"Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone"

We love our morals! We have our morals in our bones! Our morals rock! We have rock hard moral boners. Though we are mere sinners, our moral boners are a force for good. Our moral boners are the swords of our justice.

Our moral boners have omniscient eyes

Our moral boners swing side to side

Destroying everything in our path

Piss us off, feel our wrath

When our moral boner speaks, words of sweet cream and honey flow forth. Who amongst you would not fall prostrate before our moral boner? Who amongst you would not partake of the blessings of the boner, and drink in those words of the boner, and speak as if boner were in thine own mouth?

Okay…Group exercise.

Our moral boners are so big…How big are they? they're so big…

…That we need huge missiles to carry them around the world.

…That they have their own mercenary army

…

I went to HS in the early eighties THere was no special "Civics" class. Whatever review of our government there was was cursory, and incorporated into history class. Honestly, I don't know if we ever even read the constitution.

Mostly, it was about how we have three branches, and there are "Checks and balances", although I don't believe we really learned a lot about what those checks and balances actually are. I think I learned more from Schoolhouse Rock (..."I'm just a Bill...")

In college, I picked up a secondhand copy of those government issued, red-covered booklets that has both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution.

Maybe that should be standard issue, at birth.

We should stay neutral and let Israel take out palestine. Problem solved.

Dean, in the article, used the word "Even-handed", not "neutral".

It's a little like the difference between a "Simple" solution and a "Simple-minded" solution.

See the diffence?

Didn't think so.

That a sign reading "McCain=Bus" is automatically interpreted as anti-McCain.

A general question: By what criteria, and under what circumstances, are people allowed to be "culled" in this fashion?

Certainly at private events, they can do what they want. But a public Town Hall meeting? Hmmm.

Do the availablity of seats, or indoor vs. outdoor, the owner of the venue, the sponsors of the event...Do any of these things come into play?

I'm thinking there must be some blanket CYA phrase somewhere that allows them to pull out anyone the want.

Anyone, any thoughts?

Would it make a difference if a candidate accepted public financing?

He'd still be able to talk out his ass.

Your letters, and ensuing back and forth with other commenters, have been remakably civil, and clearly express your opinions. But I think there is an undercurrent of wrongness to them, clearly expressed in your last two letters:

"If the kid wants to grow up and be gay - that's fine."

Kids don't "Want to grow up and be gay". Whether you believe the science behind this or not, most people understand that being gay is not a choice, any more that being, say, black.

"I just don't want it promoted as the same thing as heterosexual marriage. Because it isn't. It's something very different. It is an alternative lifestyle."

Time was, that blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying. It was viewed as as abhorrent as some view gays marrying now.

"It is a state's business to be concerned about the 'health' of the state. Strong families make for strong communities which make for a strong society - which I imagine to be a goal of a state."

So, per my earlier point, if a state determined that blacks and whites cannot marry, that is okay with you (If not with the Supreme Court)?

There is no evidence that Hetero couples make "better" parents (Whatever that means) - Provide some data from a neutral source, if you can refute this.

Besides, If "the state" were so interested in strong families, "the state" would be doing more to insure strong infrastructure, the absence of discrimination, health care for all, etc,. Not worrying about what goes on in what bedroom with who.

They are Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. And neither should be on the ticket.

This is Clintons chance to prove herself a good foot soldier, and in the end, be rewarded with a position commensurate with her talents: Secretary of State

Obama should choose someone who, like himself, can raise the rhetoric above the fray. This will serve the Democrats well in the debates.

Dean should just be Dean. There is nothing better than that.

She'd be on that like white on rice

Schaller used the word "Clinton"!

He said Obama might have actually learned something from Clinton!

He implied that Obama is flashy!

Screw the blue collar voter!

Just thought I'd get that out of the way early in the thread

"If 2008 is more like 1988, however, Obama has a bigger problem. This was the election in which George H.W. Bush was, in effect, running for Ronald Reagan's third term."

...Bush is no Reagan.