Sorry, but neither opinion or criticism are facts nor the insults and name calling suffered here by Clinton supporters at the behest of Obama supporters constitute logic, analysis and science supporting and fundamentally great ideas.

Obama won't wear a flag pin so that means he hates America = twisted logic.

Obama shares the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright (who hates America) = shoddy analysis.

Hillary has a mathematical chance of being elected = junk science.

That's what I'm talking about. Not the opinions, insults, innuendo, and name-calling. Those are merely the results of Hillary and her supporters' twisted logic, shoddy analysis, and junk science.

If there's any "media bias" toward Obama, it's because the media are largely made up of people who are smarter than average, and smarter-than-average people tend to believe Obama is the stronger candidate.

The only smarter-than-average people who tend to skew toward Hillary are people who, like Joan, have such a huge feminist agenda that the very core of their being is violated every time a sexist remark about Hillary is made. I don't fault Joan for this - it's her hot button issue, and I'm glad she's passionate about it because it is a pervasive problem.

So why won't Joan come out and endorse Hillary?

I think that answer is fairly clear. There's really no objective way to say Hillary is a stronger candidate on the merits, and Joan realizes this. So instead of making an endorsement, Joan just defends her against sexism and attacks Obama to "even things out." This makes her feel like she's staying true to her core beliefs without blatantly lying - she don't have to admit that deep down she knows Hillary is the weaker candidate and worse for the country, and she don't have to lie by officially endorsing her.

I think I get it now.

My post was not a taunt to Hillary fans, but rather an objective statement of fact used to try to explain why you, who are smarter than average, buck the trend and skew toward Hillary but won't come out and endorse her.

I don't think there's anything wrong with appealing to intelligence as a reason to get behind a candidate. The smart money is on Obama. That's something I generally like to know before making a big decision - what smart people tend to think. History and experience has shown this to be a good decision-making tool, and I wish more people would use it instead of getting all resentful over it. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well in America, and it's a subplot in this campaign that seems to be even more taboo than race. I think far more rednecks and idiots refuse to vote for Obama because he's not just a n*****, but an uppity n****.

... where Wright announced he would be Obama's running mate.

Because that's the ONLY POSSIBLE way his thoughts and words can even arguably be fairly attributed to Obama.

One would think someone as bright as Joan would realize that the only reason Obama has had to answer for Wright in a way that no other presidential candidate has ever had to answer for an associate of theirs is institutionalized racism. Plain and simple.

As Joan should be able to recognize, institutionalized racism - that subtle, non-overt undercurrent of black inferiority that pervades our culture - is just as damaging and important to eradicate as institutionalized sexism. And it is purely institutionalized racism that makes us question Obama because of his connection to Wright in a way that white politicians will never have to worry about.

Name the last time a white presidential candidate had to answer for things said by someone associated with them in a way that even approaches how Obama has had to answer for Wright. You can't.

Another transparent anti-Obama article from Joan. Yawn. I renew my challenge to just endorse Hillary and get it overwith, and I renew my theory that Joan will not endorse Hillary because it would be intellectually dishonest of her.

Does Wright think that Japan was peacefully minding its own business when we sadistically dropped the A-bomb on them?

Do you think the U.S. was peacefully minding its own business when al-qaida sadistically crashed 2 planes into the WTC?

I find it interesting that everyone wants to condemn not only Wright's comments, but also the timing - TOO SOON! Has he no respect for the dead!?!? How can he possibly stir up our emotions at a time like that, when the only allowable form of public discourse was flag-waving and feigned ignorance to the possibility that we very well may have brought it on ourselves.

I applaud Wright for having the foresight and the courage to consider that 9/11 was not a result of people who hate our freedom.

If only more people were causing Americans to think after 9/11 instead of knee-jerkingly blaming every arab and muslim on earth for attacking poor little innocent America. Maybe there may have been some public resistance to Iraq? Maybe we would have thought twice before declaring war on the muslim world and creating a whole new generation of terrorists? Maybe we could have engendered world cooperation instead of world resentment?