There is a fundamental flaw in Catherine Price's argument that "Last I checked, no one has accused a presidential candidate of assuming all men are interchangeable just because he picked a guy as a running mate."

Men in general, and white men in particular, comprise a huge majority of elected officials, despite the fact that women outnumber men in the population and as registered voters.

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama represent groups of citizens who have never held the office of president. While neither ran as a representative of a "minority," each attracted a devoted following who saw themselves and their aspirations reflected in their candidacies.

Had Clinton won the nomination and attempted to appease Obama voters by selecting an African-American who backed her rather than the Illinois senator, Obama's supporters would be up in arms and rightly so.

Attempting to pander to women by choosing a female veep other than Clinton won't work. Nor will Sen. John McCain attract women voters by selecting a vice presidential nominee such as Condoleeza Rice or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchins.

As a Clinton supporter, I think she deserves consideration but frankly would prefer that she not be on the ticket. It would be better for both Obama and Clinton if her role is to campaign for him when and where he asks, which I'm sure she will do whether or not she is the vice presidential pick.

What I want in a vice presidential candidate is not a person who comes from my state or represents my gender, race or religion, but somebody who brings his or her own strong qualifications on the economy and foreign policy to the ticket.

I wasn't going to comment on the tastelessness of the headline, "Is Barack cheating on Hillary," until I saw the posting which said why wouldn't Obama think she's interchangeable because Bill thought so many times.

Anybody who thinks that kind of comment belongs in a discussion about choosing a vice president has no right to complain about what's said about the candidate he favors.

The person who posted that should be ashamed but I don't think that's an emotion he's capable of.

MaddieP, you might want to hold off on running an ad about McCain's position on offshore drilling.

Obama told the Palm Beach Post today "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," he told The Post. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Obama's office issued a statement welcoming a proposal by 10 senators to lift drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast.

I hear the sound of a flip-flop and it's not the fish out in the gulf and the ocean.

Bernbart asks "Why is it republican always turn brilliance and intellect into something to fear?."

Seems to me that's what the Obama Democrats did in the primary to Sen. Hillary Clinton, one of the brightest political leaders to come along in a long time.

You're confusing Obama's ability to give a good speech, hire skilled political consultants and draw crowds with the capacity for deep thinking and wisdom.

Please don't tell me about his Ivy League degree or being editor of the Harvard Law Review. Instead explain how, if he's thought through his positions, he can keep changing his mind on issues as important as FISA and offshore drilling.

As for who's playing the race card, it seems to be primarily Obama supporters. They label any criticism of their candidate as proof that the person criticizing him is either afraid of African-American men or bigoted toward them. They used similar tactics to smear the Clintons as racists.

Perhaps they missed the footage of African-Americans picketing an Obama speech yesterday, asking when he is going to deal with issues that concern the black community. They weren't PUMAS, so they must have been either racists or Republicans.

Klytus, that's a nice alliteration, "hollow holiness of your whole harangue" but totally unenlightening as to your viewpoint.

I looked back over some of your nearly 600 letters to see if I could figure out where you're coming from.

It seems that rather than respond to contrary points of view, you prefer to answer with rhymes and insults that say very little about why you think the person you're directing your comments to is incorrect.

If people who don't agree with everything Sen. Obama leave Salon, as some have suggested, his supporters could all just preach to the choir but I don't think they'd find that nearly as enjoyable.

So I'll continue to read Salon, to be informed by it often or annoyed by it on occasion, and to post what I think of its articles. I hope that in response, I will find people who want to debate the issues civilly as I have tried to do.