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).

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

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.)

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!!

Re: Ron Paul and Kucinich

People who would rather be right than be President always get their wish. Just ask President Goldwater and President McGovern.

Personally, I'll take someone who can win.

Heaven forfend that anyone would actually be angry that a usurper (at least in 2000) would ascend to the highest office in the land, run the country into a ditch, and trod upon the Constitution. My God, what will be next? Actually standing up for the principles that this country was founded on? Seeking justice for the common man? Or, heaven forbid, someone uttering the notion that we're a nation of law, not men? That everyone is equal in the eyes of the law? That those who are entrusted with great power also are burdened with great responsibility?

Give me a break. It's about time somebody got angry. And, for the record, Edwards anger is not like Dean's. It's an anger animated by genuine outrage at what has happened. I find it appealing, and I think that, at least in it's present form, many others will find it appealing, too. Indeed, the more pertinent question, to me, is why aren't the other candiates angry?

M. Jimison very articulately lays out the case as to why John Edwards is, by far, the strongest Democratic candidate in 2008. If we nominate Hillary or Barak Obama, we are forced to pursue the same "bet the ranch" electoral strategy that has failed in the last two elections -- we must win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and a handful of other competitive states while ceding entire swaths of the country to the Republicans.

John Edwards, on the other hand, can be competitive in many more States, a good number of which Mr. (or Ms.) Jimison very perceptively identified.

But more than anything else, Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire want to win th is election. Eight years of Bush has taken a monumental toll on our country. this is a time like no other. And indeed, in 2004, the Iowa caucus goers focused in the last weeks on the issue of electability. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that John Kerry was the strongest Democrat on issues of defense and national security. So they picked him -- because they thought he could win.

Once that same analysis comes to the fore in this election, John Edwards will pick up a great deal of support because he is so preeminently the most electable candidate. I think that there is at least a 50% chance that he will win Iowa and at least a 70% chance that if he wins Iowa, he will win the nomination.

Television?? I can't believe that anyone actually watches television, other than the occasional live sporting event or Presidential debate. I haven't seen anything but junk on television in the past fifteen years that didn't personally involve Bill Moyers.

Yes, it was a somewhat silly question. However, I think the fact that Obama was afraid to answer it without the benefit of a focus group was telling. Frankly, he'd have been better off to have answered either way that to have pontificated, waffled, and and not answered.

1. An awfully light weight interview. Where were the tough follow up questions? Several have been suggested already, but many more are fairly obvious. What's the problem? Afraid to ask a tough question for fear that you won't get another interview later?

2. That being said, Lieberman's time will come. In January of 2009, when the Democrats have picked up some Senate seats, we can start treating this quisling like he deserves to be treated. And if Harry Reid and the other Democratic senators don't have the balls to do it, shame on them. Holy Joe will retreat into his corner, hold his breath until he turns blue, and then change parties. But he'll then just be one of the members of the minority party whose time will be up when he has to face the electorate again.