The reason that the three major candidates struggle to explain their positions is that they don't believe in their position. Plain and simple. They're lying. But what amazes me is that the GLBT community doesn't understand why they are lying. They're doing it for the greater good, including most specifically your greater good. They know that they cannot be elected as President taking any other stand. In their heart, they have no opposition to gay marriage at all. But in order to further the cause of gay rights, they know that they must be elected. How hard is that to understand!!

I hope that your view are representative of the mainstream of the LGBT community. If so, then we will do well in November. (And rest assured that I truly believe that the private views are more in line with that of party regulars.)

Those who dismiss Huckabee out of hand do so at their own peril. Yes, he does have the parole fiasco to deal with, but he may be the only likable candidate out of the entire Republican field. If the Democrat nominate one of the less electable candidates in their field, as some think they will, a nice good ol' boy may have more appeal than you think to swing voters.

And by the, re the notion of marginally electable candidates, there is an excellent article by the AP today on that very subject.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_scared_democrats_3

Of course the Republicans want Hillary to win the nomination. That's because they think (rightly, I fear) that they can beat her like a rented mule in November. This is news??!! Jesus, wake up and smell the coffee. The number one story that has been completely ignored by the progressive media in this election is Sen. Clinton's overwhelming negatives (which incidentally now stand at 48% and historically always go up in a general election).

Actually, the information on Bush's jury duty is correct. The media was planning on covering his service and Bush's office had even released information saying that he was going to be present. Some progressive groups in Texas had alerted the Defense lawyer in the DWI case of the wonderful opportunity that it would present if Bush showed up to question him under oath about any experiences he had with the police, etc. They guy was even set to question him about his experience in the Air National Guard as it might pertain to his attitude toward people in uniform, etc. There was a crowd assembled in the courtroom waiting for the event and Bush backed out at the last minute by inventing the story about the conflict of interest. Gossip in Austin widely credited Gonzales with sniffing out the plot, although many in the know think that someone in the know leaked the plan back to Gonzalez.

Two points.

First, nothing stinks quite so much as hypocrisy. Barney Frank is not a hypocrite. David Vitter, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Mark Foley apparently are.

Second, because Barney Frank is not a hypocrite, he can go home and engage in whatever sorts of sex acts he wants to with his partners behind closed doors. On the other hand, because of their hypocrisy, Livingston and Gingrich had to have affairs; Foley had to prey on teenage pages; Vitter had to (or chose to) nail a prostitute. It's the hypocrisy that forces the conduct underground (or into the restroom, if you will). If they could be open about it, they'd just get their jollies at home, like everybody else.

I wonder why the press even bothers to ask anymore. If I met George Bush and he said, "Good morning," I'd run home, put my pajamas on and go to bed because I'd figure it was night.

They usually lie, and when the tell the truth, it's probably accidental. The press are their enablers. It would be refreshing to see a major network or paper simply say "we sought no comment from the White House because based on past experience, we have found them wholly unworthy of belief."

Good Lord! A candidate distinguishing himself on actual issues from his competitors??!! Quelle horreur! What's next? Earnest discussions about problems that real people actually confront in their daily lives?

"If a married man, with children, who leads life as a complete "family values" heterosexual, is having gay encounters every so often in secret locations, what does that make him?

Does that make him "gay"? I mean, he obviously LIKES living as a heterosexual on several levels. Does it make him "bi"? What does it make him?"

It makes him a horny hypocrite. People will forgive the first, but not the second.

It just keeps getting better and better for the Democrats. I just can't wait.

Catty is the greater of the two sins, but it's even worse to be both. And you are.

I don't care for gossip, but I don't lack for topics for conversation. Ever. Maybe it's just that your life is devoid of ideas and significant meaningful event. Sorry sound harsh, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And by the way, this is the worst article I've ever read in Salon.

For the sake of the prospects of the Democratic Party in the 2008 elections, I certainly wish Senator Craig the best of luck in his legal fight. Any Democratic lawyers in Minnesota who could help get this conviction overturned and help Sen. Craig screw his courage to the sticking-place?

re your statement that "So, it's the lack of a guilty plea that makes all the difference, is it?"

That dog won't hunt. That's how they distinguished Craig's case from that of Sen. David Vitter, the self-confessed client of madame Deborah Palfrey. So maybe they just come out and say admit the truth that they're just homophobes and bigots. That might work. As they say, when all else fails, tell the truth.