Second, you misrepresent what I wrote when you say I “call into question a single person’s entire candidacy.” I did not call her “candidacy” into question but I did call into question the extreme attitudes of the people who claim to support her.

Third, why else would anyone commit those crimes and claim to be Clinton supporters if they were not in fact Clinton supporters? I can think of no viable motivation. They surely are not McCain or Obama supporters trying to discredit Clinton because she has already dropped out of the race and there is no need to discredit her. In fact, no one has any need to discredit her, except perhaps her constituents in New York—but these crimes occurred in Florida. Absent further information, the only rational conclusion available is that these people were in fact Clinton supporters.

Fourth, your objections are on the disingenuous side. What if I had written this:

“If ridiculous advocates of ‘intelligent design’ are the kinds of people that Christianity attracts, then I am not interested in joining that religion.”

I suspect you would have let that one slip past without objection because you are neither an advocate of ‘intelligent design’ nor a Christian—even though it has exactly the same form as the criticism in the main post above. But you were a Clinton supporter until she dropped out. So you took this one personally.

Furthermore, the parallel example relates back to my second point above: Giving just one reason why I am not a member of the Christian religion, even though it is not exhaustive of all possible reasons, does not make the giving of that reason an unwarranted “generalization.” Similarly, giving just one reason why I am glad Clinton dropped out of the race, even though it is not exhaustive of all possible reasons, does not make the giving of that reason an unwarranted “generalization” either.

What evidence is there in the article that those who did the vandalizing are even Clinton supporters? What? They left business cards? I totally couldn’t go get business cards that disparage Obama and Clinton and raise McCain up. That’s umpossible.

And easy with the accusations of generalizations man. Read the conditional cues, too. See where it says “?” and “If”?