The gay marriage fiasco in 2004 was a terrible moment for Democrats. It was terrible because it just waved the red flag at the morality fascists. I am entirely content with gay marriage - I'm a unitarian. When you see a gay marriage, you almost always see a unitarian clergy doing it. But it is a terrible political issue. It does us, as progressives, no good at all to take a stand that is totally unpopular. We lose seats, and the issue goes downhill.

What is needed is the slow, careful work that led to the civil rights for blacks. That took 10-15 years. It will take a long long time to get marriage/civil union equality.

What Gavin Newsome did was excite the right. that brought them out to vote. I believe that it brought out 2-3 % more Repukeliscum voters in OH, and that's why we lost the state.

Well, no problemo. Let's have gay marriage right now. Except, due to Newsome and his stupidity, and the other idiots who waved the red flag, it's now unconstitutional.

Tell me, O constitutionalist, how is that gonna work? Well, here's how I see it. Possibly, after this all gets less polarized, in 10-12 years, we might get civil unions passed in some of those states, and then possibly in 15-18 years, marriage.

But, thanks to Newsome and his red flag, it's unconstitutional. So, I'm curious, exactly how are you brave and bold gay marriage advocates gonna get around that? I don't see any possible way.

The issue is a long-term, political loser for Democrats. No advocate for gay marriage qua marriage is gonna get elected to anything soon. Civil union advocates in some places yes, marriage no. And all that brave talk and bold plans do you ZERO GOOD with no one in office. ZERO GOOD.

So, enough with the brave talk, eh? Who will bell that cat?

By fighting back, we now have marriage equality in one state, that state's rights recognized by a handful of other states, some form of marriage equivalency in several more states, and marriage equality on the horizon in California, New Jersey and New York, among other places.

I will grant these successes, and that is very good. I still wonder what will go with OH, VA and the other states which have now passed constitutional amendments.

It's called a memo. There is prior art.

Bill is simply the stupidest guy in American letters today. I have long protested his inclusion in the Diane Rehm Friday news hour, since he is not a journalist. He is a political hack who writes.

I have called programs that he is on, and revoked his pundit's license. If you, O Gentle Reader, hear Kristol on a call-in show, call up and revoke his license. We the public are not asked about these public "intellectuals" and so when they expose their flank, I say we must rear back and give them a mighty sound kick.

If Kristol is on the air, you get on his case.

The Clinton campaign is fully into the Rovian scorched-earth campaign. She does not deserve to win the nomination.

is a sexist because they say "periodic" "cycle" "down" "monthly" or any other english word is an idiot. That's not my opinion, mind you. That is a simple fact.

you can be CERTAIN that the person is a Clinton supporter.

Apparently, the call to arms for Hillary included the phrase "must be an intemperate, continual whiner."

Spoiled children.

Obama - came from behind to lead - has money - has a positive message - is for withdrawal from Iraq.

Clinton - came from ahead to trail - in debt - turned to attack politics - is for withdrawal from Iraq.

McCain - came from behind to lead - has no money and may be breaking Federal law - has no positive message - is for staying in Iraq until 2108.

Obama's chances look good. We have seen the 3 of them head to head only in the campaign, and Obama is way way way ahead in that department.

FL and MI were not appropriate contests.

I believe that he has an outside chance of winning OH. PA, possibly as well.

Anyway, what is a big state? CA, NY (Hillary), NJ (Hillary), IL (Obama), WI (Obama) - the only neutral one is CA, and he did OK there. He won MD, VA, CT, WA. He's done pretty well IMHO.

You're just a whiner or a troll.

'He said "flow!"

Did you catch that?'

Is this one of those inane moronic latent sexist deals? If so, this is cr.ap total.

It should be set at 60 % of income. That would fix a lot of programs, plus shut this pustule up.

He ain't a real 'Murkan. That's fur dammm sure.

simply never give up.

They have several characteristics: They refuse to admit that Hillary and Barack have similar programs, and they CONSISTENTLY select a point that Hillary has VAST weaknesses on and blame those on Barack.

I originally began as a Dodd/Richardson supporter. After those guys dropped, I had to decide. I went with Edwards for a while, but then I had the binary choice. After reading the unfair, biased, slanted, over-the-top, moronic, and TOTALLY ScREWED attacks of the Clinton koolaid drinkers to Barack, I knew that I could NEVER agree with such persons.

The final issue is the B word. Hillary has a B problem. Until she fixes the B problem, she cannot be taken seriously.

Hah!! Fooled you .... you thought I meant the 5-letter B.

I mean the 4 letter B - the BILL problem. Hillary has a Bill problem. Since Hillary in the WH means that Bill is there as well, I have very serious problems with her candidacy.