I write this as a person whose first choice is Edwards, but who increasingly sees Clinton as second choice because I am sickened by the onslaught of sexism against her and now think that finally electing a female President is more important than electing a white President. To paraphrase the Joker in Batman, "This country needs an enema."

That said, you wrote that the more educated/upscale voters support Obama, while the less educated/poorer votes went for Clinton. Data supports that observation. However, you then wrote that the "real" America is not ready to vote for a woman for President. But doesn't the conventional wisdom hold that the "real" America are the less educated and less prosperous, as opposed to the pointy headed liberal elites and fat, corporate bastard conservative elites? I.e., Main Street, the Ivy Tower or Wall Street. If the CW is correct, then the Main Street voters do in fact support a woman for President.

I'm the first person to heap scorn on a nation that voted twice for scumbags like Reagan and W., but you can only kick a dog so much before he finally turns around and bites you. Maybe what we're seeing now is a dog so sick and tired of being abused by rich white sexist males that it in fact is eager to take the side of women.

That should have read,

"and now think that finally electing a female President is more important than electing a black President."

It's not just the anti-Castro Cubans. Heading the FBI's most very, very bad people list are environmental and animal rights activists, even though neither group has ever killed anyone in the U.S. On the other hand, anti-abortion activists have shot, blown up, and burned people to death, and neo-nazi/white supremacists have murdered people while robbing banks, killed people out of nothing but hatred, and were responsible for that bit of unpleasantness in Oklahoma City.

So of course, the enviros and animal rights folks are considered much more dangerous by the fascists who currently run our government.

Whichever Democrat wins in 2008 has to restore sanity to Washington, D.C.

In an editorial in today's New York Times, liberal economist Paul Krugman writes -- as he has for some months now -- that Obama is actually more conservative than Clinton when it comes to health care, Social Security, and taxation.

This is why Clinton is my second choice after Edwards. We need to move the country as far to the left as possible, since right now the needle is stuck in the red zone of right, deep into fascism land. (Sorry Jonah, but you're an idiot). We don't need Obama's kumbaya centralism. We need Edward's fiery populism or, barring that, Clinton's more liberal stands.

Shame that the first viable black candidate is less progressive than the country needs, but that's the way it is.

Edwards 2008!

That goes for all the throwbacks in the Islamic countries, as well as the eunuchs in the Vatican, and all the dweebs in fundamentalists synagogues, mosques, churches, wats, temples, and flying spaghetti monster colanders.

Last week I watched a Repug debate, which I'd been ignoring since I have no intention of voting for those things. At one point Ron Paul was asked about the supposed Iranian speedboat attack on our navy, and he responded that, 1) the speedboats were never a match for our navy, and 2) the alleged threatening messages from them were under suspicion as having come from another place at another time, i.e., tricks by persons unknown to gin up anti-Iranian sentiment.

At which point Romney responded that Paul was reading too many of Ahmadinejad's press releases. Paul looked disgusted with Romney, and for good reason. The subject was serious -- matters of war and peace and all that that entails -- and here's Romney, a candidate for freakin' President of the United States of America, cracking wise like he's a 14 year-old hanging out with his buds in his parents' basement.

For that and so many other reasons, I say, GO ROMNEY! He is the worst nominee the Repugs could put forward against the Democrats, so here's hoping that he and his fortune buy him the Repug nomination.

After that, we can all watch as Willard meets his untimely demise at the hands (thanks Freak Republic) of the DemocRATS. And what a fine meal he'll make...

I really do not like Tim Russert. Despite his serious-turtle demeanor, his questions seemed designed as "gotchas." Instead of asking broad policy questions for all three candidates, he would harken back to comments or actions they made as individuals, and then try to use those comments or actions in an effort to trip them up. How does that tactic serve the broader goal of informing the public as to the policy differences and approaches of the candidates? It doesn't. It's just an attempt for Russert to, he thinks, show us all what a smart guy he is.

Russert, you're just a fat turtle man. Go away.

That's a common misperception. Google it and you'll see.

EDWARDS 2008!

If anyone should be banned from debates, it's Tim Russert. His questions were pointlessly narrow and seemed designed more to embarrass the candidates (and thereby elevate Russert) than to inform the public on where these three contenders stand on the truly important matters of the day.

I listened to Dennis Kucinich this morning on Pacifica radio. He was, in effect, given a chance to participate in the debate by responding to last night. His answers were, as often, refreshingly candid and contrary to the pro-militaristic, pro-big business mindset the characterizes Clinton & Obama and to a lesser extent, even Edwards. Kucinich reminded his listeners that MSNBC is owned by GE, a defense contractor/war profiteer, and that they have a vested interest in marginalizing him and other anti-war candidates.

By the way, am I the only one who sees a resemblance between Obama and Spock?