Before you read this, please read the well-written and well-documented diary by existenz about the "Huge McCain Blunder." That is a great and informative diary; this one is a humbler follow-up on one particular point that struck me when reading that earlier diary.

I just keep wondering, Is McCain really as clueless as he keeps appearing? How could the man have attained the longevity in office and the respect by people on both sides of the aisle that he has achieved, if he is really as far out of the "reality loop" as he seems to me to be?

I do not by any means claim to be perfect.  In the category of Really Terrible Housekeeper, I am world-class.  Overweight, lousy sleeping habits, smoker, drawing ability limited to stick figures, and most 3-year-olds could navigate the world solo without getting lost as often as I do.

But there is at least one thing that I am really quite good at.  Extraordinarily good, in fact.  And that thing is . . . logic.   Scored in the 99.9% percentile on the LSAT, back in the day when it was much closer to being a test of pure logic than it is today. Nowadays I'm a math teacher, another career venture in which logic comes in handy.

I think it's time to apply some logic to a very annoying phrase I keep hearing.

http://www.dailykos.com/...

I was sitting here puttering at my computer a little while ago, and trying to force myself to get up and grade some papers, so I turned the TV to C-Span, figuring there wouldn't be anything there with a plot that would suck my attention away from my duties.

A few minutes after I tuned in, they started showing McCain's speech at Wake Forest University last week, which I figured was suitably boring, and had the advantage of being too annoying for me to watch or listen to very intently; after several months of Obama's speeches, I can barely tolerate McCain speaking.

But since it was on a subject that I'm familiar with and somewhat interested in, I kept one ear tuned in. One ear was just barely enough; if I'd been paying any less attention, I might have missed John's Big Boo-Boo -- and it really is a big one. Follow below the fold for the latest reason this man should not be elected president.

This is a re-post with a new title, based on this comment from diranuk:

Great Diary

Thanks. And beautifully written too.

I think the title may be the reason it may not have been read, and therefore recommended. The title makes the person reading it infer that you are going to present "more of the same". I saw this title on the recent diaries list, but did not read it, for that reason. I only came here because you linked to it from another diary.

Anyway, thanks for your diary, I wish it were possible somehow to get more people to read it.

Please don't blame diranuk if you read it and don't like it; it is ultimately my overblown ego that is responsible for my trying again after very little traffic the first time around.

Everybody and their sister/brother/mother/uncle/third cousin once removed is writing "open letters" to Senator Clinton these days -- criticizing her campaign, detailing the ways she is harming the party and the Dem chances in November and thereby the country, earnestly pleading with her to step down.  I'm a fervent (obsessive) Obama supporter and almost as fervent a Clinton detractor, and even I am getting tired of these missives.

So why am I writing one more "open letter"?  And more to the point, why have the presumptuousness to publish it here, as though other people might actually have any interest in reading it?

One reason.  Because as much as I cringe to admit it, the embarrassing and painful truth is that I have a lot -- a LOT -- in common with Hillary.  She and I share what I consider key flaws.  I understand her motivations and her dilemmas in ways that I think many other letter-writers do not.   Put simply, although the greatest desire of my heart is to see her out of this race by whatever means possible, I nevertheless feel her pain.

I just heard Tim Russert giving a very intelligent analysis of how tonight's events will change the conversations the Clinton camp will be having with the superD's starting tomorrow.

His main point was that since there no longer appears to be a realistic path to the nomination, there will be stark suspicion that the only reason she is staying in is to try to destroy Obama.

And Keith is talking about how the discussion of the gas tax was good for O b/c it took the focus off Rev Wright, and a few minutes ago I heard wild cheers as a re-energized Obama told the American people he trusts them to be smart, and just now Tom Brokaw told an anecdote suggesting maybe people are living up to that trust.  And I read that even Joe Scabborough says it seems to be over for Hillary.  And OH! MY! GOD! now even Pat Buchanan is talking like she has no case for staying in the race.

I am very afraid.

I started drafting this diary a couple of weeks ago.  My working title was "A Vote for Clinton is a Vote For . . . " because I felt it was important to explain to people that my reluctance to vote for her is based on principles that I believe are strong enough to challenge, and possibly even trump, the reasons to vote for her over McCain.

I never published the diary in that form, because as important as I believe the concepts to be, I was extremely reluctant to post yet another Hillary-bash.  I struggled with how to resolve these competing priorities.

Today's NYT, and one excellent diary by a fellow Kossack, have opened a door for me to present my views in a more constructive light.  

It's true, folks.  I just had to see how he would react now that Obama has answered the question Joe has been asking 24/7 for the past two months.  What to my wondering ears should appear, but Joe Scarborough actually uttering approving words about Barack Hussein Obama.

Friday morning, when I probably should have been milling around among my students making sure they were on track with the work they were doing on their projects, I was at my desk reading diary after joyful, inspiring diary on this site.  

In my defense, I knew I was going to be leaving town for a retreat right after school, wouldn't have access to computer or MSM over the weekend, and would be gone until late Sunday night, so I needed to stock up on current events to carry me through the weekend.  (Besides, my students could and did come talk with me at my desk if they needed help.)

The news was so good:  Poll numbers improving, 50-state registration drive, 20+ supers set to drip endorsements in from now till May 6 -- arguably even Obama's scheduled appearance on Fox was good, because it meant he was looking toward the GE, and pretty much viewing Clinton as his Huckabee.  But now I'm back home, and it's ugly.

It was near the end of June in the summer of 1973, about 3 weeks after my 15th birthday.  Summers were hot in Oklahoma.  In the air-conditioned comfort of our family room that summer, my political consciousness was born.  

A little while ago on Countdown (11 PM West Coast airing), Keith Olbermann interviewed John Dean about his new book on Barry Goldwater, co-authored with Barry Jr.  I think it was the first time I've actually seen Dean since that June that began it all for me.  I was struck with an overwhelming urge to write this diary.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.

But I'm old enough to remember when "Women's Lib" was considered radical fringe politics.  When "Ms." was the name of a magazine, not a form of address used in front of a person's name.  Well, unless that person was Gloria Steinem.  I remember that back in those days when I was advocating for passage of the ERA and eagerly scanning lists of possible female Presidential candidates within the next decade, Anita Bryant was widely admired for taking a stand against all those man-haters, and urging women to embrace their womanhood -- HER version of womanhood, which was stuck squarely in the 1950's, even though she was speaking in the late 70's.

But even at that time, when publicly questioned, many individuals who opposed "women's lib" would preface their opposition remarks with, "Of course, I think women should get equal pay for equal work, BUT . . . ."

Before I was a teacher, I was a lawyer.  A litigator.  I only practiced law for a few years, so most of my work was behind-the-scenes stuff -- writing briefs and pleadings, filing and responding to motions, gathering evidence, propounding and responding to discovery requests. I didn't have many high-profile in-court moments; those are usually reserved for more senior attorneys in the firms I worked for.

But I did learn a few things about how to effectively cross-examine a witness.  And over the past few days, I've noticed an almost foolproof cross-examination strategy that the Clinton campaign is using to try to cripple Obama's candidacy.

Hey, Keith.  Love your show.  Love how you give us Kossacks sneak previews of the big bombshells.

I'm a little disturbed by something this afternoon.  After reading this morning's WaPo article about McCain's temper [great read, everybody -- check it out if you haven't already!], and a few follow-up diaries here, I headed to my "Favorites" list to find my very favorite video about McCain's temper so I could post it here, and it has diaappeared.  I need your help, because this video needs to get out to the American people.

It was a video from your show.  The episode entitled "McAngry."  Had some awesome footage of various military & political folks who have experienced or witnessed McCain's rage in action, and their opinions about what that means about his fitness for office.  It was some really shocking stuff.

Last night on late night talk radio, I heard perhaps the most chilling statement I've ever heard uttered in public.  

After having had a chance to digest that statement, reflect on it, and consider its implications, I have come to a sobering realization:  No matter which candidate you support, no matter who runs in November and no matter who wins, every American who believes at all in the reasons our nation was founded owes an immense, almost incalculable debt of gratitude to Sen. Barack Obama.

OK, so yesterday after school I went out for a smoke break and to get some coffee before returning to do some grading.  While I was driving back I heard the MSM soundbite version of the "bitter" statement.

My worldview changed at that moment.  Because as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Oh my God.  He just kissed the Presidency good-bye."  Yes, at that moment my audacity sunk below the level sufficient to sustain hope.  The world immediately became a bleaker place, colors faded, and there didn't seem quite as much reason for doing anything as there had just a few minutes before.

Since then, my views of the situation have gone through additional fluctuations.  I don't flatter myself that many people are holding their breath waiting to hear my views, but below the fold I detail not only those views, but the media coverage and reasoning that prompted them, which may be of slightly more relevance.

I have just been reminded why I had sworn off Morning Joe for the past couple of weeks.  Not sure why I slipped up this morning, but I hereby admit it was stupid.

He's at it again.

In a diary here yesterday, Muzikal203 reported that the Obama campaign was going to unleash the argument that Clinton has run an incompetent campaign, and thus by the standards set up long ago by Clinton herself, she has proven herself the less qualified of the two candidates.

In comments to the diary, some Kossacks expressed concerns about how the general public, the superdelegates, and/or the Clinton campaign itself would respond to Obama bringing out this argument.  Fortunately, now it appears he won't have to.

I was reading dsharma's diary that says, in a nutshell, that it's looking like Obama is going to win, and we Obama supporters need to start looking toward party unity and lay off flaming Clinton.

It was a wake-up call for me. And after thinking about it for a while, I decided to write this diary, to try to take dsharma's call one step further.