I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
When terrorism strikes, divisive anger is a natural response.
There's a difference between an outburst of spontaneous anger, which doesn't have a political objective, and a more measured response that we saw in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Attack politics costs us dearly in terms of insight into the candidates. In a presidential campaign, the focus is so tight that the politicians are afraid to say anything that hasn't been scripted.
Whether we're Democrats, Republicans, or independents - it does not matter. We all understand that an attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us.
When you are running for the presidency of the United States, you have to expect that you are going to have attacks by all sides.
The last eight years have created a lot of deep-seated hostility. People take political decisions very personally, and today there is a constant, ongoing attack, with one side or the other being maligned.
I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale.
All forms of power - even based on the consensus of the democratic system - react when they are being attacked, or when those who exercise power become a target.
It is only with burning anger that we can speak of this attack by counter-revolutionary reactionary elements against the capital of our country, against our people's democratic order and the power of the working class.
If you and I are having a single thought of violence or hatred against anyone in the world at this moment, we are contributing to the wounding of the world.