When I read about Robin Morgan's essay rallying women to vote for Hillary Clinton "not because she's a woman -- but because I am," I was at first a little disappointed. It cemented a truism that seems to have emerged: that Clinton can play the gender card to her advantage (because of the large numbers of women voters), even as Obama scrupulously avoids calling any attention to his race.

Mind you, I don't see that it's out of bounds in any way for Chelsea Clinton to circulate the essay. In fact, from the point of view of the Clinton campaign, it's a very clever move.

It's just that Morgan's argument is pretty poor. At first blush, it seems a convincing and otherwise unremarkable affirmative action argument. When all other things are equal, why not hire the African-American, or the Latino, or the woman? I'm sure this is the sort of argument that would appeal to many liberal women, especially those who grew up when affirmative action was new and exciting.

But of course it's a straw man. Clinton and Obama are not equal, and there are some big policy differences, despite what the media would have you believe. There are also big questions around electability that Morgan completely ignores.

I would hope that women reading the email would take some time to reflect on this rather than just leading with their emotion. Many probably won't, but then it's fair to say many Obama supporters don't intellectualize too much either, when confronted with the will.i.am video.

Anyway, this is all a lead-in to try and spark a discussion about the role of emotion in choosing candidates. How much did emotion affect your choice of candidate? Does that seem fair?

test