Nothing shocks me less today than reading how Saletan's dabbling in eugenism brought him to cite them sort of "theorists" he was seemingly so eager to denounce.

Still, Slate, truthfully, I can't expect much from Bill "I'm not an Expert" Saletan.

Let's consider the following from Part the Third of this happily (hopefully) aborted foray into race and intellect.

"Over the last seven years, the most important judgment relevant to that job was whether to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq. Among the dozen viable candidates who have applied for the job, one is black. Guess which one got it right?"

So what, exactly, does "got it right" mean? If we look to Obama's website we read:

"Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Fair enough. However, we (by that I mean people who, like me, are reasonably aware of what's going on in the polical sphere) would also know that if we cruised by Kucinich's site we might notice that . . .

"Dennis Kucinich is the only democrat running for President who has voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation."

It seems Saletan's key qualifier here was "viable candidate." So . . .

If "the most important judgment" for the prez (my italics) was "to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq," then, judging by his record, Kucinich aces "the most important judgement" test and, perforce, should be "viable."

p.s.: I am not particularly for Kucinich. I'm merely noting what should be obvious.

What?! You mean to tell me that there are other Democratic candidates besides Clinton, Obama and Edwards? I gotta stop watching CNN.

I know. It's terrible. Time, CNN, Slate, you name it, they're all running three people. I suppose it's to keep us all in line. ("We'll have no more of that unpredictable Wellstone shit around here boys!") The sense of cynicism I've been forced to cultivate though these dark Bush years now tells me the primary's probably a bit of a fix; we're being dealt from a mechanic's cold deck. I just can't get excited about it so I'll just wait for the Diebold ATM to cast my vote for me: either for Hillary as New Imperial President, or maybe even for W (his office will presumably be President for Life).

What?! You mean to tell me that there are other media outlets besides CNN and Slate? What is this Time you speak of, sounds like a bunch of commies to me.

I'm not a USian so I had to google Wellstone and now I remember him from Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Why do the all the good ones die so young?

If you could get paid to be a professional cynic nobody'd be out of work nowadays. Dubya for Life, shudder. Hillary, double shudder. Surely Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton would be a sick joke? Out of the media darlings (Dem or GOP) I'd choose Obama, he appears nuanced which is refreshing and he's articulate, joy! (I'm not dissing George's rhetoric btw, I think that's uncivil.)

The world isn't hoodwinked though - check out this site.

Ron Paul seems very popular. Could it be because he advocates pulliing back ALL troops from EVERYWHERE and having the UN handle the worldwide peacekeeping?

I think so. That and his rabidly Internet wise fans.

I hadn't considered pursuing cynicism as an actual profession. It's a philosophical school, right? Wait a hot sec. Now I seem to recall that both Antisthenes and Diogenes were totally impoverished.

I can understand your preference for the occasionally articulate Barak Obama but I refuse to think the ability to speak tolerably good English portends political salvation.