It's true that just about anyone plucked off the street would be a better president than what we have now. But frankly, I'm really tired of all these pusillanimous Democrats who only voted for the Iraq war authorization out of political expediency.

That vote was one of the few moments where you really get to see what a politician is made of. When the going gets rough, will they stand on their principles, or will they fold?

Unfortunately, a majority of Democrats flunked the test, and yet they're more or less the ones we're presented with as presidential candidates for 2008. The ones with real courage when that ill-conceived vote was taken in 2002 were people like Russ Feingold and the late, great Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was running for reelection that year - and his poll numbers actually went up after he voted against the war authorization. So much for the conventional wisdom that anyone who voted against it would be demolished.

These lame Democrats' excuses and their non-apology apologies are a little too much for me to stomach. The fact is, if they had one ounce of leadership in their pathetic bodies, 3,000 Americans and untold Iraqis might still be alive today. Why should we be eager to pledge our allegiance to any of them? They haven't shown any to the best interests of the American people.

Clinton supposedly told John Kerry, when the vote to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq was pending, that he had better vote yes, or he would pay for it later. Seems she is the one who is "paying for it later."

Now, self-righteous Salon readers are the fly on the wall during a conversation between two US Senators? Where do you get your information - Faux News?

Ms. Michelman is certainly free to choose the candidate she wishes to support. I believe that Clinton and Edwards are the two best choices among the Democrats, though like many others, I am concerned with Clinton's waffling.

Clinton supposedly told John Kerry, when the vote to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq was pending, that he had better vote yes, or he would pay for it later. Seems she is the one who is "paying for it later." Whether that will dooom her chances remains to be seen, but it is certainly the reason many will refuse to support her. (Kerry may have paid for that vote, but he had many other negatives, among them his refusal to immediately, and in no uncertain terms, respond to the swift boaters. He too was a waffler.)

Michelman should, however, demonstrate a better knowledge of history. While Clinton is the first woman candidate with a real chance, she is not the first woman candidate for president, as Michelman states. Shirley Chisholm, Carol Mosely Braun and Pat Schoeder (sp) have all run for the Democratic nomination.

Even if she's Condoleeza Rice, or Phyllis Schafly?

Even if she's a pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-gay-marriage, anti-flag-burning shill and ex-Walmart board member like Hillary Clinton? Even if she's waffled against abortion rights and sucked up to the Christian Right in the past, also like Hillary?

Obviously none of these things matter to Rebecca Traister.

I basically like Edwards, I like his message of responsible economic populism, but I've never felt really comfortable with trusting his judgment. He seems too much of an up and comer hustler to me, too ambitious, and a little phony.

I appreciate politicians who are both idealistic and pragmatic, and I don't doubt Edwards is both of those. But I distrust Edwards judgment and maturity so far. His stump speech and personality seem a bit too effected, his smile a little phony, and his intelligence and enthusiasm reach beyond his wisdom and better judgment sometimes.

I'm concerned as President he might overestimate himself and take poorly considered chances. Even for a good cause he felt passionately about, I'm not sure I'd trust Edwards to make the right calculations. Regardless, he's probably just positioning himself for a VP appointment.

Obama's temperament seems genuinely more contemplative which I find very attractive, especially in lieu of the GWBush Presidency.

Hillary is Hillary, for better or worse.

John Edwards admitted his vote on Iraq was wrong way back in 2005. Where is Hillary's admission?

John Edwards has been unstinting in his support of a woman's right to choose, while Hillary wants to "seek common ground" with religious nutjobs who want to strip women of their reproductive rights. There is NO common ground with these people, many of whom not only want to take away abortion rights, but take away our right to contraception as well. People who want "common ground" with those types do not get my support.

Moreover, Edwards' concern for solving poverty in this country is much more compelling than anything HRC has put forth. She is concerned with winning and that is all. She has no agenda other than becoming the first woman in the white house. And because that is her most pressing concern, she will surely fail (well, that and her total lack of charisma for all the boneheads who vote based on who they'd most like to have a beer with).

As for his being a "trial lawyer" like that's a BAD thing. Hey, when your doctor cuts the wrong leg off, crippling you for life; or you hurt yourself at work, because of a danger your company was well aware of, and now you're scared of losing your home and not being able to eat, and your boss tells you to go f**k yourself, who are you going to call? You're going to call a damn trial lawyer, and be grateful as hell to him.

The demonization of trial lawyers is nothing but right wing propaganda spewed by corporations who want to be able to screw people with impunity. Wake up. The fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer (who takes a huge gamble) only makes me respect him more. He could've gone corporate but did he? No.

Anyone who thinks a woman will vote for another woman just so we can put a female in the white house is seriously underestimating women's collective intelligence. There are far more important issues at stake here than the candidate's genitalia.