Let's have a conversation about healing the party. A serious talk in a respectful tone. I'll start by telling you I support Barack Obama.

As I'm certain Otto F or pmSanFran would tell you, I've written some fairly scathing satire about Hillary Clinton. But it has been satire, after all, and I'm just as angry as you. So let's set that aside for the moment since many Clinton supporters — maybe even you — have written disparagingly about my candidate. I'm willing to set that aside for the moment, too.

Let's also agree on what we have in common. First principles, if you will:

1. GOP = bad.
2. John McCain = GOP.
3. Therefore, John McCain = bad.

So here's a few questions for you:

How can you not support Sen. Obama if he becomes the eventual nominee through a fair process? Bear in mind that I will support Sen. Clinton with my vote if she becomes the eventual nominee through a fair process.

If you won't support Obama in the general election, how do you rationalize the fact that abstention or voting for someone other than Obama is counterproductive to your interests and a misuse of your vote?

If your position is that an Obama presidency won't be good for women, explain — without resorting to unsupported condemnation of the organization for its decision — why NARAL endorsed him. Is there any rational reason to think Obama would be bad for women?

If your position is that it's time for a woman to be president, explain why the timing is so critical and why you have a right to expect that gender trumps the normal  political process that offers no institutional advantage to either sex.

If you believe the process itself is unfair, explain how it has been more unfair to Sen. Clinton than to Sen. Obama.

For my part, I believe the process has been largely fair. I see no advantage to a black candidate in a system that has produced five black senators in all of American history. Yet the system has yielded 35 women senators, including 16 who now serve.

I believe that delegations from Florida and Michigan will be seated in reduced numbers as just punishment for party officials who leapfrogged their primaries in violation of party rules. I know for a fact that Sen. Clinton signed onto these rules.

I believe the press has been as fair to Clinton as it has been to Obama. Neither have drawn particular advantage, and there are many times when race has been discussed in a negative light, while gender has received no similar scrutiny or extended play in the headlines.

If you're adamant about denying Obama your support in the general election, I believe you are reacting out of anger or a mistaken sentiment that Sen. Clinton is the only feminist in the race. I can find no evidence that Sen. Obama disrespects women or that Michelle Obama is not her own person.

SO ...

What's the problem? Let's talk.