Now, I'm not going to go on and on and on. I hope this is my last post on this. (Update: Thanks to a reminder from The Field, I think it will be.)

As people may have noticed, I've been trying to notch down my views (or at least my rhetoric) on Hillary Clinton's campaign lately. Trying! Because as Keith Olbermann listed yesterday, there have been many reasons to become angry along the way. And I did, as the blog shows. To varying degrees.

And lately I also felt I would follow along with what seemed to the the Democratic strategy of "unifying" and "knowing" we would have a nominee by June, etc. You know. That junk McAuliffe kept soothing us all with when it looked like the party was close to running the Clintons out. And it looked like Clinton was going to stop the kind of campaigning that was causing her own superdelegates to leave her.

Or maybe it's just been part of my method. Offline, online, I usually try to pull myself back when I begin to boil too long. Unless it's time to cook something, of course. Either way, things chilled, and good.

Also, as some friends know, I battle with the attention I give to this primary. Part of me hates that I even know what McAuliffe looks like, sounds like, or says. And sure I'll admit, there are moments I feel ashamed of getting caught up in Gaffemania. It can be a cheap thrill.

But this is not that. And I don't feel bad about this particular attention. This has clarified a few things for me.

Firstly, I no longer will say, as I did in a recent post, that I would vote for Clinton and feel just as good about it as voting for most Democrats. I cannot say that anymore. "One day news cycle" or not.

Secondly, you can call this latest sly shot a "gaffe" or whatever word you want to use that wipes away what is being leveraged out there with references to Zimbabwe and RFK and such. But I guess I think Clinton is way smarter than most of those defending her, and regardless, I see what I see. This taps into the very thing that motivates so much of this blog. Not the one statement, no, but a certain methodology being used to keep Obama from approaching power. Clinton is just tugging on that weave. Bill and she did not invent it, and she does not maintain it in its entirety. There are others—Huckabee, Ferraro and so on—but Bill and Hillary (two brilliant liars lawyers, I remind you) are both surely relying on its depth and breadth and tensile resistance to aid them.

I can't tell you how much anti-racism is important to me, anti-white supremacist thought and method. I have an interesting relationship to it. There's no denying that at times I can benefit behind white male privilege as (especially in the winter) I am "ambiguous," being a halfbreed and such. Also it is true that for a long time and at a young age, I suffered behind white supremacy and its insidious nature. I know very well that racists can have black friends. And that "racism" and white supremacy doesn't need a hood. It can get by fine with a smile. It can even hold a flower in its hand. I've been up close and under that hand. Ultimately, my younger years instilled a bone-deep revulsion in me for racists, racist tactics, and white supremacy. Ultimately, I felt the divides drawn and will not let them be drawn across my body or my mind. Additionally, it is RIGHT to be against white-supremacist thought, values, laws, movements, and tactics.

That doesn't mean being against Hillary! I struggle for a transition back from speaking of a Racist to a Politician. There can be overlap, but I think to the politician, its the voting hands they care most about. And the minds that move those hands.

I say she meant to drop the spectre of assassination into our blogs and articles and minds. She says the Kennedys were now on her mind because of the recent diagnosis, and I say she mentioned the A-word at others times when Kennedy had not yet had a seizure or the tumor diagnosed. Some say the remark was in "bad taste," and I remind you her campaign keeps connecting the A-word to Obama not just to talk about June, but also to to drown out Hope® as well as hope.

Not bad taste. Strategy.

And I agree, not racism. Simply politics that do not mind employing existing racism. Politics that easily turn to manipulating fears. And divisions. For example, Racism might say "don't vote for the black man." But politics that employ racism would say "Don't nominate the black man because the Hardworking American Racist bloc won't vote for him."

Finally, I'm sure the Obama campaign doesn't want these particular "RFK" type discussions, and Clinton does. That's why this is happening. They both know that the more we talk about scary possibilities (and divisions) the more such imaginations feel like a reality i the present moment. The more we spin fragile fantasy fiber, the more it accrues into a rough, barbed and weighty weave that cuts our hands and intrudes on our movement. This is how the Negative State works. This is how the Fear God works. This is how the Chaos within works. This is the endzone to entropy. We even come preconditioned here. Since 2001, we are very used to it. Fear paralyzes and makes you cling to what's familiar, among other things. Rejects risk and change. Seeks protection from potential harm. Becomes thoughtless. Easy to control.

We know who those are who love to utilize control over us in such ways. Those are the types who raise terror-colored alert levels to keep us shopping. Those are the types waving 3 am phone ads in our faces. Those are the types whispering of assassins in our dreaming ears.

Those are the ones we must reject.