Sorry. I must have missed you post. I didn't go back far enough.

I take it then that you agree with me that consistency is required to hold a respectable opinion on this?

Your point was if blacks vote by race, why can't women vote by gender? And my answer was, If race or gender are the sole reasons for the vote I think that is wrong, because bias is not the right way to choose a president. But if race or gender is one reason among many, there is no issue, right? As I remember your question, gender wasn't the only thing. You also liked the health plan, I think.

The post was long. Perhaps it would be easier to read it than for me to rewrite it. Then perhaps you can tell me which of the Obama categories you're assigning me to.

If it is wrong to support Hillary Clinton significantly for her sex and not her record or her character or her policies, then it is also wrong to support Barack Obama significantly for his race and not his record or his character or his policies.

Agreed. Next.

Too many Obama supporters can only hear an argument from the position of pathos. Logos and ethos escapes them.

Any examples to support your bold claim? I trust you have them stockpiled.

You think of that as an exchange of views? I'm new here. I assumed she was insane. In the medical sense of the term.

Sorry it I wasn't clearer. It seemed to me that you agree with me.

I understand why uneducated people like Hillary. But in her shameless pandering to this base, Hillary occasionally serves up a deliciously disingenuous piece of stupid pie. Her Bosnia flapdoodle is but one example.

Now, she goes on with her bff George Stephanopolous (sp?) and he actually fires some tough questions about her ridiculous "me too" gas tax holiday. He asks her to name one credible economist who supports this plan. Her answer - seriously - economists are elitist, and she's not going to put her lot with economists.

And yes, she said this with a straight face.

A challenge to Salon's Hillary supporters - can anyone defend this statement?

I wouldn't take many to be too many. My last letter explaining the issue again and striving to be particularly true should be one that anyone should agree with based upon logic alone.

Glad you agree.

However, it is odd that more people didn't agree. Why do you think that is?

Now you're getting the hang of it.

It wouldn't take many to be too many.

"She did a great job on O'Reilly. Barring a few specific objectionable statements (about Wright, god bless the rich, etc.), overall she kicked ass."

Hey, Smedlap, O'Reilly isn't running for President.

Got it? If not, get it.

I attempted an answer to you as well, fwiw.

No, that was some preliminary sparring, which hopefully will lead to a more frank exchange later on down the road.

You're showing up at a difficult time. The Obama and Hillary supporters are pretty much pissed at each other, and blame the other crowd for throwing the dung first. Anyone not a Obama or Hillary supporter seems pissed at both camps, and probably with cause.

I've actually seen some really good letters, but not always when expected, and sometimes in the middle of a food fight. Also, I would check out Glenn Greenwald; he tends to draw a different crowd of posters.

It might be less than encouraging, but I think it is necessary to wade through the crap and the mundane to get to the good stuff. It would be nice, for instance, if my posts were of better quality, but you've gotten work with what you have.

Well, agreed with you in part. Less inclined to attribute all of the black vote to race because I think the black vote is just as likely to go to Obama on other issues. Not able to understand why gender matters to many women, although I know it does. But I am sincere when I say I don't see why a woman thinks it is important, or even desirable, to have a woman president. I've heard a million woman say it matters, but never what they see as the actual benefit. Can you tell me why it matters?

That's just too loathsome for words.

Joycelen Elders canned for doing her job (and Lani Guinier, for that matter, but that's more debatable), the Bush administration's war on science and climate change denial, and now this.

If you want to know why this country's so fucked up, it's because the mob is anti-intellectual.

I know that's crude and probably hyperbolic, but my God.

What can you do if a leading candidate for the presidency dismisses people who know what they're talking about as, of all things, "elitists."

Not only are we ignored, but excommunicated from the conversation to boot.

This from the candidate who has promised to end Bush's War on Science.

To her, ending that war is a simple matter of investing in the science industry to cure cancer.

Well that's all well and good, but that's not what science is about, I'm afraid.

It's about a basic method of knowledge-gathering and knowledge-processing.

But why listen to people who might actually know what they're talking about when you can just work the mob instead.

This is so not about partisanship or being anti-Clinton.

If people can't recognize that calling economists "elitists" is not in the interests of a healthy democracy, I frankly don't know what to say.

Or perhaps I'm expected to avow that the world is, after all, 6000 years old.

It's enough to drive one to despair. Or rage, but then, no one likes an angry black man ranting about justice, so I tend to incline towards the former.

”Too many Obama supporters can only hear an argument from the position of pathos”.

I think the reason you probably won’t get a good socratic debate on this subject is the “Too many…”. You probably would find many people who agree that there are “plenty”. You many even get some Obama people like me who agree with your “too many” but would apply it to Hillary’s supporters as well. I don’t know about you, but I can never really get behind either side’s supporters when they start getting psuedo-scientific about who’s supporters are nicer/smarter/cleaner/taller…..It always seems like the supporter always “knows” that his or her side has the positive qualities….and the kind of evidence used is mostly coming from population samples that consist of where one person hangs out in cyber space or in their town. It could true that there is a higher percentage of Obama supporters that can’t be objection, but I have no clue how we would know this; what I am certain of is that his “strong” supporters will definitely find evidence that Obamites are more objective, whereas Clintonites will certainily “know” that they are more objective…

It’s the kind of conversation that often feels great when you making your case. But…