If you're going to limit yourself to women who exhibit the most male qualities, why not cut out the middle "man" and just nominate more male candidates in the first place? As someone who believes that possession of the trait of ruthless ambition that drives most candidates (male or female) is the exact reason that most such candidates should be disqualified from running, I'd welcome some cheerful, caring mothers into the field. Devoted fathers too.

Why not limit the debates to only candidates we here on Salon like?

Jeebuz Christ, I can't believe this point needs to be made here, of all places! Isn't this precisely the point of PRIMARIES?! To vet the candidates-- ALL the candidates and not just the ones we (or any other exclusive audience) finds acceptable?

It's called democracy folks. Maybe we've forgotten what it looks like after two terms under an annointed, secretive dauphin, but there it is. It's an old system, but I still retain enough faith in it to recognize that the people themselves will weed out the crazies and the marginal candidates. We don't need to abdicate that right to other self-annointed leaders or suffer them to believe they even HAVE such a right.

Let's be serious-- the modern political pool is a limited and exclusive one anyway. Does it really need further limitation?

More voices in the forum is a GOOD thing. It's kind of the basis upon which this country was founded. Limit access to diverse voices at your peril, for all too soon ONLY accepted candidates (and accepted by whom? Don't fool yourself into believing that Joe Sixpack or John Q. Public will be the ones doing the choosing) will be allowed a voice. And thus dies our Republic.

Why someone whose idea of discourse is personal attack might actually see merit in limiting the pool of candidates...

When you hit puberty, come and talk with the adults, but for now I think it's past your bedtime. You're getting cranky.

Hilary's up in the polls again. I must confess to be confounded by this result. Just another case of nobody ever going broke underestimating the American public, I suppose.

did Andy Rooney start writing a column for Salon?

What's next? Exploring the fascinating contents of one's wallet or complaining about all the colors used on labels these days?

For example:

As a Jew, I voted for Hitler because I didn't want him to think he was just the chancellor of the Nazis.

Oh. Well, when you put it that way, it makes SO MUCH more sense!

Heretofore, I had thought that the leaders of the Democratic congressional majority were the most spineless creatures on the planet.

I shall have to revise my legislative taxonomy.

The Democratic Party of the 21st Century has lived up to my expectations: Wherever the prospect of controversy or (shudder) conflict rears it's head, talk tough and then knuckle under.

Let's just change our name from Democratic to Amoeba-- spineless, brainless blobs of protoplasm of no use to anyone.

Lord above, do these fools WANT to remain the second-fiddle party forever?

Great. Then let's just annoint the already (apparently) preordained candidate, in this case St. Hillary, who will then serve to demonstrate in true 21st Century Democratic Party fashion-- yet again-- that prowess in the primary polls is no proof of any ability in the general election.

The problem is, an awful lot of folks out there in the real world just plain don't like her. And some-- this author included, truth to tell-- have serious doubts about electing someone so completely unapologetic about her role in creating the current debacle in Iraq, so obviously afraid to appear effeminate and unmanly by ruling out nuking erstwhile allied countries to further this madness called the war on terror and so brazenly anti-progressive as to actually defend and justify accepting special interest monies. Bush Lite is an incredibly apt description for such shenanigans.

So, of course the Right is going to frame such an election around Hillary, a woman already disliked by many and distrusted by more. What else are they gonna run on? Their record?

So, let me get this straight...

A simple candidate for one party's nomination and their mere THOUGHTS are so trenchant, cogent and very, very meaningful that they shouldn't be SPOKEN lest the word of the omniscient one effects us weaker mortals and becomes the deed?

Jeez, how many ways can you spell hubris? Now I've got two-- Bush the dauphin and Hillary.

If the Dems want to follow this jerk's advice, can we just save a lot of time and money and concede the presidential race to the Right?

This guy's the anti-Karl Rove-- a winless, ineffectual, bungling moron. Combine his incompetence with Hillary's inherent ability to polarize and you've got the Titanic aimed right at the iceberg.

Full speed ahead to (yet another) electoral disaster!

Whoopee! Start planning that inauguration ball now!

Wait... what's the margin of error on this poll? And what percentage of the country have a negative image of Giuliani or Thompson? Perhaps more importantly, what percentage of all these negative imagers will actually come out to vote?

Hmm. Better put the ball gowns back in mothballs for awhile.

If Hillary could find it within herself to admit she for once made a wrong decision and apologizes for her role in enabling this godawful, bootless misadventure in Iraq. Oh, and likewise admit that maybe, just maybe, swilling from the lobbyist monies trough isn't necessarily a GOOD thing. I'm really already quite fed up with a "leader" who can't admit he was wrong and sees nothing harmful in kaotaoing to well-monied special interests. I don't know if our republic can survive any more such "leadership."

Even then, a negative opinion rating in the 40th percentile range has got to give one pause.

Am I misled by conservative propaganda? More like unwilling to turn a blind eye to the very real flaws that could cost our party yet one more general election.