so here it is then. (now i'm wearing my boots, which always guarantees a good showing.)

before i wrote the post appearing below this one, i was working on a response to martin and to nate, who left comments in the third post down. i had not said much in that post; mostly it was a link to a youtube video made in support of hillary clinton. i posted that video because, in a clumsy, heavy-handed, not-so-well-edited sort of way, it expressed some strange and hard-to-name feelings i've been having lately, watching the primaries play out. i didn't add much text to the link, in part because i still wasn't quite sure how to say what i wanted to say. what i did say, i suspect, was not very clear.

fortunately, an article has appeared in salon which does an excellent job of articulating that feeling, probably a better job than the video does, and certainly a better job than i did. if anyone's interested (and, again, particularly if they support obama), i'd recommend taking a look. this should not be read as some sort of condemnation of obama supporters. i am not an obama supporter, that's true. still, it is a critique of the campaign which i feel is valid, and since i do not want to see mccain elected, i humbly ask that interested parties read it.

i did not write the post which sparked the flame-war as a direct response to nate and martin, although timing (and my own word choice) likely made it appear that way, i see now, and i was so angry at the time that i'm not certain i made a clear distinction in my own head, myself. i was working on the actual response (which i invite both martin and nate to read, and to respond to, if they like, as it's posted now) in my head over the weekend, sorting out what i wanted to say, and when i sat down at a computer monday morning to write it, the first thing i happened across was the article i linked in that post. i was pissed, and i was scared, and i felt betrayed, both by obama himself and, following from that, his supporters.

i do think there is a link between the hard-to-explain feeling of sexist backlash and the remarks made at the Compassion Forum. i think, in a way, they come from the same place, and i will try to explain what i mean -- possibly after dinner tonight, but possibly not until after Writing Period. it was sloppy and careless of me to say, in the opening of the post, that what disturbed me about obama's comments at the forum was precisely the same thing that was disturbing me about the campaign, and it wasn't what i wanted to say, but i was, in fact, really really fucking damn angry at the time, and i did not stop to choose my words with care. i will try to be more precise in my phrasing the next time, and to keep separate topics which should be kept separate.

that said, i do still stand by the comments i've made. i think it would be helpful to talk about such things, and i think mike's proposal (in comments below) to move the conversation to neutral territory is a good one. i don't want the topic at hand to get lost in that separate conversation, though, and i am still interested in talking about the weird mechanics involved in this campaign, if others are too. i will try to post about what i mean, but rebecca traitster's article is probably a better one than i could write.