I've not read any of the comments yet (except yours) but just wanted to say I hope you don't cut back on commenting, if that's what you're suggesting. My two cents, for whatever they're worth, is that it's extremely positive for you to remain engaged with your readers, to the best of your ability. Not endless mixing it up or anything like that, but in general, it's good for the morale of your readership and helps facilitate the reasoned discourse so abysmally lacking in so many political forums. (Almost wrote "fora" there restrained myself lest you think me elitist :)

Yeah, well he's obviously a hoser.

(Did I use it right?)

Also, for the angriest man in Canada, he sure looks happy enough.

Is that all you got? ;)

Yeah?--Name one.

(I'm calling your bluff. See?--you're so enlightened you even decline the laurel in all humility. If you were an American, you'd say, "Damn straight! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!)

I know what's going on--you just got a call from your Canadian Socialist Big Brother who told you to retract before your utopia is overrun with Americans and their SUVs.

I'm on to you.

Ha ha ha hah ah aha!!!

Truly, Shangri-la.

The spouse and I were just talking the other day about escape routes and of course Canada was one of the first places to come up, but sadly, I understand they're not too keen on foreigners coming in to take their jobs.

So we were puzzling out what to do when it occurred to me: Hey, they're friendly up there, and liberal, eager to lend a helping hand, so how 'bout if we applied for refugee status?

We're nice, we won't get in the way. I've been to Vancouver and Montreal, and they're nice places!

You'll put in a good word for us, right?

(Except--brrrrr. But maybe I can suck it up for Enlightened leadership and McDonald's. (Kidding on the McDonald's--I'm an elitist so I don't eat fast food, you know.)

"He has nothing to offer the country except fear from the 2004 playbook which is already being trotted out."

That and the fact that he's an old white just folks kind of guy who's not too effeminate to drop bombs where bombs need droppin'. We'll see what that counts for, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't count for quite a bit.

No fair, how come Canada gets enlightened leadership and all we get is McDonald's?

I'm ambivalent.

You write: "So there's a very good reason why Clinton and Obama are reluctant to pump their fists in the air in light of the recent news. Don't expect them to go "Wooo hoooo! Go gay nuptials! Yeah!" Concerns over whether gays can or can't get married don't exactly a national crisis. It's important in the long run, but in terms of this election it shouldn't even be on a top-15 list of key issues."

Now, as a hardcore and unapologetic idealist (I campaigned hard for Nader in Iowa in 2000), Obama gets a demerit from me for not shouting, "Wooohooo! Go gay nuptials!"

The principle, of course, that either we are all free or none of us is. I don't like horse-trading over what to me are non-negotiable civil rights and other issues.

I'd hate to think that the only way "we" can win is by selling out this group.

Now, of course, I'm not just an idealist, I also have a pragmatic, realist side, and that side of me says that yes, the war and especially climate change (far and away the most urgent issue, period, because without a hospitable climate, there's no civilization) should trump gay marriage.

But then, that's easy for me to say, I'm not gay. I have to have solidarity with any minority group who's counted on for votes and yet is always the first to be ignored because other things are always more pressing.

So in the scheme of things, though gay rights and civil rights and the economy and everything else falls far short of climate change on that list of 15 priorities, when you put it with the other things, as a matter of principle I can't in good conscience expect the gay community to just "be patient." That said, if the people directly interested in this issue can find it within themselves to be patient given the stakes, that would be great.

I guess I'm just saying that it's delicate and I don't feel comfortable scolding (I know you're not doing this, exactly) the gay community or their advocates for factoring out the other issues if that's where they are.

And I don't feel comfortable with Obama not trumpeting their civil rights victory as our civil rights victory, though I understand it and can give him a pass on this.

As I said earlier, it is really interesting to me that this is the issue where Joan avows "if it hurts the Democrats in the fall, so be it."

I'd love to know more about why she draws the line there but not on, say, Wright or elitism or the War resolution, among others.

Part of me feels that the right wingers really are constituted differently from liberal pansies like myself who really want to sit down and discuss things like adults. Them, they only understand and respect conflict and fighting like a man, which is why I think Kerry should have just eviscerated Bush, holding nothing back.

Then he might have earned their respect. Same with gay marriage; I think an unapologetic, "Yeah, I support gay marriage, kiss my ass!" might actually advance the cause, at least in the long run.

Ok, enough from me, I fear I'm rambling.

Thank you so much for the kind words. Wow.

And Jeffrey, yes, so well said, "true idealism and ruthless competence." Great phrase.