I really want to read more about the "neural computation" stuff he was talking about, because I don't think it was quite that simple.  It's pretty hard to argue with one of the leading scientists in the field.  This is state-of-the-art interdisciplinary neuroscience, after all. Not easily understood with a cursory explanation.

Just for kicks, check out the wiki page on this.

Computational Neuroscience

What I understood him to be saying is that our neural pathways in the brain develop in tandem with our experience and are reinforced by our emotions to the point where we can't necessarily discern where our emotions influence our decisions or reactions.  The brain is making decisions before we are even conscious of it, which is the basis of the recent discovery that such a process makes it seem like we can actually see a short distance into the future.

My feeling is that you might actually agree with him if you were able to learn enough about the science behind it. When you say things like "reason is separate from feelings," it begs the question--in what way?  In a strictly linguistic way, for the purposes of being able to even talk about this stuff, I think you are right.  What he is saying is that our brains may not actually support this hard and fast distinction, and that better understanding of how the brain processes information may help us "market" our ideas in ways that will be better accepted by Joe Public. 

my brain hurts now.   Anyway, I loved the interview.  What I got from it is that, if dems want to be successful in spreading their message, they need to appeal to the emotions as well as to reason.