though other African American men have run for the first time the dream for many could come true. This makes them( the supporters) more passionate and personally invested. By the same token Hillary is the first woman to ever run for president. Look at the history women have had to wait longer to vote, to be able to run for office. African Americans in the south held office at the state level after the civil war over 140 years ago. This is the problem that is out there and cnn and others do not help. Comments like she will have to pick him however he does not need her. If you look at it both Senators Obama and Clinton have more votes than some past Democratic canadites. The point is whoever ends up the Democratic nominee some will vote other or not at all. I would hope that all could see that we need to get Rep. out of White House a the end day. Only time will tell. I have to give the Rep. one thing thery fight but I did not see (unless I was blind could have happened) them calling for someone to leave the race, the media yes but not the party.

"there are 37 comments there right now - any one in particular you are thinking of?"

No. I was looking at the give-and-take and was amused at how differently fans versus critics of the candidates view their candidates and the others.

"There is a race and gender issue lying under the surface."

Yes -- it's identity politics or politically-driven reverse racism and sexism. What both groups see is their kind of candidate (black or female) is in fine shape this year to vault what I've referred to as "that final hurdle" in that even though we're not a sexist or racist society any more (what we observe with these behaviors is not systematic and general in the US public and government), true "arrival" for both groups will be when their candidate gets into the White House. It is this that can be said to be tragic (as an earlier thread put it) about Clinton's campaign. Had Obama not been in the race and divided the Dem electorate, Clinton would be the nominee easily this year, with firm expectations of being elected over McCain to the White House. (It is also tragic in the sense that her time may now be past and she cannot expect to do well four years from now.)

Choose your identity (it's okay because it's PC to do it if you're a Dem voter this year).

"race and gender issue"

Probably unavoidable given this is the first serious chance either kind of candidate has to definitely, almost automatically, get into the White House finally, this year.

Well, DLS yes - I see the give and take - appreciate you noting it too.

Just reading your comments again now, you know what I thought of? Stick with me for a second.

I don't know if you remember this or if it stuck in your mind at all, but on 9/11 and the days after, we heard a lot of people say that they were speechless. I know I felt that way too.

Now, I've studied some linguistics formally, but language really fascinates me in general.

So, why did people feel this way - that they were speechless? My theory has always been that it's because we've never really had a need for and therefore we've never really developed a language or a meta-language, like we have now or like other countries where acts of violence and terrorism occur far more regularly (think even of the IRAs most active period but of course there are many other instances). I mean, really regularly, and in smaller populations so that more people feel the direct impact, and indirect.

I think that the first-ness of Obama and Clinton is susceptible to this same kind of thing - it's a first, we've never had it before, we don't have a ready made easiness to just letting it unfold - we are hypnotized, mesmerized, pre-occupied with it. Maybe even like The God Must Be Crazy and the Coke bottle - to first world folks, the Coke bottle is litter, something to be tossed when the contents are gone. To the tribe that ended up with the Coke bottle, it's a new and wonderous and curious thing.

Not a perfect analogy but I think the curiosity level, the "what do we do this" factor is just very very high - because it is so unique, now.

Hopefully, its uniqueness will wear off after 2008!

What do you think of my theory!? :)