"I have taught my daughter to wait until she's married to have sex. I am pretty fortunate that she has done so, and I am sure she has up to this point because she's never alone at home"

Not every 16 year-old is having sex--16 is just the average. But the notion that one has ensured one's daughter's celibacy on the basis of her not being at home alone is ridiculous.

Teens sneak and have sex while their siblings are in the house and while their parents are in the house. They do it in cars, at friends' houses, in bathrooms, in school hallways and on sports fields. And teens don't exactly need a lot of time to do the deed.

The NIE story was page one, above-the-fold news. If you happened to be in the vicinity of a newspaper, it'd be impossible to miss it, even from the corner of your eye. You'd probably absorb it through osmosis.

Huckabee's a boob. But so was George W. Bush, and he was elected (sort of) twice. So I'm not about to count Huckabee out.

He appeals to people who seek affability and authenticity first and foremost in a president. He appeals to religious conservatives, who are feeling very angry and neglected. And his support of big-government social programs allows the socially conservative poor to vote for a Republican without voting against their own economic interests.

Republicans are unhappy with their slate. Huckabee could bring social conservatives to the polls. And what if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination? Huckabee's social conservative appeal plus right-wing hatred of Hillary could drive enough Republicans to the polls to make this election a squeaker. Especially if Democrats sit this election out convinced that a Democrat is destined to win anyway.

Clinton, of course, could tear Huckabee apart in a debate. But could she do it without being portrayed as a mean-spirited b*tch, thus galvanizing the right? Obama might be a better candidate against Huckabee.

Beware Huckabee the boob.

Of course Nader said he couldn't see any meaningful difference between Bush and Gore right before the 2000 elections. He was running against both of them.

And Nader wasn't entirely wrong (although he was mostly wrong) about Al Gore in 2000. The Al Gore who ran for president in 2000 is not the rockstar Al Gore of today. The Al Gore of 2000 seemed to have the life, spirit and passion focus-grouped out of him. And as against George W. Bush many of us were in 2000, few of us thought he'd turn into a despot-in-training who'd start a pre-emptive WWIII in the Middle East.

The country, if not the world, would have been better off with a Gore presidency. But being out of politics allowed Gore to flourish and be himself in a way politics never allowed.

Although the Edwards Campaign isn't touting Nader's support, it does matter among small groups: 1) angry Democrats who appreciate Ron Paul's respect for the Constitution and 2) populists dissatisfied with corporate America. These are the types of people who liked Nader and are looking for a presidentially-viable version of Nader this time around.

Edwards is Nader with an actual chance at winning the presidency. Don't discount the power of angry populism. It's how Edwards is running and it's how Nader made a name for himself in consumer advocacy. Something for which we still owe him a debt of gratitude. Even if we're still mad about 2000.

It's that he wants to shrink the federal government enough to drown it.

Abolish the IRS, the Dept. of Education and basically reduce federal spending to a non-interventionist military only. He's an extreme Libertarian, and, being an extreme, is out of touch with about 95% or more of the country.

He has no chance of being elected or being a vice-presidential candidate. He's doing a bit better than Rudy in Iowa but is inconsequential nationally. He does, however, bring a needed outlook to the debates.

Ron Paul was right about the war. He's right about the Constitution. But these fine qualities alone don't make him right for the presidency.

I'm chuckling over "perverse impact" as well. Those two words probably sum up the entire Bush presidency.

Meanwhile, when people talk about an energy crisis, why are the only solutions mentioned "more drilling" and "new energy sources?"

I mean, when the typical family is in a money pinch, the first move is to cut spending not get a second job.

Want to ease the energy crisis? Improve appliance energy usage and home insulation. Reduce sprawl and improve mass transit so people can drive less. Make more fuel-efficient vehicles. With fees, penalize people who make enough money to be fuel efficient but choose not to be (I'd exempt poorer families who have to drive whatever clunker they can find). You don't need to completely sacrifice safety for fuel efficiency. A sturdy sedan with seatbelts and airbags will do just fine.

The energy crisis can't be solved by simply finding more energy. We've got to consume less.