but my eleven-year-old just asked me to play Boggle. Maybe I can find "gas" "tax" and "sell" "out"!

Be back soon.

`"...which hopefully will lead to a frank exchange of views down the road."

That's a witty answer. I'll simmer down now.

Carol, I sent her a 1000 word answer earlier today. Long, long discussion of identity voting.

I'll take a whack at that.

I think the basic advantage to having a woman president is that it's the most dramatic, possibly effective way to break the glass ceiling.

Michelle Obama (whom, I might add, I like more than him--she clinched the deal for me) has been saying things like, "Imagine the impact of that child just by seeing a black president, with that simple image, their (mental, imaginative) horizons expand and they can see themself as president (in positions of authority, successful, etc.)."

I don't think that's enough of a reason to vote for someone and I don't believe Michelle does either, but thrown into an otherwise attractive package, it's pretty great.

The problem with Clinton, to me, is that that's basically the package.

Breaking the glass ceiling is worth something, to be sure.

But what is it worth?

Aye, that is the question.

Is it worth the overwhelming catalogue of odious politics that comes with it? The threat of war mongering and the reinforcement of the rotting, hell-bent status quo on a number of other fronts?

Is it worth anti-intellectualism, for instance?

I say no, it's not.

But I imagine Clinton supporters who value breaking the glass ceiling have some profound reasons for wanting this outcome, reasons they may or may not be aware of.

You're right, though, they don't really tend to develop their thoughts about why it's so important to them as weighed against other concerns, so it's hard to discern and I'm forced to speculate.

Oh, the other thing Clinton brings to the table is "electability." I don't really think she's electable because she's already legitimated the very tactics that will ultimately destroy her, but I take "electable" to mean "she knows how to scare up votes." And that may be true, as far as it goes.

But there are costs here, such as totally obscuring the things the election is about and thus finding yourself utterly without a mandate to do anything because no one quite knows what they voted for.

Anyway, that's my take.

I haven't gathered specific examples, but I have been attacked many times for being a feminist who supports Clinton because she is a woman -- even though I have explained many times why I support Clinton. I have gotten quite tired of it. I wanted to see if anyone had the guts to admit that they were voting for Obama largely because he is black?

Also, I am still pissed off because sometime back someone said that I might be a racist just because I didn't trust Obama. The assumption that if one has an instinctive distrust of a black person then it must be because that person is black is absurd. Instead, I always perceived an disingenuousness in him and a sort of double-faced attitude that comes from trying to have it both ways -- to be perceived as Mr. Clean while still using dirty tactics. I see nothing of the high morality in him that others seem to see. To me his actions have not validated that faith. This is not to say he is not idealistic. Of course he is idealistic. One can be idealistic and still not be honest. One can simply be justifying the means by the hoped for end.

Obama used race and the implication of racism against the Clintons with very little justification. In that particular war, he fired the opening shot. I do see his Rev. Wright problem as chickens coming home to roost. He deserves the problems he is having not because Rev. Wright is a bad man or because Rev. Wright is not patriotic but because Obama wanted it both ways. He wanted to have the political and social advantages of belonging to Wright's church, therefore gaining acceptance in Chicago's black liberal community (I'm thinking), in which case he has to take the good with the bad now. Surely, he could foresee that Wright would be a problem.

However, if he genuinely believes much of what Wright says, then he is a phony if he tries to disavow it. Built into Obama's speech on race was a gloss-over on what he knew about Wright and when he knew it. His supporters may think that this shouldn't be an issue. However, the very real outcome has made it an issue.

Also, I think that Walsh's analysis of this whole thing has been rather facile. She is afraid to address very much the actual truth: Barack Obama can lose black votes by acting white, but he can gain white votes by acting white of emphasizing his "bi-racialness (father from Kenya and mother from Kansas). Barack Obama can lose black votes if he is too critical of Wright, but he might recover white votes, especially in the general. Barack Obama can disavow forcefully the notion that the U.S. government wanted to spread AIDS among the black community and thus gain white votes, but lose black support among people who want to believe that a-historic and unscientific fairy tale.

Is American ready for a black president? Sure, as long as he isn't like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Are black people ready for Obama to be president? Sure, as long as he doen't talk like Bill Cosby. Barack Obama's burden is exactly the same as that of all black people in the US -- how to find a way to achieve within a world that is still dominated by whites without selling out his blackness. I don't envy him that tightrope.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton has her own tightrope to walk based upon gender bias and conflicts among women themselves and the feminists of at least three generations, who often don't agree among themselves about what constitutes an acceptable powerful woman and how tough a woman can be and still be seen as decent and feminine. In addition, she has to deal with the blatant sexism of the male-dominated media. The funny thing is -- all though we don't talk about it -- most of us understand Obama's problem. Few want to understand or examine closely Clinton's problem. They are too busy checking under her skirt to see if she has balls.