True conservatism does have a long and noble philosophical basis dating back to Burke and his critique of the French Revolution. This "pure" conservatism is of use to progressives because of the essence of the philosophy - that human nature cannot be perfected and one should not attempt to do so from external (ie., governmental) forces. Rather, change comes from within - organic associations of like-minded people. Change was not devalued, but embraced only cautiously, with one eye on the past and one eye on the future.

Something got lost in the translation from the European origins of conservatism across the channel and the pond to the US - oh, and then there's the always handy Industrial Revolution and the laissez-faire free marketeering of the industrialists seeking political power. Old school conservatism, people forget, is adamantly opposed to libertarian economics. These were people who supported the monarchy, for christ's sake. They didn't take well to the nouveau-riche pioneers of industry. But in order for conservatives to gain political power, they had to align themselves with the libertarians, who hail from a vastly different side of the political spectrum. The result was a beastly chimera that placed power over philosophy always. This only became more pronounced throughout the 20th century as libertarian economic policy mated with a distortion of conservative appreciation for history to result in the Republican Party, a big lumbering drooling thing that doesn't blink an eye while it tells us that the government should be shrunk until it can be drowned in a bathtub while lashing out at two men who want to get married.

Libertarianism is the true adolescent philosophy, beloved by high school students who overidentify with Howard Roark. Conservatism in its original form was disdainful of grand schemes to rectify the government, either by shrinking it and hollering "No Taxes" at the masses, or by superimposing a regulatory utopia that breaks apart bonds that had been fostered throughout centuries.

It would be nice to see a truly conservative party in the US, one that pulls back on the reins and goes "Whoa, there," whether in reference to government spending on any program, or on attempts by an out-of-control executive to disregard the rule of law in service of fear-mongering. It would also be nice to have a truly liberal party, one that is not afraid of challenging the status-quo and throwing in a little revolutionary utopianism now and then. Even true libertarians should show up and argue for their free-market vision in the legislature. That's what true political debate is about, every party with a particular way of seeing the world and a particular goal to implement that vision. Having competing philosophies, rather than competing talking points, would result in a continual national dialogue about what we consider to be the "good life" and the best way to acheive it.

Unfortunately, as the Republicans abandoned all semblance of moral and intellectual integrity decades ago and the Democrats were forced to follow suit just to slow the national slouch towards Bethlehem, I doubt that a national dialogue will be in the works any time soon.

I'm a young woman who voted for Hillary because I liked that she knew how to play the game - politics is the art of the possible, as people tend to forget - and her past gives me reason to trust that she's a true-blue liberal underneath it all.

However, I decided to support Obama (donating money to his campaign) after he quoted Faulkner in his race speech. It is a leap of faith but it was amazing to see a politician not talk down at his audience but over their heads. He didn't take any easy shots. It was excellent.

This Hillary bashing that the apparently uber-pro-Clinton Traister talks about is a phenomenon that I've never seen, and I'm on the Young Dems board. If there's any bashing going on it's from Clinton supporters to Obama - Obama's an empty suit, he's pulling one over on everybody, he's smarmy, he's the Antichrist (Lynn Samuels spews that one on Air America every day). I have never heard an Obama supporter express anything near the level of Hillary-hatred that Traister appears to find endemic among the ever so representative circle of "people who have emailed her to express frustration over Hillary hatred".

I have heard two people say dumb things about Hillary. Both women. One was "I am voting for Hillary because she's a woman"... okay...the other was "I am not voting for Hillary because she didn't leave Bill." Fuckin' stupid, sure, but not representative of the majority, and certainly without the manufactured vitriol this article attempts to perpetuate.

No matter who wins the nomination anybody with two brain cells to rub together should be voting for the Democrat, so why waste all your time and energy working yourself into a lather hating somebody you might need to vote for in November?

I don't know what's worse, the epic turdheads that are putting this on the ballot not because they think it'll succeed - although, hey, Colorado crazy - but because they want to mobilize right-wing turnout in the face of overwhelming lameitude from John "Let's bomb Czechoslovakia" McCain, or the mo-rans that will vote for it, not having the slightest clue what it would actually mean, practically, to have laws giving a zygote the same status as you or I.