I can answer your question. It doesn't matter to me because I don't resonate any more deeply with people of my own ethnicity (WASP) than those outside my ethnicity. My wife is Pakistani. I've traveled all over the world. I have friends in many different countries, with friendships based on more significant elements of one's character than the color of their skin.

I look at the terrible behavior of some muslim extremists as portrayed in the news, and if I placed huge significance on ethnicity to the exclusion of all else, I might conclude that they're inferior to me as a race. However, fortunately, I've met enough excellent Muslims to know that such a generalization is meaningless. Not to mention, my fellow WASPs benefit from this too: I've seen some truly deplorable behavior coming from my own ethnic group, but fortunately have met enough excellent WASPs to know that a generalization would be meaningless.

So, back to the original question: Why does race matter so much to you? Perhaps you haven't met many people of other ethnicities that you were able to make a good connection with?

Rich Emory hits the nail on the head:

The complete and utter LACK of evidence somehow is transformed into ALL THE PROOF THAT IS NEEDED, and in fact disproves any evidence supporting the contrary position.

In fact, this paradoxical methodology has been employed by the neocons from the beginning. Back during the Ford Admin, Rumsfeld and the other neocons running an alternative intelligence analysis group (I forget the name) showed their proof that the Soviet submarine technology surpassed our own. By showing that there were actually no signs that the Soviets had advanced sub technology, they proved that the Soviet technology must be so far beyond ours that we were unable to detect it! (Seriously, this happened. Track down the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares.")

This is a huge philosophical leap, to believe that the absolute lack of evidence of the thing you want to prove exists therefore proves that it exists. I'm not a psychologist, but I would expect this is a symptom of some well-documented condition. The wild thing is, a shockingly high percentage (30%) of our population suffers from this condition. And so far, there appears to be no cure!

And people are worried about bird flu?

Tiberius, if you have an issue with Reid reusing some of his best lines, then you must really have a problem with Cheney, who at the push of a button magically appears on Sunday talk shows muttering about treason and emboldening the enemy, interspersed with a few extra flights of fancy (last throes, etc.). Unlike every word to come out of Cheney's mouth for the past 6 years, at least Reid's comment is valid: why would anyone pay attention to a politician with an approval rating as pathetic as Cheney's?

Please explain how you reckon Cheney knows more about Iraq than Reid, when every comment and prediction made by Cheney has turned out to be horribly wrong.

While you're thinking about that, here's another one: please explain exactly why calling Cheney an attack dog is bad political discourse, whereas Cheney telling another congressman on the floor of congress to go fuck himself is not.

That should give you something to do for a while.

Cheney said this:

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

It is truly traitorous to declare the war to be lost in order to gain political advantage. Therefore, Cheney is calling Reid a traitor.

However, as usual, Cheney is being dishonest. Reid (and the rest of us) are not declaring the Iraq war lost simply as a means of getting more seats for the democrats. These two things are less linked than that. We're calling the Iraq war lost because, according to military and middle east experts (the ones whose views have not already been proven disastrously wrong), there is no military solution to Iraq, and we've already missed our opportunity to implement effective political solutions. In other words, to call the Iraq war lost is simply calling a spade a spade, something conservatives used to pride themselves in (once upon a time).

As a result of this understanding, which the republicans clearly lack (and a commanding majority of Americans see this lack of understanding), the democrats will certainly pick up seats. See November 2006.

Harry Reid could stay locked up in a cave for the next 5 years, and it wouldn't change any of this at all. Except that Cheney would be calling someone else a traitor when they don't back his disastrous policies.

It's sad to see people who may have once prided themselves on being "no nonsense" and "conservative," now having to parse language to make their heroes not look bad. Like this, for example:

But, no, Cheney did not call Reid a name or a traitor.

Okay. So if I call you a container of dubious value primarily consisting of excrement, is that not the same as calling you a worthless sack of shit? Are you insisting Cheney did not call Reid a traitor simply because he did not utter those exact words?

O-kay.

Now, regarding hypocrisy, please show Cheney addressing Reid's so-called hypocrisy. The only quote I saw was the typical "if they don't agree with us, they're traitors" quote for which Cheney is renowned. If you have a different comment from Cheney, please provide it:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3073925&page=1