<html><DIV> <P>We aren't trying to convince Nathan, but those less committed. Likewise, he's not really trying to convince us--I actually rather wonder why _he_  argues the point, unless it's a combination of bad conscience and trying to keep up his dialectical chops. Of course he's also trying to persuade waverers. Nathan is indeed the best left defender of the Dems I have seen--thoughtful, informed, intelligent, generally fair. And I don't regard his view as _obviously_ wrong. It takes an act of faith to suppose that we will be able to do better, that it makes sense to forego the real if rather limited advantages than Democratic officials offer our constituencies. It's not irrational of Natahn to think otherwise, even if we think, or hope, that he is wrong. --jks<BR><BR></P>>Carrol Cox wrote: </DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>>My query is, How useful is it to argue with committed Democrats.  . . . . . Nathan . . .  is <DIV></DIV>>>defending <DIV></DIV>>>the indefensible, and his interlocutors are beating a dead horse. <DIV></DIV>Doug: > <DIV></DIV>>One reason I respond frequently to Nathan is that he's the best left <DIV></DIV>>apologist for the Dems I know, and it helps keep on one's rhetorical <DIV></DIV>>toes to spar with the best. Another is that there are several <DIV></DIV>>hundred <DIV></DIV>>people who lurk here, and who may be uncertain of what attitude to <DIV></DIV>>take towards the Dems, so I like to get my two cents in wherever <DIV></DIV>>possible. And a third is that I just like to argue. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Doug <DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>