It is, after all, possible for both genders to have equal importance, and merit and yet continue to support the very real right of a women to control her body. To empower one does not necessarily mean we must marginalize the other.

Well said.

so why not ...motivate communities to stand up for things like better access to contraceptives for poor women, better sex education, and more job training?

Other groups can do that. There is more than one way to attack a problem, and why not attack a problem from multiple angles?

If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent child, saving the lives of black children is a paramount civil rights issue. Perhaps black people would be a larger share of the U.S. population if institutional racism didn't keep them poor and unable to carry their children to term. Institutional racism wants to depress black political and financial numbers and power.

--

Of course, all of these arguments are based on the notion that a fetus in the womb is equal to a thinking, feeling person outside of the womb. A notion that has no scientific or historical basis and with which I patently disagree.

Also note that the top three Republicans are:

• John McCain, an outsider in his own party over immigration and his "maverick" tendencies.
• Mitt Romney, former governor of liberal Massachusetts who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in his Senate run and is considered a recent and questionable convert to pro-gun and pro-life issues.
• Mike Huckabee, a social conservative, yes, but he favors big government social welfare.

Even the top three Republicans are out of sync with the current Republican leadership!

The weird thing about Edwards is that he is both progressive and establishment.

Edwards is campaigning on a populist, "let's get corporations out of politics" message. But he's also the "safe-bet" Southern white male. People who support Edwards the populist will likely vote for Obama. People who support Edwards the establishment man will likely vote for Clinton.

So I'm not convinced where the majority of Edwards supporters would go if he bows out. And does it make a difference if he bows out early or late?

Aside: I am truly psyched over Hillary Clinton's win. I haven't made up my mind yet about who I'm supporting, but Hillary Clinton's N.H. win was historic. And the punditocracy was writing her political obituary after one vote in the Iowa Caucus! Heck, why even bother with the primaries and even the general election?

Suck it, pundits!

It also has interesting implications for the importance of the Iraq war as an decisive issue in at least Independents' voting decisions.

Or, N.H. Independents are hedging their bets and picking the least offensive Republican should a Republican win the general election. That and Granite-staters still have a special place in their hearts for John "Maverick" McCain.

Obama's not just a black man. He's a charismatic, inexperienced consensus-builder.

Clinton's not just a woman. She's a tested, establishment candidate with high negatives.

Edwards' not just a Southern white male. He's an anti-corporate populist.

The Democratic front-runners don't fit conveniently into pollster categories. Heavens to Betsy, they're unique individuals with pluses and minuses!

The pundits are flying blind in this election like never before. This won't deter them from talking out of their arses, though.

they forgot that their job is to report the actual news. Not predict the news and certainly not be the news.

I'm just waiting for Giuliani to start saying that, as mayor, he handled 9/11 with the strength and courage of Ronald Reagan. Synergy!

Re: new debate rules--You'd think this was already the job of debate moderators. Come to think of it, what do the moderators accomplish?

But what are his proposals on health care reform? They're non-existent.

Does it matter to you that John McCain believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned?

That he wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent?

That he's against assault weapon bans and bans against armor-piercing ammunition?

Texas PI Lawyer is absolutely right. And 2000 or 2004 might have been a good time for a McCain presidency. But right now, especially after McCain's noxious pandering to the "Christian" Right, McCain would be dangerous indeed.

"Disapproval From The People...Is leadership."

It's true! If everyone tells you you're wrong yet you plow through anyway, you must actually be right! After all, why else would you do it?

Sadly, that is the logic in BushWorld.

Hey, Huck, how about rendering unto Caesar?

-

And which god's standards? Which religious sect's interpretation of god's standards? Which holy book translation of which religious sect's interpretation of god's standards?

You know what, why do we even need a Constitution at all? Can't we just use Huckabee's personal bible?

Let me just say that Huckabee's comments scare the crap out of me--actually causing teary-eyed shaking. What the eff-ity eff?

I wasn't aware that God gave a rat's ass about our Constitution. Or any nation's constitution, for that matter.

I know, I know. BJU. I keep thinking "really bad porn."

Now, just wait for it...

The Iraq War is also known as "the war of the wrong consonant." We should have had our eyes on Iran, not Iraq. Iran had a nuclear weapons program when we went into Iraq. It just halted it nine months later.

So if Iran was a greater threat than Iraq in early 2003, and Iran became "not much of a threat" in late 2003, what sort of threat did that make Iraq? The Transitive Property of Oops says, "we should stay our ignorant asses out of the Middle East."*

*Unless U.S. leaders become more knowledgeable asses.