Of course Mr. Yespers overlooks the obvious: that voting occurs when kids are AWAY at college. And that is precisely why places like Iowa have the laws they do.

I would suggest a voting day in mid-summer, and everyone gets the day off as a national holiday.

Could this be another attempt to disenfranchise another group of voters? Particularly ones who stand to have a big impact in the upcoming election?

I watched this one as I was at home recuperating. Hillary again flip flopped on Iraq. I like what Dodd said about adversarial relations in reference to trade with China. That was spot on.

But I was most impressed by what Obama said as to his first year, particularly the part about reviewing the many egregious GWB Executive orders. It's about time.

What saddened me though was that this debate basically boiled down to who has money. There were only 6 candidates there, and I know at least two that weren't that are still in the race, and it was ostensibly because they didn't have Iowa based campaign offices.

American politics has boiled down to that, in the very first caucus: Do you have the money for a separate Iowa office and staff?

Wouldn't it have been grand if one of the moneyed candidates had offered the others space so they could be present? Despite all the rhetoric, the money is still talking.

First, the Gospels are hearsay. Simply put, that means they went from one mouth to another. Ever play the telephone game? The same problem exists in the Gospels. They are hearsay because a revelation can only be from a divine source to an individual. And Luke never claimed to have written his account, how many years later and affected by memory, on the basis of revelation. He just thought it would be a good thing to do.

So with that in mind, and then pouring over texts of textual criticism that point out contradictions, insertions, changes and deletions, we will have a foundation to work from to begin checking the facts that might be left as being worthy of spending that time on.

I would rather fact check the Constitution. Apparently the writers of it are more omnipotent than the "author" of the Bible, as the original of the Constitution still exists after all these years. There are no scientific inaccuracies of a supposedly omniscient source to deal with. Maybe some historical conundrums as to what was meant. All in all though, a much more solid foundation to work from, without all the apparent contradictions.

and perhaps those numbers would be different. Or any other African American. Really though, African American? Do we call them Irish Americans? Or Italian Americans, Or German Americans any more? Obama is an American, simply put.

Or how about the Irish/Scottish/English varieties like me? Should I be labeled as a British American? My wife is French, German, Scottish, and Dutch. What label do we put on her if she runs for office?

I don't think the issue here is African American or woman. It's Obama differing from Hillary. You think the numbers would be the same with Al Sharpton and Barbara Boxer? Not likely.

My point is that when asking these questions, most people are going to have in mind the current people running for office, that being Hillary and Barack. And Mr. Obama has proven himself a better character, running a better campaign, financed by a lot of Americans as opposed to corporate money.

That's what I think those numbers reflect.

I really respect how intelligent the Pinkers are, and activists like Joi who know the personalities and history that give meaning to their cause, unlike the jingos from Move America Forward.

I wonder if the full name is Move America Forward One Dead American Soldier At A Time?

It would seem to me that making it public was the wrong thing to do, and it also seems that if that is how far they have needed to go, I would have thought that maybe the Pinkers would have rethought their strategy for success. Their current course isn't working. Perhaps some utilization of intention and attraction might work better than confrontation.

for the former Senator who has his undies in a Frist. And it looks like this

"DUH!" moment of saying something in almost June will turn into the GOP

"DOH!" in a mere 5 months.

Another fear tactic for the very few left who buy the brand of Fristian/Bushie/Rovian/Chenyite neo-conservatism that has destroyed the Republican party, constitutional safeguards, foreign policy, and the American economy.

Yes, I think a better idea would be to pick someone who didn't state you were not qualified to be President, who lied about being shot at, and who really couldn't run a campaign without her own money to support the meager corporate money she got.

Her mockery and husband, on top of what I already demonstrated, are the reasons that my wife decided that she couldn't support Hillary. I wasn't leaning her way to begin with, and the campaign revealed just how far she would go for her own ego.

She's better left with John McCain, with whom she seemed to share more affinty with during the campaign than someone from her own political party.

In my mind, the reasons to pick her are equally filled by someone else, and weigh far less than the reasons to not pick her.