Anyone else notice how many of the Ron Paul letters begin with phrases like "I've always voted Democratic, but now I'm..." or "I'm really liberal but I'm supporting..."

This is a pretty obvious type of "sympathetic" trolling, and I suspect that if you went on conservative message boards you'd find the same Ron Paulites posting about how they voted for Bush (or McCain or whoever) in 2000, but now love RP.

Also, to the people who claim to support both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, you either have no idea what either of them stands for, or you have no idea what you stand for and just want to vote for a rebellious "outsider" candidate. Saying you like Paul and Kucinich because they both like the constitution is like saying you really agree with both Ann Coulter and Michael Moore because they've both written books.

"The reality is that government is a mafia, it only adds burdens and does not solve or do anything of value."

Really? Not *anything*? Can I assume that if your house catches fire you won't be calling the fire department, then? Perhaps you could pay your neighbors to start a bucket brigade?

Tracy wrote that:

"All I've said here is that I'm uncomfortable with discussing the hijab in black and white terms. I have no interest in defining for a woman who freely chooses to wear the hijab what the practice means to her."

But almost everyone who wears the hijab because they feel strong social pressures to do so, from their family, their religion, or even just the general community around them. Broadsheet writers routinely rail against similar social pressures "forcing" Western women to give up their jobs to be mothers, to constantly worry about their appearance, etc.

I'm inclined to say that social coercion is not the same thing as force, but it's not exactly a free choice either. My point is that Broadsheet seems to have a very different standard of what constitutes a "free choice" in the West vs. in Muslim societies.

I don't understand how people can consistently claim that Hillary is the best choice to go up against Republicans. They HATE her, she will mobilize them like nobody else.

In polls of one-on-one matchups, Hillary loses to all the major Republican candidates, whereas Obama and Edwards either win, or at worst, tie.

It's time to put the myth of Electable Hillary to bed.

http://catidogi.blogster.com/hillary_loses_top_tier_republican.html

"Hmm, all the conservatives seem to like Obama pretty well, we better vote Hillary!"

"Why? We know they hate Hillary. It'll make it harder for her to win. Maybe they're sincere, and some of them might even cross over for Obama."

"Nope, nope, they're conservatives. They must be up to something. We have to always do the opposite of what they say, even when they warn us not to shoot ourselves in the foot."

then start voting like it. It's ridiculous that Clinton acting more warm and human (whether you count her "crying" as part of that or not) somehow wins her the New Hampshire primary. She's still the same divisive, partisan politician, with the same policy positions.

If you don't want to be pandered to, stop voting for politicians who pander to you.

Obama has already been on Meet the Press at least twice. Russert was tough on him. Glad you could join us, we're having an election you see...

as though they were somehow Hillary's. Get over it people, you can't vote for another Bill Clinton term. Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't claim to be running for change, but then base her whole candidacy on the Clinton years in the 1990s.

Obama was absolutely right when he said this was about the past vs. the future. This election is about whether we're going to continue to let baby boomer squabbles and fuzzy warm memories of the 90s dictate the dimensions of the Democratic party, or whether we're going to grow the party to establish a new liberal mainstream.

"Chris Matthews was totally making fun of Hillary during her speech in Florida, just belittling her and her win. "

She deserves to be mocked for trying to pretend Florida is in any way a legitimate win. It's a bald-faced and shameless political ploy. Maybe Obama should hold an election in Kenya and then pretend like that was a big win for him.

Read this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902998.html?hpid=topnews

You correctly point out all the problems with Clinton: her support for the Iraq war, flag burning ammendments, etc. and correctly identify Obama's greater electablity against McCain.

The only thing holding you back is your feminist guilt, feeling that you're OBLIGATED to support Clinton because she is a woman.

Stop that. If feminism means anything at all, it means the right of women to make their own choices and stand on their own two feet. Clinton is the inferior candidate, for the reasons you've already noted, and deserves to be judged by the same standard you would judge a male candidate with her same credentials and history.

If it makes you feel better, lie about your vote. Tell your daughters you voted for Clinton. We can afford to hold out for a better First Woman President than Hillary Clinton.

Is that in the ILLINOIS Senate (Not the US Senate, which has different rules) voting "Present" has exactly the same effect as voting "no". You need a certain number of "Yes" votes to get a bill passed, so either a "No" or a "Present" vote counts against you.

The bottom line is that Obama supports abortion rights, and it's extremely dishonest for the Clinton campaign to try to claim otherwise.