Ehh, I think listening to the pundits talk about what average Americans want out of a presidential candidate is a bit like asking Grandma what the kids are listening to these days. They're out of touch! They have no idea what Americans want! And I think you can include any San Francisco-based dotcom editor in that generalization, too. Who are we talking about anyhow? The undecided in Iowa? Mississippi? New Mexico? They're all completely different places!

What's distressing is not that Walsh and Brooks don't know. No, what's distressing is that we waste time and energy listening to them tell us what it is WE want. He's a sojourner! He's an outsider! He's Pepsi! No, he's Coke! No, he's Mr. Pibb!

I think Americans are going to surprise us all. Plenty of people that you would not think of as typical Obama supporters will vote for him. And plenty of people who traditionally Democratic supporters will either sit this one out or actually vote McCain. The point is that all these professional prognosticators are no more equipped to talk about these things than anybody else who reads the news. The best of them get it wrong more than half the time anyhow. And someone like Karl Rove? The only reason why he's so politically agile is because he always banks on appealing to the most deeply cynical side of human behavior. Up till now that has been a bet with favorable odds.

Is this column patrolled by quitters anonymous? Why is every marriage-related column crowded with demands that the lw get a divorce? How do YOU know it's time for the man to quit? Quitting is not the answer in every situation with every person and encouraging them to give up on their life partner is beyond selfish. Selfish is not even the word for it. You don't have to hold his hand while he rebuilds his life. You're just the person on the end of an anonymous monitor making proclamations about another person's life. Have a heart, dude! Treat the person you are writing to as if you have to see them and live with them on a daily basis. If you couldn't stomach seeing your best friend or sister go through the same situation, then don't recommend it to other people.

I'll take this any day over what we've BEEN experiencing.

I think, if we were being honest, we would admit to ourselves that we Dems are being a little hypocritical. Remember the hoots of condemnation during Sen. Larry Craig's foot tapping incident? It's true that Craig was a special case; He is a Republican, the party of "family values", and an avowed gay basher. But every politician regardless of party affiliation is an endorser of family values, right? Edwards campaigned with his cancer-stricken wife, such was his enthusiasm for showcasing his family. Who does that? A politician, that's who. "Hey honey, I know I cheated on you and I know you are now suffering from cancer, but how 'bout hitting the trail with me for 6 months while I brag about what an upstanding guy I am?"

Personally, I think this affair is not an issue for public consumption. But right now the people in America who democrats most want to woo, they DO tend to care. Edwards might very well have been the new vice presidential nominee. I'm in agreement with Tracy Ford Clark's concerns; His actions could have jeopardized the 2008 Presidential election, and that is the real reason why I am pissed at Edwards.

Bill Clinton is the exception, not the rule. Edwards is a handsome, forwarding thinking man, and none of that seems to be equal to Clinton's raw charisma. The electorate speaks for itself.

Ironically, many have made the case that Bill's infidelities DID hurt Hillary. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

Your comments remind me of something written by Adrienne Rich:

Men have been expected to tell the truth about facts, not about feelings. They have not been expected to talk about feelings at all.

Yet even about facts they have continually lied.

We assume that politicians are without honor. We read their statements trying to crack the code. The scandals of their politics: not that men in high places lie, only that they do so with such indifference, so endlessly, still expecting to be believed. We are accustomed to the contempt inherent in the political lie.

I have an awful sense of direction and Google Street View allows me to see my destination, where I'm headed and the landmarks that will confirm that I'm headed in the right direction; That is more helpful to me than a page worth of written directions. Not everybody navigates in exactly the same way. Google understands that and has adjusted its mapping technology accordingly. This is one of the rare instances where a company's financial success makes perfect sense to me.

A lot of computer technology assumes a certain kind of knowledge base or point of view. I find that the tech companies that are the most successful are able to think outside themselves and reach users of a variety of backgrounds.

Just as an example, let's talk about Del.icio.us. Everyone hailed tagging as a storm that was going to take over the world. I don't know a single, solitary person who tags, and I've asked a variety of programmers. There is a certain sect of people that use this feature a lot, and pretty much everybody else ignores it.

Well, that's not true. I tag my Flickr photos on the occasion that I think someone else might be interested. I tag and map my photos of graffiti--the really cool stuff--in the hope that users can get a sense of graffiti history throughout the years. ("Hey! Did you know in 2008 this wall had a graffiti sign that said, 'Gothic Dolphins Not Bombs'? That's hilarious!")