If, after the past eight years, the public still cares more about two guys marrying each other then they do their own needs, then I have to wonder if we, as a nation, deserve to continue at all. To paraphrase a certain wall-crawler, "with great power comes great responsibility". If we can't see the real problems that affect our lives, then how competitent are we as a people to run the worlds most powerful military? Do we deserve first-world status? I would like to think we still do but if the bulk of the voters care about sex more then they care about real problems that actually affect people's lives, how long can that remain the case?

The right wing trolls love to throw out the "less government" meme but the reality of the matter is that if they truly beleived in less government, the culture war wouldn't even exist. Sex wouldn't be a political issue at all and no one would care what Clinton did in office. It is a lie created to be used only when it benefits republicans. The problem is the public and media have fallen for the narrative as well. This is more then about Sarah Palin, this is about what the public considers important versus what actually is. Palin could have been replaced with any other conservative and the problem would still exist.

We need to talk straight to the public even if it means losing elections. No more pandeing. We keep compromising our principles and that doesn't seem to be getting us victories anyway. I sincerly doubt, given the militant religious climate in this country today, that Clinton could have won the presidency even if he were running today. That is how bad the "sex first" crowd has become at controlling the outcomes of elections. If we cannot wake the public up from this trivial nonsense and get htem to care about REAL problems, then we as a country don't deserve to survive. We cannot be allowed to spread our religous fanaticism around the world the way Al-Queda does.

So far as I can tell, this "elitist" image ranges from having no clear definition at all (my guess) to simply being about not hating gays and not owning a gun. So what qualifies someone as an "elitist"? Is there some kind of checklist we have to meet for this dubious distinction in their minds? What is the qualification? I haven't quite gotten through all of the posts yet but as near as I can see those who support this claim haven't been very clear about what it means. Other then claiming that we are acting smarter then they are. I'm not sure that simply seeing through Bush makes someone qualified to teach at Harvard.

Look, if this is a respect issue, maybe you could make it a lot easier for us. Stop caring about other people's sex lives so much. That would help a lot. So would at least questioning some of the things guys like Limbaugh say. Maybe there is a possibility that if you put toxic chemicals into the atmosphere something bad might happen. If you want us to give, you'll have to give a little too. If this is becuase you are somehow insulted by something you think we did, you could be a lot more specific about what it is. I'm not trying to be insulting but I really don't see where this is coming from. What is it that you think we did to you? Your "values" are incredibly vague and seem to revolve mostly around sex. I find that strange. Perhaps some of the conservatives on here could enlighten me.

As for Obama, he has bent over backward to reach out to christians talking about poverty and social justice and in five minutes McCain ruined that by picking Palin. I don't think it's fair to say "well, he needs to talk about what we can do for them" when that's exactly what he has been doing and they still went with her instead. There's only so much the man can do. If they decide making laws against gays is more important then a living wage, then Obama can't really be blamed for that.

Simply looking at it from a chuavanistic standpoint, more gay guys in the world would mean more women for you. In other words, it would be a boon. Yet this logic hasn't sunk in. Perhaps this is the way to get rid of homophobia, don't sell fair treatment of gays as an "equality" issue but as a "it's to your advantage" issue. It would be interesting to see this argument presented to these guys.

that their own voters not only have no problem with this, but in fact will defend it to the hilt and take everything they say at face value. All the while getting up on their self-constructed high horses and still lecture the rest of us about "morality". I know many who still believe Palin put her plane up for auction. I don't think these people are aware just how badly their blind support for Bush has hurt their credibility. I can't even hear someone call themsleves a christian anymore with out cringing.

On the good news front, I heard a recent poll puts Obama slightly ahead of McCain now that Palin's interview has exposed her as the empty suit she really is.