That Michelle Obama is what first and still, primarily, draws me to Obama's campaign. I've been planning to vote for Hillary for president since I was in elementary school, during the first Clinton election, when it was still a joke that only I planned to take seriously. As I was repeatedly disappointed by the steps that Hillary took to remain politically viable (anti-flag burning was the straw, actually), I became more and more aware of Michelle Obama.

Don't give me your Cindy McCains or Laura Bushes. I respect and admire their backgrounds in public service and the work that they do for the disadvantaged, though Cindy McCain's "I have always been proud of my country" seems like a barely masked way to say "I am more American than Michelle Obama." I am drawn to Michelle Obama because of her strength, her realism, the way that she has lived a life without massive privilege and still managaed to stay true to her beliefs, and still managed to serve her community. I like that she does not seem as Botoxed and airbrushed as many other female politicians or politcians' wives--physically and in her behaviours. I respect her interest in civil rights, and would argue that anyone who has not written a college paper that they might later not want broadcast in the international media is either dumb, not engaged, lacking in passion, or planning ahead for their political career to a scary degree. I like that, in another Salon piece, she is reported as reading a book with a bad Mexican accent instead of a beat-the-kids-over-the-head patritic book.

So I'd just like to say here: please don't assume that all us white people from places like Virginia are afraid of Michella Obama. Please don't assume that we all need or expect her to be whitewashed, toned-down, and made over to be approachable. Please realize that there are plenty of us out here who, though not black ourselves and though not willing to vote for any candidate just to promote racial diversity, have moments of stunned pride to be part of what will hopefully be the election of our country's first black president. Stunned, amazed, tears-in-the-eyes pride, deep and sincere as the kind I used to think you could only feel in childhood.

This is exactly the kind of example of philosophy removed from logic that we don't need. If your summary of this argument is correct, it would suggest that the US should indeed allow immigrants from countries including the UK, Fiji, Denmark, and Mexico, while denying all immigration from countries including Chad, Russia, Mali, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. After all, their population density is less than theirs. Better yet, let's start evening it out: Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Vatican are high on the population density. Let's relocate lots of their population to Greenland, Mongolia, Western Sahara, and Australia. And hey, let's refuse all immigrants until Canada--with fewer people than the US--has taken their fair share. While we're at it, let's enforce population density being literal, so that each square mile of the US actually hosts eighty people. Sure, you might get stuck in the middle of Yellowstone or Death Valley, or even in the middle of Lake Huron, as bodies of water are included in the measurement of the country.

I'm not saying that there isn't any validity whatsoever to this viewpoint, because there might be, somewhere, tangentally. As it is reported here, however, it seems more sensationalist and academic than actually reasonable or practical.