It’s time for a reality check and I’m willing to be cast as another old guy yelling at the ‘kids’ to get the hell off the lawn. To the first or second or third or fourth time presidential voter: it takes a balance of nutrients to make a great lawn. A good record. An effective messaging system. Solid policy proposals. A reality-based understanding of the messy conglomerate that is the American voter psyche, not an idealist’s view that the better angels of every nature can be deputized into a super-posse because of some magic America’s never known before.

Contrary to what many feel, we’ve been here before. The potential exists for a huge victory in November. Or a huge loss. Only the candidate has the choice to dispense the proper balance of nutrients. And even if the candidate does, a lot depends on the photosynthesis of the sun and water. One is uncontrollable, natural, or simply the world events candidates can’t control. The other is the irrigation that our hand is on, the support we provide in word and deed and monetary contribution.

There is no perfect candidate. They’ll all make mistakes that provide opponents the opportunity to score some points. And that can’t be overcome by a common chorus of supporters whistling past the graveyard or worse, arrogantly asserting that the seed is so superior that it’ll magically grow if we flood the yard with the audacity of we’re-smarter-than-you.

It wasn’t, after all, just a rally yell that dismantled Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004. Just as it wasn’t just the Eagleton replacement in 1972 that led to that historic crash and burn. Campaign advisers and the volunteer campaign base played a significant role in the magnification of understandable candidate errors, just as they played key roles on the other side in driving the stake through the heart of once-promising campaigns.

Obama’s gaffe can be overcome by the candidate and his team. But it can’t be if they prove incompetent. And it can’t be if too many of his most ardent supporters continue to go overboard, acting like a bunch of hateful know-it-all dicks. Nothing is more insulting for many voters than to have a bunch of strangers come into their yards and explaining why their product will make their lives shine if only they’re smart enough to see it. To the undecided voter, that’s not a proven sales pitch, it’s a disconcerting encounter with a group of know-it-alls.

John Judis, as an analyst, isn’t perfect, either. But he’s sufficiently grounded that his advice should be heard and weighed and to some degree, heeded. As a boomer voter more liberal on many issues than many of my peers, a guy who passionately believed in the Free Speech movement of the Sixties, I’m an ardent believer that telling the truth requires that people have to overcome their prissiness about language and stop censoring to avoid what’s uncomfortable to hear. But even though we’ve made serious advances in our society, especially in our capacity to discuss sex more openly, the greater license to speak openly can and has been misused, usually to the detriment of the misusers, and often to millions of others who recognized the inherent need for civility in speech most of the time. Shock talk works when wielded as exclamation points - judiciously. Otherwise they’re offputting and provoke questions about the user’s sanity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, like totally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rebecca Traister has defined this perfectly in one critical area - gender bias - that a number of Obama supporters need to read. And heed. It’s not a defense to say “but Hillary has….’ or ‘but her supporters have….’. Do we really need to go back to the grade school reminders about what two wrongs never do? To the folks who like using words like skank, shrew, whore, cunt, and yes - even the more upgraded respectability of ‘bitch’ - get thee to counselling. Or a women’s studies class. Preferably, both. Flame wars are for thirteen year olds and sharp critique is entirely achievable with the language of violence and bigotry. Even for an Obama supporter like myself, every time I read such online commentary or hear it live, my first two instincts are to defend Clinton from such unjustified abuse and the second is to give into what can be dubbed the ‘ Usuality of Despair’. And spare me the nonsense that I’m just an out of touch older guy. I helped invent that charge in another gender gap era. I don’t need to know every passing bit of slang and faddish Kewlspeak du jour to recognize the Arrogance of Dopes.

Similarly, shooting the messenger when a candidate errs advances nothing. Mayhill Fowler is a serious journalist, better than many mainstream press reporters. When a candidate makes a noteworthy mistake, it deserves discussion and consideration. Sweeping things under the rug is cowardice when there’s a real candidate goof present. Fowler wasn’t carrying somebody else’s false framing in her reportage. Her journalistic instincts to publish the important story superseded her advocacy for Obama. I find that a reason to respect her principles. Truthism is hard, but absolutely necessary. Free passes are for amusement parks, not for the managers of the nation’s interests.

Sure, we must be vigilant in putting the attention on the great flaws of McCain, but if Obama deserves to retain our support, we must also hold his feet to the fire sufficiently, to remind him that arrogance won’t just cost him the votes of the undecided, but he can lose us, as well. Our greatest loyalty should always be to advance the best for our communities, country and the whole of humanity. When candidate loyalty transcends that to disregard a serious mistake, it reinforces critical error instead of reforming dumb behavior.

It’s safe to say that I trust E.J. Dionne’s analysis as a pragmatic progressive. He’s always had a good innate sense of hearing because he listens to the politicians and a broad