I'm finding going through these letters very discouraging. Gosh, it seems NOBODY is electable!

. Hillary because her negatives are too high and she would motivate the opposition more than anyone else.

. Obama because, in spite of what people are telling the pollsters, when they actually get into the voting booth latent racism will surface.

. Edwards because the focus on his hair, etc. will cause him to be perceived as less than masculine.

. The remaining candidates because the MSM won't allow them to be taken seriously.

I'm especially bothered by that rap against Obama. What are we supposed to do? Refrain from voting for him because we're afraid other people won't vote for a black man because of racism? Isn't that pretty racist in itself?

I think we need to keep our heads here and remember certain facts:

. Each of these candidates also has some pretty strong positive factors going for them.

. Each of the potential Republican candidates has some very strong negatives associated with them as well.

. A solid majority of voters are sick to death of the gross incompetence of the current Republican administration and the incalculable harm they have inflicted on this country.

No Republican candidate is going to make a serious break with the Bush policy on Iraq, do anything serious about fixing the health care mess or change the economic policies that have so disproportionately benefitted the small group of corporate elite while everyone else is being squeezed. As long as he or she keeps pounding on that theme as hard as possible I think the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be, should stand a pretty good chance.

The other commenters are absolutely right! Maintaining that one fully expects to win is standard practice for any candidate. Do you actually expect someone to say they're seriously thinking about losing? Why was the question even asked? And why is the reply eorth any attention?

So Bush's would-be successors don't understand how tough things are in the Oval Office? I would venture to suggest that Hillary, for one, has a pretty darn good idea.

In 2000 the media pushed the idea of Bush as the good old boy you'd like to have a beer with. They totally failed to point out the fact that his lack of intellect and his history of family supported underachievement should have kept him from ever being considered as a serious candidate for the presidency in the first place. This country, and the world, are suffering tragically from the elevation of this man (whose profund limitations are clearly illustrated in this interview)to a position he was transparently unqualified for. WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN!

Personally, I question whether the sympathy that might be generated by posing as a victim of this kind of tactic would outweigh the harm that could be done by the calls themselves. I can understand the use of reverse psychology; I'm just not sure it would be effective in this case. The content of the calls. as stated, would in fact raise concerns for a good many of the people they're being aimed at.

It will be very interesting to see how Gore and Bush treat each other on that occasion.

If they want women to stay home and take care of the kids they're going to find some way to PAY women for the housework and childcare that they do. They have to face the fact that many women who work outside the home do so out of economic NECESSITY.

I weep when I think of what could have been done with this money toward meeting the critical needs of this society. Just think of what could have been done if we put these resources into health care, education, the infrastructure, preserving Social Security, or developing ways to cope with climate change.

I want to know exactly how much of what is being spent has found its way into the pockets of the top executives of companies like the one in question, who are big supporters of George Bush and Dick Cheney. That might go a long way toward explaining Bush's mulish obstinency about staying in Iraq.

"Committment to addressing the issues most important to all Americans" ??

Such as extricating us from the quagmire in Iraq?

Such as assuring health care coverage for all?

Such as the economic insecurity under which so many Americans live?

The problem for the Republicans is that they have shown themselves committed to NOT addressing these issues.

I just received an e-mail from Sen. Dodd's campaign about this, and I want to thank him for being willing to take this action. I have not yet decided which candidate I'm going to support in the Iowa caucuses, but this is certainly one important mark in his favor.

If it was a joke it was certainly a bad one. People have been suggesting this kind of thing for some time now (facetiously...usually), and I just wish I didn't have this nagging sense that it could be something more than a joke. Given the lengths that Bush and the people behind him (most notably Cheney) have shown themselves willing to go to in order to concentrate power in the president, freed from constitutional checks and any effective oversight, it's actually a little hard to to blithely assume that they will simply step aside and willingly surrender that power, especially to someone whose ideology and policies go directly against theirs. I really would not put it beyond these people to stage something that would give them an excuse to cling to the reins of power. God knows I hope these concerns are unfounded...but I think we had all better be very alert to what's going on.