ljwalker53: "[Choosing who to vote for is like choosing a car to drive across the country. You want to travel safely, comfortably, smoothly, but with good gas mileage and a solid experience.] 10. This is false analogy."

Ha ha, only in your interpretation it is. Feel free to demonstrate why it's false. Obviously the intent of the message was to provide a humorous comparison between candidates.

ljwalker53: "[...except for the fact that she's such a low-integrity twit though she was all over the map tone-wise. One minute she's attacking, the next minute she's smoochy again. Barack Obama, by contrast, played it typically cool and smooth, not ever getting rattled] 11. This is ad hominem and straw man (and again goes to the issue of sexism)."

The ad-hominem part of that is pointed toward her particular behavior, which was hypocritical. I would call anybody who exhibited that level of hypocrisy a twit. Straw man? Once again, you don't seem to even know what straw-man means. There's nothing remotely "straw man" in this passage. You're trying too hard. As for sexist, please explain. You keep making charges of sexism that have no substance to them, and you're bizarrely unwilling to back up your accusations.

ljwalker53: "[Before Tuesday's debate I hope Obama trains with some improv comedians. Or he can just keep playing it cool and hope Hillary's joke writers continue in their current direction...] 12. Race-baiting/red herring, straw man and hasty generalization."

Where's the race-baiting in that? I don't even see a reference to race there! What on earth are you talking about? As for red herring, how so? The subject was a line in Hillary's debate, and that message addresses that subject. Hasty generalizatin? Huh? You are totally just copying and pasting phrases at random.

ljwalker53: "[Seriously, what do you care what I do? Why aren't you asking the 15 Hillary supporters who go around posting the same spam-like attack posts against Obama? Start with factcheck1 and factcheck2, move on Notorious W.E.S. and AKA Smith,] 13. This is guilt by association, red herring, and ad hominem."

It's not "guilt by association," it's providing detailed examples to back up a general claim. It's not a red herring because it's relevant. There's no ad-hominem there....where is the insult?

ljwalker53: "[Well HELLO Mr. Clinton Talking Point! There is no evidence that Obama's plan would leave all those people uninsured... He's promising affordable healthcare, not an overnight transition to total 100% guaranteed 24-hour healthcare for every man, woman, child, cat, kitten, and pet rock who has the sniffles.] 14. This is ad hominem, false dilemma, straw man."

Where is the ad-hominem? To which man? Where is the dichotomy (or "false dilemma")? Certainly I have purposely exaggerated with the "kitten" stuff, but that's obviously for humor. There's also no straw-man there -- at least, you certainly haven't demonstrated in what sense I am misrepresenting Clinton's plan.

ljwalker53: "[Would you want to hire an engineer to build a bridge if that engineer had granted another engineer the permission to start an unending war in Iraq?] 15. This is a false analogy, a red herring and a straw man."

Evidently you missed the humorous intent, which was to begin with an analogy and purposely take it to a whole other level. There's no red herring there unless you think Hillary war vote is not relevant to the debate over her candidacy -- but since we were already discussing the war it was fully relevant. As for "straw man," in what sense? Hillary DID grant Bush permission to wage war.

ljwalker53: "[...She wasn't exactly tried and tested in the 1990s -- her husband was. Prior to that she worked in corporate law. How did that prepare her for public office? (etc.)] 16. This is red herring, hasty generalization, false dilemma, appeal to ignorance and slippery slope. In addition, it is part and parcel of the whole dismissing/denying/downplaying/ denigrating and outright lying about her experience (that I have called you on before)."

Red herring? No, because it directly responded to the subject matter. Generalization? No, everything stated is demonstrably true in a more specific fashion. False dilemma? No, no dichotomy was even in those statements. Appeal to ignorance? No, anybody can verify, as well they should. Slippery slope? Say what? That's so far off the mark it's hilarious. Lying? How so -- which statement was untrue?

----

So in conclusion, I would call your entire post a RED HERRING.

I also call it an APPEAL FROM IGNORANCE (as opposed to being an appeal *to* ignorance)

Your use of "straw man" and "false dichotomy," among others, demonstrates you don't even know what those terms mean.

You also completely side-stepped your own use of ad-hominem. How do you defend your use of ad-hominem? After all, you're the one who brought up the issue, with your statements that Obama supporters are rude, insulting, uncivil and so on.

Yes Hillary's final statement at the Texas debate was moving. However,it was lifted from not only Edwards but also from Bill Clinton--as has been pointed out in a few youtube videos and a handful of articles. While I wouldn't ordinarily hold that against her (I agree with Obama that a great line remains a great line), given the criticism she leveled at Obama for so-called plagiarism, she marred her own best moment by, presumably inadvertently, being what she denounced. Obama at least knew the words he was speaking came from elsewhere.

In a way I am tempted to think that a real difference between the two candidates has been incidentally highlighted by this snafu. I think what Clinton has made evident about herself is that she is sufficiently inundated in the usual dynamics of Washington that she isn't aware of what is putrid about it. I suspect she didn't have the slightest idea that she was parroting her husband and former opponent. Obama appears to be heading down the same path and I'm tempted to think that he won't be much different than Clinton in a couple of years. Still, for now he is at least cognizant of the fact that he is adopting already-circulating rhetoric to fulfill his goals. Hillary is not. There is an obviously soporific and euphoric experience that accompanies holding an elected office in the federal government (what politician has ever held to the campaign promise of term limits?) Even though I see Obama as likely to become much like Hillary currently is, he isn't that way now. And if he is given license by the American electorate to be different, by being voted into office because of his difference from all other presidential candidates, then there is at least a decent potential for other honestly original candidates to seek, and find, public office.

Obama doesn't have the experience that Hillary does, but I'll be damned if he doesn't have a greater potential for ushering-in a sea change in American politics. Obama may not be a large change in the status quo, but he is the most viable change we are going to see any time soon. I stand firmly behind him.