Anonymous wrote: "Grandpa McCain still getting it on? Good for him! Not so good it's a lobbyist, though."

Actually, its quite apropos; the lobbyists have been screwing the public interest for years, so, its nice to see the favor returned.

You go, Mccain...

Based on your "defense" of Baracka Obama's alleged plagiarism, your Mom wants to remind you what she told you when you were a little tyke: "If Jimmy stole, would you do it and find it acceptible just because he did"? The answer, Mr. Doolittle, as I'm sure your Mom opined, is "no".

Please stop trying to justify intellectual dishonesty.

Barack...not "Baracka"

When I consider which candidate to support, I want him or her to be inspiring, ready to work up a good sweat as President and not just swimming furiously IN a tide of self-made sweat.

I just am not inspired by Barack Obama. OK...he's a nice guy, loves his family and country and speaks in lofty rhetoric. My problem is one of perception, based on nearly thirty years of listening to Presidential candidates of BOTH parties. With Brack, as with most of the Republicans, there's simply no "there" there; his speeches are mostly empty...imho...and sound like cotton-candy for the ears.

To repeat the late Clara Peller, from the old TV commercial: "Where's The Beef"? Indeed, Barack; it sounds more like verbal balogna than beef.

Just my opinion...

You wrote: "Hillary Clinton did best..."

Sorry, sweetie; when comparing TWO, the term is "better". "Best" is used when there are three or more. I only saw two candidates on-stage last night. (Unless you count the ghost of John Edwards being there rhetorically.)

Seems to me that the ultimate reasons to get married are having a say over life-and-death issues of one's partner, inheritance, joint-custody of children and tax issues that favor straight couples.

I wouldn't worry about the term "married" as long as my partner and I would have the same bennies as straight couples. After all, what good is the WORD "married" if the benefits that flow from that word aren't offered to all who ARE married...gay and straight...equally?

Forget fighting over the word "married"; give people the benefits equally, instead.

B.T.D.T.=Been there, done that, Berkeley...many, MANY times! The well begins to go dry, bud, with the "George-W-Bush-continues-to-reject-reality-viz-a-viz-the-Iraq-debacle" thingy.

Just how many ways can Opus, et al, make the case that Dubya is a blithering idiot? Haven't we seen, sans "Bloom County", that very fact on overt display over the last seven-plus years?

I'd rather see more of the contents of Opus' closet; much funnier material there.

I object to being pigeon-holed as a closet gynophobe simply because I possess external genitalia, enjoy a brew here and there, watch NASCAR races and enjoy action/adventure movies.

I don't drag my knuckles across the floor, I don't mouth-breathe, I don't look at a woman's breasts before I look at her face and I SURELY don't intend to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama simply because they might make a creepily-nice "buddy-movie" pair.

A buddy-movie with Obama and McCain? "Men In Black" might become "Old Man & A Black", "Thunderbolt & Lightfoot" might become "Obamabolt & Whitefoot" and "Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid" might become "Butch McCainidy & The Moonbeam Kid".

Sorry to burst your bubble, Edward, but, we men are not all Neanderthals. Many/most of us tend to vote for the best candidate in the privacy of a voting booth...gender be damned! I, for instance, am supporting Hillary Clinton with my money, my time and my vote...and, I'm a guy; go figger, as they say. Trying to posit that all men vote a certain way because of gender is simplistic and wrong.

As my psychology professor in freshman year PSYCH-101 preached: "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles." I might add about your theory, in the vernacular, that "that dog won't hunt".

How might white Evangelicals be turned into Democrats? The answer is simple, Mr. Rossmeier: just insert a brain into the empty space between their ears.

Roman Catholic priests, who are unmarried, regularly dispense marriage counseling as part of their duties; that would seem to dovetail with your particular charade.

Plus, the fact that many Roman Catholic priests actually prefer men over women makes the entire scenario of unmarried people dispensing marriage-counseling a complete farce.

Next you'll be telling us that a man with a thin resume, a lack of experience, minimal sophistication and possessing a questionable level of intelligence can run for and win the Presidency!

Oh, wait; never mind...

Whether or not someone e-mailed around a silly photo of Barack Obama in so-called "Muslim attire" seems to me to be mostly immaterial. Poor Rudy Giuliani was photographed wearing Marilyn Monroe drag; those photos are ubiquitous on-line. I don't recall much being made of Rudy's sartorial choices.

If the photo is genuine...and, I haven't heard the Obama camp deny the photo's authenticity...then, so what? If the photo was "photo-shopped", then that's an entirely different matter. My advice to the Obamaistas: drop it. The more you call attention to it, the more people will wonder what the big deal is.

And, even IF this is simply a case of political "dirty tricks", as my dad used to say about the Republicans, "where there's smoke, there's usually a smoke-making machine." The perps will be found out...sooner or later.

Bottom line? This is politics; how you deal with it shows how you'd deal with other adversity that would come your way as President. Do I want a President who whines, is petulant and paranoid? We have one of those right now, thank you; I don't want another.