Good writing 101: Show, don't tell.

Here's Sully's take on last night's results.
Just the opposite of clean writing: wordy, vague, superficial.

Part of me is crushed. But part of me is happy to see two candidates forced to battle it out in a long slog. We find out more that way. They grow more. More people get a say. That's a good thing. And I should say that although I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats, I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win. People responded. As they would.

I have no doubt that Obama is the better candidate, for America and the world. And I believe after this very close race, he will go on to Nevada and South Carolina stronger for not winning in a wave of euphoria. Nothing worth winning comes easily. But Clinton is learning from Obama as he has from her. And both are growing as a result. This is a good thing.

Maybe these questions can help a bit as you sort out your ... feelings (whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings...):

1) Why exactly are you so convinced -- no doubts -- Obama is the best candidate for the Democrats, much less the country? (You're puffing again on the world, I think, inspirational as it might be for some in other countries to see a man of color leading the United States.)

Have you really thought this one through, or is it like your cursory research on Ron Paul's background? Can we now call you Gully Sully -- short for gullible Sullivan?

2) How long do you plan to identify as a Democrat? ("I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats") Will you be jumping ship if your preferred candidate doesn't win the primary? What does that say for your loyalty to the Democrats -- or do you really think loyalty is a negative word?

3) In your calculations, do South Carolina and Nevada -- or Iowa -- really play a huge role in the overall nomination process? That is, can you distingish between states, their importance to the mix overall and their demographic and historical significance? (Think of a sports schedule -- is a win anywhere a win just the same, or do you think athletes and coaches understant a victory in certain regions is more important, more worthy, than other minor victories. (Think SEC v. Big Ten interleague competitions.) I mean, have you ever been to Iowa and if so, do you really think Iowans represent? (Hint: look to how past caucus winners have done overall.)

4) Is a young voter vote really as meaningful as an experienced political voter paying more attention to the process, and seasoned by years of observation? Do you think the young can be counted on to loyally support their preferences today, or have they proven to be more flighty and less likely to turn out and necessarily cast their ballots all along the way? Or is it more group-think, hopping on board a hot trend today because it's cool but something that will pass as other things of important take precedence?

5) What exactly has Obama learned from Clinton? She from him? (Generalities like those in the last graph really aren't worth much; step up here and tell us what you suddenly respect in her -- what she, you claim, has taught him to make him a stronger candidate and policymaker. And what, other than being more real and dropping the tough-guy facade, do you think she has learned from him?)

6) Finally, do you let reality and results influence your "doubts", "confidence", and "predictions" or are you more a fanboy -- passionately rooting for your fave player, no matter the realities or outcomes? Because forgive me, but as written this really sounds trite:

But Clinton is learning from Obama as he has from her. And both are growing as a result. This is a good thing.

Particularly when just yesterday, you wrote this:

Obama will win tonight; but the euphoria of the past few days will be impossible to sustain. It is inherently unstable. Clinton's naked appeal for sympathy yesterday may well rally some older female voters to her side. A victory for Obama in single digits is more likely than a blow-out. Then we'll have the Clinton campaign shake-up stories. Then she and her husband will unload whatever dirt they can on him - using the classic arms-length 527 Rove techniques. Then they will try to use their party muscle to intimidate Democratic loyalists to stay with the establishment in California and Florida and New York.

This is not over by any means. The Clintons have too much to lose and they have no scruples in fighting to keep their power. If they can destroy Obama, they will. His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we're seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks. It's a good system for testing future candidates. So far, he has shown he can out-organize, out-argue and out-fund-raise the Clinton machine. Can he now outlast their bile and rise above their anger? That we will soon find out.

7) So why should we think the generalities you're spewing now are any more solid or accurate than the dish you offered up previously? Track record, babe. Sure, one should change underwear daily, but maybe take a time out and think about political opinions long enough to get them hammered out so they're less superficial, dependent of drama or passion!, and don't change with every new day... It's called Super Tuesday, not Ruby Tuesday, ya know.
----------------

ADDED:
This is more a personal one, but certainly raises my curiosity:

8) With the recent revelations about Ron Paul's past newsletter writings on racial topics, how the heck do you reconcile internally supporting him as the Republican nominee and Obama as the Democratic? Do you think absolution is the key ingredient in those whites casting votes for the latter, as other pundits have speculated.

Because unless the mirror has two faces, I'm hard pressed how you honestly could support such divergent ideologies as the two candidates you're currently backing, legitimate American voter or not.

9) C'mon... 'fess up. You really write a lot of the "Dissents of the Day" and other supposed reader correspondence yourself, eh? This one is just sick, and alone ought to cast you out of serious political pundit consideration:

After all your postulating about Obamamania I'm visualizing Hillary wearing a strap-on with New Hampshire emblazoned on it, and you bowing before her.

I mean, where has the dignity gone -- the self-professed unity -- brother? You really seem to crack under pressure, and resort back to the ugliness. This is why it's important to test people, under pressure, and see how they respond to losing. Show your real character, who you really are, so to speak. (Just please stop with putting on the Catholic garments when it suits your purpose, so to speak. They didn't teach you that ugliness in Catholic school, and many resent your ugliness then chastising others for their "bigotry" when you're so willing to whip it out against others when it conveniently suits you.)


SHAKING MY HEAD:

Maybe New Hampshire voters just didn't want to see Clinton ejected so soon. Pity? Fear of a rush to judgment? The media's hyping of the tears? It sure is much closer than anyone expected. Of course, there's a long way to go. But with a third of the votes in, Clinton is four points ahead.

and

It looks as if female voters rallied at the last moment to Clinton. She won them 47 to 34. The tears worked? Wait for the come-back kid rhetoric.

pssst: Your misogyny is showing, Andrew. American women aren't so stupid as you have them. It was an honest win, and your man got beat, fair and square. Now blow your nose, wipe your tears, and grow up from the grade-school tactics, eh? Nobody has cooties, and men and women these days are competing on equal playing fields. I know, I know: must suck for you missing on on all that male-bonding, smoky-back-room-with-the-boys, political days where the women could be counted on not to trouble their pretty little heads with realities and interfere with the process.

I really do think you're missing something when your predjudices are fully on display:
There's one other possible explanation for the apparent Clinton revival in the last few days. Maybe Democrats decided that a sudden blowout for Obama wasn't good for their party. Maybe they wanted to see Obama fight some more, to keep the contest more competitive, to give their candidates more testing for the fall. Maybe they just wanted to say: "Wait. A tidal wave is no way to select a candidate. We need to see both of them fight on under the kind of pressure they will face in the fall."

I'm thinking out loud. But I suspect that Clinton's frankness, desperation, emotional volatility, temper and vulnerability these past three days pushed some to keep her campaign alive.

Or maybe, just maybe: long-time Democratic voters understand that running an untested, first-term Senator with no military, business, or political leadership background to speak of ... is not the strongest candidate or the wisest move given the current economic and international climate? That maybe it's better to have a battle-scarred candidate who is practiced and has presumably learned a bit about the process and from her mistakes, than to settle on an empty-slate being advised to "remain above it all" instead of showing us how he fights, and what it really is he would fight for? Because I really don't know what you're smoking, but nothing in the past decade has shown the rest of us that American politics has suddentlyt turned into a genteel art, where Republicans are willing to voluntarily work in cooperation with Democrats for the overall good of the country.

Maybe you should get out of Providence and take a road trip throughout the country, and see what your once-preferred-man President Bush has wrought across the spectrum, in terms of affecting daily lives, eh? Might make your puffery a bit more credible to Americans, at the very least, if you tone it down a bit. Of course, you're free to do and say as you like, just as the rest of us are privileged to call you on it; God Bless America. Yesterday, today and tomorrow.