Picnics in Minnesota are designed to be divisive. Kathy is fond of "ghoulish," while Sue just gets "the usual shit." With Democrats treating each other like that, I'm not sure McCain is gonna need Pawlenty. Now Ventura... that guy knew how to REALLY put on a spread. Obama/Ventura?

Billy, of course it contains a couple of divisive statements. I'm not going to pretend I agree with the pro-Hillary sentiments of my friends (especially when they make no sense). And you know as well as anyone that I'm not prone to mincing my words. But it's not propaganda. It's anecdotal--written as a series of short, declarative, factual statements (peppered with a little personal editorializing). That was by design. No matter how deviously clever you think I may be, I'm not trying to trick anyone with my post. I was simply asking for more stories. I'm trying to gauge--for myself and for others--just how serious this "I'll vote for McCain" sentiment really is.

I still refuse to eat French Fries. Instead, I prefer baked. God damn those obstreperous French. :)

A car wearing a pair of rabbit ears would be a nice trick.

I meant to say "cat" wearing a pair of rabbit ears (even though I know there's no editing feature, I still blame...um...someone other than me...for this snafu).

The point remains - the leader of Colbert Nation himself calls into question your veracity.

I don't think that Hillary would want to bring attention to someone who ruined the Dem's chances at a shoo-in election by going to the convention and dividing the party.

She wants to go to the convention because if not she would have to start "campaigning her heart out" for Obama. Once he becomes the acknowledged candidate she will have to stop campaigning for herself.

If Teddy Kennedy weren't ill, she might have used the 1980 campaign as an example where he poisoned the waters all the way through the convention.

When I watched the interview, I thought she certainly could have mentioned Ted instead of Bobby. She'd mentioned 1980 a few minutes earlier.

No matter what she says, people will freak out. That's just how powerful she is. ;-)

The problem for me is how do you define the identity in identity politics? Because it's so random, and it's completely reliant on how you define yourself (which is something I try to avoid whenever possible). If I'm basing my decision on identification, what quality do I choose? Two X chromosomes versus one? Breasts versus lack of them? Pink skin versus brown? Male versus female? Curly hair versus straight? That's why I'm so adamantly opposed to identity politics: because it's fundamentally false and it doesn't work unless you turn the other person and yourself into a meaningless cartoon. My grandma once voted for someone because his opponent had a mustache and she didn't like mustaches. Where do you draw the line?

I keep saying this, too - anyone who bases their vote on a candidate's supporters are really suspect.

Anyone who bases their vote on what one or a bunch of people on a comments board say is insane.

Obama says it's not about him, it's about us, his followers who will carry out his revolution.

If you don't like or trust the followers, you probably won't like how the revolution of hope is carried out. McDonalds may have a great leader, but I've only dealt with the little people wearing paper hats. Fortunately they know how to do the fries thing right.

Yeah, but the folks who cling to identity politics need to consider outer-group advocacy. Basically, it suggests that people who are not in a particular minority group are generally as or more successful in creating change for that group; it's something about the cognitive dissonance of seeing, for example, a guy speaking out for women's heart health or a Hispanic individual defending an African American cause. Sometimes politicians who don't look like us can do the most good for us, so it's doubly important that we look at their policy platforms and not just genitalia and skin color.

The pedantic statistician in me must point out that half the population isn't necessarily below average intelligence - but at least half the population is at or below median intelligence (and at least half the population is at or above median intelligence, too).

But I concur with your basic point - not all votes are cast with equal thought or care.

But since we're quoting Churchill, he also said this:

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

And (I forget who said this) democracy may not give us the government we need, but it will give us the government we deserve.

I never liked that argument against democracy. Below average intelligence doesn't mean not intelligent enough. Some people are not disciplined thinkers and make less than rational choices, but the degree of intelligence that qualifies one to make the correct or even any one particular choice is not average and above. As you have observed, many motivations go into choice besides intelligence. The observation about inflamed passions on blogs--agreed.

That's not true - it is not half.

At any given time, about 35% of the population is below average intelligent.

It is not 50%.

Isn't that nice? Of course, he had the advantage of having consumed a full bottle a champagne each day of his life.