If you want to rant about taxes get the facts straight.

[Bulova]

I had an argument? I thought I just had an interesting visual of math being spanked like a naughty little boy.

With regard to your math screed:

To start with "Math and statistical analysis work(s)!" is valid. But to continue with something as nonsensical as "Keep your silly politics out of my math ..." camouflages whatever it is you're trying to say. Taxes are political, and figuring out their economic effect is math. In this application, they are inseparable.

And you might want to re-examine to which YouTube entry you've provided a link.

[Mack Ravensline]

Just out of curiosity, when did it stop being impolite to refer to presidential candidates by their first names? Would it kill people to say "Obama" or "Clinton"? If it's really that confusing, try "Ms. Clinton". Or are they not worthy of respect to you because they're not white men?

You are right on the point that I should give them the respect of their offices. I let my distaste for their politics and ideas get in the way of that respect. I do however take quite a bit of offense to your supposition that it is because of their race or sex. If you wish to call me sexist or racist I will simply ignore any further posts you put forth on this board. If you think so little of me that you would assume this about me I am sorry to say you know nothing of me. I find it demeaning and insulting.

[Mack Ravensline]

I think oil companies are "not popular" because in a market where the price of oil (and oil futures) has nearly doubled, they are recording record-high profits while the consumer is suffering the inflated price. If anything, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama want to "confiscate" windfall profits. I know all about "what the market will bear" and all that, but the fact is, the Oil Companies have most American consumers over the proverbial barrel. And in this market, it should not be Oil Companies profiteering and their Directors and Shareholders benefiting while consumers and other industries dependent upon energy are, in essence, victimized. Airlines, food production and commercial shipping are just the highest profile industries among those victims.

And if Oil Companies *are* allowed to reap windfall profits, then should be impelled even more staunchly to pay when they are responsible for some stupid shit that results in an environmental disaster. Exxon's total payments related to the Valdez accident came nowhere near the actual cost of the damage caused nor the expense of the cleanup, and they fought having to pay for it through the courts. That is just one high-profile example of such a disaster. Simply put, if you want to be in the business of transporting and selling a product, it should be 100% YOUR responsibility when something goes wrong in its transit, storage or sale.

I agree that when a company causes a disaster, they should be responsible enough to pay for it. I believe a court should set a realistic cost for fixing the mistake and the company should pay it. The reason for fighting it is that some activist type judges like to bend the constitution to fit their causes and sometimes levy fines and penaties far in excess of the crime to push a cause. I also think that at times when environmentalist groups get involved they tend to exaggerate those costs, reporting their numbers to the media and they simply report it as if it is fact. I am all for companies cleaning up their messes, however the company should not be assessed penalties for things that could possibly happen, and those that any interested party believes is a better number.

Oooh...you're *really* asking for it here. Or did you miss what I said about a "flat tax" system?

I did read it and fundamentally disagree with it.

Here, again, I have to assume that you just haven't been paying attention. The data that Mark presented shows that the highest wage earners are paying about 23%. How do you translate that to 50-60%?

What he was stating is not 23% of their paycheck. It is 23% of all taxes collected by the government in total. What comes out of their paychecks is a much higher percentage. I am barely lower middle class and am paying almost 23% when you add in all the taxes like SS, medicare, and other state taxes, plus all the other taxes including sales tax etc. When you consider that the very rich shoulder that high a percentage of the tax burden and there are relatively few of them compared to the lower brackets it is very significant and shows they pay their fair share, and more.

Oh, this is some kettle of fish. The "loopholes," for the most part, are by design. The complexity came from classifying certain things as exempt from tax, while other things are taxable, and still others tax-deferred, etc. Making charitable-giving tax deductible is a good thing. Creating a mechanism for millions of dollars of income to be hidden outside of the country in various tax shelters while still being a liquid asset is not. Not counting other millions of dollars of share-based bonuses for corporate executives as income is also not. Those are the kinds of loopholes that need to be closed.

On this we agree. I am all for eliminating these, however as long as people continue to want to raise the percentage of their wages, the rich are going to try to even the playing feild by finding questionable shelters for their money. Even a staggered fair tax (poor 0%, lower middle class 10%, mid middle class 15%, upper middle class 18% and a 2% increase per bracket above that for instance) with limited deductions would be preferable to our current tax system. The deductions should be for very specific things like children, and charitable donations. The simpler the better.

[Bulova]

What he was stating is not 23% of their paycheck. It is 23% of all taxes collected by the government in total. What comes out of their paychecks is a much higher percentage.

Look again, because you have totally misinterpreted the data. It shows the share of total tax revenue paid by the top 1% as 39.38%. The average tax RATE paid by that top 1% is 23%. And, as I've pointed out before, that top 1% earn over one-fifth of the total AGI. It would merely be conjecture to speculate as to how much other income that top 1% have been able to shelter from inclusion in their AGI at all.

I am barely lower middle class and am paying almost 23% when you add in all the taxes like SS, medicare, and other state taxes, plus all the other taxes including sales tax etc.

And the rest of us seem to be referring to federal income tax only. You actually pay a greater percentage of your income in sales tax than that top 1%, because you spend a higher percentage of your income on things that are subject to sales tax. You pay a higher percentage of your income in SS because the top 1% greatly exceed the income level at which SS deductions are capped. Need I continue?

Your arguments lose credibility when you don't read, interpret or present the available data accurately.

[Bulova]

I agree that when a company causes a disaster, they should be responsible enough to pay for it. I believe a court should set a realistic cost for fixing the mistake and the company should pay it. The reason for fighting it is that some activist type judges like to bend the constitution to fit their causes and sometimes levy fines and penalties far in excess of the crime to push a cause. I also think that at times when environmentalist groups get involved they tend to exaggerate those costs, reporting their numbers to the media and they simply report it as if it is fact. I am all for companies cleaning up their messes, however the company should not be assessed penalties for things that could possibly happen, and those that any interested party believes is a better number.

For someone who advocates smaller government, I am surprised you would want to bring a court into this at all. Companies responsible for a disaster should just pay for ongoing cleanup until the cleanup is done. No limit. No time frame. And no slacking off on the effort. No court would have to "set a realistic cost" because the cost paid will be the real cost. Maybe, just maybe, a court would have to establish some oversight authority to make sure that the cleanup was proceeding in an earnest manner. And even that must be paid for by the party responsible in the first place.

Going to the next level. if we want to ensure that Companies, in general, (oil transport, consumer products, automobile) are to be PREVENTED from knowingly continuing to market dangerous products or operating in an unsafe manner, then the cost for being caught or being found responsible has to be meaningful to the "bean-counters" in order to prevent such willful, knowing negligence. It has to make the presumed cost of negligence meaningful enough so that negligence becomes something to be avoided. So that a known defect that might cause 20,00 incidents isn't something that projects to a "cost" of $600,000 to settle out, compared to the cost of $3.5 million to fix (or $6 million in settlements, but $350 million to re-engineer and replace). It has to project to a cost of more than the expense of the recall/repair or else the "bean-counters" will say it's acceptable to ignore it. THIS is where punitive damages come into play.

It would be unfair to punish a Company that has acted in good faith and has just been caught unawares by some undiscovered flaw in design. But when it can be documented that there was knowledge in advance and therefore reasonable expectation that an event (or series of events) would likely occur, that has to be punished. And since you can't send a Corporation to jail (just its principles, for which prison would be appropriate in cases of proven criminal negligence, fraud or obstruction) the only punishment is a cash penalty. And here, only a Court could decide.

Note that I have steered totally clear of any reference to "activist judges," "bending of the Constitution," or "fines and penalties far in excess of the crime in order to push a cause."

[LucasJamison]

You are right on the point that I should give them the respect of their offices. I let my distaste for their politics and ideas get in the way of that respect. I do however take quite a bit of offense to your supposition that it is because of their race or sex. If you wish to call me sexist or racist I will simply ignore any further posts you put forth on this board. If you think so little of me that you would assume this about me I am sorry to say you know nothing of me. I find it demeaning and insulting.

Might've just been that it seemed odd that those two, and only those two, were addressed by first name, showing a greater degree of (disrespectful, in this case) familiarity than has been shown for, well, any single other public personage mentioned in these conversations. That this greater degree of disrespect corresponded to the two people who happen to not meet the demographic profile of, well, every other public person mentioned in these threads... is an unfortunate coincidence.

Then again, there's more than enough meat to it for that discussion to warrant it's own thread.

[LucasJamison]

It is true that there are other factors involved. Michigan is a prime example of what happens when Labor costs skyrocket, taxes go way up and crime becomes rampant. Their economy is in the dumps because the auto companies determined it would be easier and cheaper to make their cars elsewhere. This is not corporate greed, it is good buisiness.

If "good business" means "maximizing the bottom line at ALL costs", then I suppose I don't much see functional difference between your definition of good business, and my definition of corporate greed.

Mostly the reason people become rich is because they take on great amounts of risk, or had a parent who did so. They sacrifice and work very hard to earn their fortunes. When it pays off big, they should be able to enjoy a good living without everyone who did not take those risks, work that hard or catch the breaks they did trying to take it from them, and calling them selfish and evil. As long as they are not breaking laws they and their families should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

The sort of lifestyle one is able to enjoy on USD$5 billion in assets, much less 25 or 50, is... well, it's so obscene that even most people who have that kind of money don't actually live it up as well as they could. Most. Though I suppose one could argue that turning that wealth towards purchasing vast social and political influence is equally, or even more, obscene than turning it to the indulgence of vice.

This sort of accumulation of wealth in hands of a very few goes beyond "enjoying the fruits of one's labor", to the point of "ensuring eternal plutocracy".

The problem with this example is that it does not apply. The super buff guy who is 3 times stronger than the wimpy guy would naturally be carrying 3 cases. If he chose to help the wimpy guy carry the other case, it should be his choice, but he should not be expected to carry it all especially if the guy carrying the lesser amount was going to be drinking the greater majority.

Naturally? I'm not so sure. Do people who are more capable of picking up burdens than others, always, by nature, step in to do so? I don't think that follows at all.

however if there are lower taxes across the board, the company that raises wages and benefits usually attracts the better employees.

Well, what's the point where corporate tax burden outweighs the benefits derived from paying higher wages? Also, this gets into the whole "if you don't make people with money pay so much in taxes, then OBVIOUSLY tehy're going to run out and donate it to charities and start local businesses and invest in the local economy" argument that I don't really understand.

As far as you not seeing politicians who go after buisinesses, all you have to do is listen to what Hillary and Barack want to do to confiscate oil company profits to see examples of this.

First, I'd like to admonish both of the Democratic candidates for failing to have obvious, easily accessible "search" functions on their websites. I will take this moment to laud Google once again for making this a non-issue.

That said, Sens. Obama and Clinton have slightly different official platform positions on "windfall profits" taxes, but I think that both propose using those funds to address a specific, related need. The Obama plan seems to be to establish a fund for folks who can't afford to heat/cool their homes (which included me this year, but I dont' think I'd pass a means test for eligibility in such a program) using revenues from such taxation, where as the Clinton plan seems to be to fund R&D into alternative energy? Both plan to do both, but reference the use of windfall profit taxation differently in the structure of their funding models.

I know people believe that the oil companies are gouging us and that this is justice, but where do we stop when we start redistributing wealth. There are many reasons for high oil prices that have little to do with the oil companies themselves, yet because these companies are not popular today you have two candidates talking about seizing a companies profits.Actually I think that is more like socialism, not really an original idea.

To be fair, you have them talking about doing two things. One is removing subsidies/incentives that were created to promote further oil exploration at a time when it was less profitable / more risky to do so relatively to the profits being realized by companies who engaged in those activies. The other is seizing a portion of a company's profits. While I've heard a lot about "windfall profits" taxes, I don't think I've heard any numbers - how much they want to take - so it's hard to say if it makes sense.

This is the difficulty in assigning any specific group as the starting point for rich. The lower end of that scale that just got their tax burden increased will suffer.

I think you'd agree that suffering is relative. I will once again note my utter lack of sympathy for someone who has to "struggle" getting by on a measly six-figure post-tax income, and the extreme derision I will heap upon anyone foolish enough to complain about that sort of "plight". Some allowances, of course, being made for income vs. cost of living vs. standard of living in individual cases. ;p

This is part of the problem. People look at whatever they define to be rich and say "Look at them. They are doing so well that they should have to bear more responsibility."

It's not so much as what an individual defines (though I'm sure there are people who take a very limited, self-centered view where no matter what level they're at, it's people with more than they have who should bear the greater share), as the idea that the MORE you have, the MORE you can afford to pick up some of the tab. Progressive taxation - the system we currently have. Moral reasoning aside, it's also a pretty pragmatic approach to the issue of paying for shared services.

If the tax rate was a set percentage, say 20% and all tax breaks and things were removed, each tax bracket would pay a fair share. 20% of $1,000,000 is $200,000, while 20% of $30,000 would be $6,000. The larger income would still be paying the lions share but it would be proportional to their income. The highest wage earners at this point pay out almost 50% - 60% of their income at this point.

I think we may have different working definitions of fairness. Even assuming that at 20% flat tax, things would be paid for (I'm not sure that is the case, at current levels of government spending), someone making only $30,000 needs that $6000 they are shelling out a LOT more than someone making $1,000,000 needs that $200,000. The million-per-year earner could probably live a very nice lifestyle even if they paid $800,000 in taxes - certainly a better one than the $30,000-per-year earner would be living even if they paid none at all.

Naturally they look for ways around this and find all kinds of loopholes in our current tax system because it is so complex. I say keep it simple and fair.

However natural it may be for people to exhibit greed and a desire to elevate themselves above others as much as possible, I don't see that as a reason to allow it. There's a certain grim pragmatism in legitmizing all manner of criminal behaviors - if nothing is criminal, there can be no crime! But I'm not sure it would be very pleasant to live in a world like that.

The key to this is getting rid of the huge loopholes. Since many politicians are lawyers, this probably will not happen since they are sensitive to things that will take away the jobs of a bunch of corporate lawyers, but I can dream.

I dunno if it's so much a massive conspiracy to keep lawyers employed, as that complexity breeds complexity. The bigger something is, the more things it does, the more complex it is. The more far-reaching the intent, the greater the potential for unintended consequences. It's a trade off.

[SigmaCaine]

Might've just been that it seemed odd that those two, and only those two, were addressed by first name, showing a greater degree of (disrespectful, in this case) familiarity than has been shown for, well, any single other public personage mentioned in these conversations. That this greater degree of disrespect corresponded to the two people who happen to not meet the demographic profile of, well, every other public person mentioned in these threads... is an unfortunate coincidence.

Then again, there's more than enough meat to it for that discussion to warrant it's own thread.

Meh. I was bored and have spent too much time over on /b/ lately. Just a little trollin' and Rick Rollin'. It was actually entirely for your benefit! When the joke flew over the heads of the other thread participants, I was waiting for you to swoop in and go, "Oh snap! You just got Rick Rolled!" IT WAS THE PERFECT SET-UP! Y'all need to find your senses of humor again ;-) This thread was looking a little lonely and way too Serious Business without its own troll (especially for something on a board called "Flames and Rants"). Now granted, to do it properly it would have to be anonymous, but you could probably pick my writing style out of a hat while blindfolded at this point and it's not as if there's a huge population of board-posters to pick from. My only actual argument in the post was the terms-of-address thing. The rest was just purposely inflammatory.

Mark - do I, personally, consider you racist or sexist? Nope. Would someone who has not known you for a while, having read the same things I did, consider you so? There's a good chance, yeah. Either that or "staunch Republican" for not showing respect to the Democratic candidates, which tends to be synonymous with "bigoted" in a lot of people's minds anyway. If you require people to get to know you before understanding why you come off as bigoted, I hope you have a lot of time to spend correcting their assumptions post-argument.

But it's not just you. Addressing the Democratic candidates by their first names - *especially* Senator Clinton - seems to be common practice right now. I don't know if it's born of disrespect or laziness, but either way, it's demeaning. And no, this is *not* a case of, "everyone says it, so it's okay".  Race and gender shouldn't be a part of a Presidential race, but this time around, they are. What does it say about the country as a whole that two people, who have worked every bit as hard as other candidates, can't seem to get the respect the others do - and those two people just happen to be a woman and a black man?

[LucasJamison]

Meh. I was bored and have spent too much time over on /b/ lately. Just a little trollin' and Rick Rollin'. It was actually entirely for your benefit! When the joke flew over the heads of the other thread participants, I was waiting for you to swoop in and go, "Oh snap! You just got Rick Rolled!" IT WAS THE PERFECT SET-UP! Y'all need to find your senses of humor again ;-)

I will take this opportunity to admit that I had actually NEVER heard of the rick-rolling phenomenon until that "The Ring" themed XKCD strip, and I also almost never follow links from forum posts. There are far worse things than Rick Astley out there on the internets, as I have learned the hard way.

This thread was looking a little lonely and way too Serious Business without its own troll (especially for something on a board called "Flames and Rants").

this r serious thread! ;p

[Bulova]

My only actual argument in the post was the terms-of-address thing. The rest was just purposely inflammatory.

Then I "got it right" when my response took the "term-of-address" point seriously, and dismissed the "purposely inflammatory" portion.

[Mack Ravensline]

Sorry I never heard of Rick-rolling either sorry.

Mark - do I, personally, consider you racist or sexist? Nope. Would someone who has not known you for a while, having read the same things I did, consider you so? There's a good chance, yeah. Either that or "staunch Republican" for not showing respect to the Democratic candidates, which tends to be synonymous with "bigoted" in a lot of people's minds anyway. If you require people to get to know you before understanding why you come off as bigoted, I hope you have a lot of time to spend correcting their assumptions post-argument.

Actually I consider myself a Conservative first, and usually a Republican. I have been very disappointed this cycle with the choice of Republicans. Most are not real conservatives. I have worked very hard to become as color blind as possible. I hate that in our political environment today most Liberals equate not liking a candidate on issues with not liking someone's race. I personally think that the veiws of both Sen. Clinton, and Sen Obama are a huge disaster waiting to happen. In much the same way Liberals disrespect Pres. Bush, and figures like Gen. Patreas, I sometimes fall into the trap of become a bit to familiar with them because I really dislike both of them on a purely policy way. I and most who believe as I do could care less whether they are black, white, purple, female or male. They are in a position where they could end up as our next president and that scares me a great deal. Liberals in general come across as thin-skinned, wishy-washy, dishonest, and overly emotional, and given to flights of fantasy,lacking in traditional values etc. but I would not demean anyone here by saying you all are any of those things, though you have shown signs that could be taken that way if I were so narrow-minded. A good debate between friends is what I come here looking for, and hope to keep it as that, not name calling and other such things. My brand of sarcasm at times comes across as biting, but I think we all are enjoying the discussion without getting personal. Accusing someone of being racist or gender biased may be as popular in politics today as lack of respect, but I despise that as much as you despise the seeming lack of respect that obviously bothers you. Two wrongs do not make a right. I would have seen your point well without this and corrected it in the future, please do the same.

But it's not just you. Addressing the Democratic candidates by their first names - *especially* Senator Clinton - seems to be common practice right now. I don't know if it's born of disrespect or laziness, but either way, it's demeaning. And no, this is *not* a case of, "everyone says it, so it's okay".  Race and gender shouldn't be a part of a Presidential race, but this time around, they are. What does it say about the country as a whole that two people, who have worked every bit as hard as other candidates, can't seem to get the respect the others do - and those two people just happen to be a woman and a black man?

How much respect does Pres. Bush get from liberals? Wasn't it Move On dot org that took out a full page ad in the NY Times calling one of the most respected Generals in our armed forces General Betray-us? It goes both ways. Just because the two candidates on the democratic side are a woman and a black male, are completely beside the point. When you learn to truely dislike someone's politics it at times breeds familiarity because of contempt. I do not say it is right and have appoligized for it, but I refuse to let slide that it has anything (at least for me) to do with race or gender. That is an even worse form of disrespect. Trust me I could not stand Sen. Kerry's positions 4 years ago, or Sen Edward's positions this year, and last I checked they are both White Males. I truely dislike Sen. Kennedy because I believe he is a murderer, and I disagree with his politics strongly. I hve been known to call Pres. Clinton Slick Willy as well, but this is because I despise so many of the things he does that I almopst feel I know him. It demeans us all when race and gender become the main focus of why we vote or don't vote for someone. I would dare say that voting for someone because of race or gender is just as bad as voting against a candidate for the same reasons. It is wrong and should not happen. If Gen Powell were running on the Republican side I would have the same arguements against him that I have against Sen. McCain, that neither is a true conservative, but I would happily vote for either of them over either Sens. Clinton and Obama.

[LucasJamison]

I hate that in our political environment today most Liberals equate not liking a candidate on issues with not liking someone's race.

Forgive me if I'm too out of synch with the majority Liberal position in the US, but my understanding (and granted, Liberal HQ has dropped me off the mailing list for some reason, so my formal copies of the Liberal, Homosexual, and Feminist Agendas are months out of date) is that the generic liberal criticism is not that it is impossible to disagree with Sens. Obama and Clinton on matters of policy, and that only racial and gender biases come into play. Instead, it is to say that the endemic racial and gender bias in the US make it impossible to say these factors play not a part in the opposition to these candidates. A fine point, maybe, but I'm pretty sure "nuance" is still the watchword a LHQ.

I personally think that the veiws of both Sen. Clinton, and Sen Obama are a huge disaster waiting to happen.

Are there particular policy points of the candidates that you find disastrous, or is the general Democratic Party platform the two borrow rather heavily from (there don't seem to be many issues where their policies are not similar, at least at a glance) full of disasters in waiting, or what?

In much the same way Liberals disrespect Pres. Bush, and figures like Gen. Patreas, I sometimes fall into the trap of become a bit to familiar with them because I really dislike both of them on a purely policy way. I and most who believe as I do could care less whether they are black, white, purple, female or male.

I think a lot of the things you're objecting to might be lessened, for purposes of this discussion, if you stopped generalizing so heavily on "libs do this, people like me do that" terms. I'll agree to do the same.

They are in a position where they could end up as our next president and that scares me a great deal. Liberals in general come across as thin-skinned, wishy-washy, dishonest, and overly emotional, and given to flights of fantasy,lacking in traditional values etc. but I would not demean anyone here by saying you all are any of those things, though you have shown signs that could be taken that way if I were so narrow-minded.

Gee, thanks for being so high-minded as to ONLY backhandedly get your digs in while holding yourself up as superior for not doing so. Very honest and traditionally valued of you.

How much respect does Pres. Bush get from liberals?

I'd say that's a fair critique, and I'll try to watch that. There's a point to made on differences of degree (someone who has ACTUALLY overseen horrendous disaster, continues to make things either worse or just failes to improve them, and is utterly unapologetic in his failings, vs. two individuals who haven't had their chance to wreck everything yet), but there's something to be said for the principle of respecting an office/insutitution, even if the current office holder is kind of a jackass.

Wasn't it Move On dot org that took out a full page ad in the NY Times calling one of the most respected Generals in our armed forces General Betray-us?

Robert Hanssen was pretty well respected, too, the way the story goes. Not to say that doing what's necessary politically to support your military objectives is in any way equatable with selling state secrets to foreign agents in a direct violation of your responsibilities as a counterintelligence agent, but that a distinguished career of service is not a guarantee of proper behavior. Perhaps the Powell presentation to the UN is a better analog to the Petraeus situation?

WRT the ad specifically, the language was strong, but the point wasn't invalid due to the strength of the language. There's a lot to be said for not equating fundamentally dissimilar things based on surface similarities.

And, you know, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

It goes both ways. Just because the two candidates on the democratic side are a woman and a black male, are completely beside the point. When you learn to truely dislike someone's politics it at times breeds familiarity because of contempt. I do not say it is right and have appoligized for it, but I refuse to let slide that it has anything (at least for me) to do with race or gender. That is an even worse form of disrespect. Trust me I could not stand Sen. Kerry's positions 4 years ago, or Sen Edward's positions this year, and last I checked they are both White Males. I truely dislike Sen. Kennedy because I believe he is a murderer, and I disagree with his politics strongly. I hve been known to call Pres. Clinton Slick Willy as well, but this is because I despise so many of the things he does that I almopst feel I know him.

I suppose on one hand, it's a sign of progress that even among conservatives it is now widely recognized that the labels of "racist" and "sexist" are bad things to be tagged with. Sadly, a detailed understanding of what those terms mean, and why they may be quite fitting even for people who don't think of themselves as being either (I think the "Dog the Bounty Hunter" example highlights this well - he certainly doesn't think of himself as "a racist"), has not penetrated as deeply. But I think I noted before that this is probably a topic best saved for another thread.

It demeans us all when race and gender become the main focus of why we vote or don't vote for someone. I would dare say that voting for someone because of race or gender is just as bad as voting against a candidate for the same reasons. It is wrong and should not happen. If Gen Powell were running on the Republican side I would have the same arguements against him that I have against Sen. McCain, that neither is a true conservative, but I would happily vote for either of them over either Sens. Clinton and Obama.

I don't think it's fair to say that voting for someone because they belong to a less privileged demographic, and you think the achievement of the individual would (somewhat ironically, I think) represent a move forward for that demographic's fortunes, is morally equal to voting against someone because you think that because of their class membership they will not be as good at the job. The former seems hopefully misguided, at worst, as opposed to the outright unacceptability of the latter