I am a life long Republican and a Vietnam combat veteran. Until the 2006 elections I had NEVER in my life voted for any Democrat in any contest higher than a County Commission race. My wife is so conservative she makes me look like a Pinko Commie in comparison to her.

After much soul searching and many long talks we both marched into the voting booth in 2006 and voted a STRAIGHT Dem ticket.

The reason? Veteran's issues, health care issues and the loss of a moral compass of the GOP under Bush. Neither of us could ever bring ourselves to vote for Hilary though. And John Edwards seems to us to just exude the aura of a tricky slickmeister. But we BOTH agree we could easily vote for B. Obama in the general election if the Dems give us the opportunity by nominating him.

We suspect that G. Bush and company have created a huge enough number of disenchanted Republicans, especially among military veterans and their families, to easily elect any Dem candidate that is not closely associated with the names Kennedy, Clinton or Pelosi this fall.

This is how one average person sees the democratic candidate’s chances of winning:

Bill Richardson: 90% chance of winning – the first reason Richardson will win if he gets nominated is that he is a governor. Senators and congressmen are sitting ducks for the republican slime machine. Also, he will get independent votes, he is not considered a leftist, he is not from “Yankee” territory. Being half Latino is about as far of a reach possible for the average heartland voter.

John Edwards: 75% chance of winning – a one-term senator. In one term, he probably voted for enough bad legislation that the republican slime machine can destroy him. Also, the republican pit-bulls like Hannity will gas up the heads of all the idiots out there, saying that he is some kind of horrible person to be running while his wife is fighting the big C. On the positive side, he has the right message and he is a southerner.

Hillary: 25% chance of winning – by the time the republican slime machine is finished with her, they may want to bring back witch burning, and also, don’t forget that the good ole boys are not voting for a women. When people tell me they hate Hillary, I ask them why. I ask them what she has done to make them hate her. They never seem to be able to answer that question. They don’t know why they hate her, they just do.

Obama: 10% chance of winning – as we all know, it takes between 8 and 12 hours to vote in any urban area. This is no accident. It has been the careful disenfranchisement strategy of the corporate fascists who now own America. That means he can not win without the support of WASPy America. Does anyone believe that those Nascar dads in the heartland will vote for an African American named Obama?

Kuchinch: 25% chance of winning – In my humble opinion, the best candidate in 2004 and the best candidate in 2008. Sadly, he is short with big ears and can never be the president of the United States. He may be able to win in France or Canada, but not here. To win in America, you would need to transplant his brain and heart into the body of a silvery haired smoothy like Charlie Christ (governor of Florida who is a centrist, populist – watch out for him in years to come).

Chris Dodd: 0% chance of winning – a Washington insider and wax figure.

Joe Biden: 10% chance of winning – a Washington insider with a long voting record that the republican slime machine can have a field day with.

The last Democrat not from the South to be elected President was John Kennedy. That was almost 50 years ago. Can a black, Northern politician who is reasonably liberal capture enough electoral college votes in the South to win the Presidency? I very much doubt it. We don't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more. But his Southern Strategy is very much alive.

John Edwards, the former Senator from North Carolina, would not have the high negatives of Obama (race) or Clinton (the Lewinsky scandal etc.) in the South, and would probably be an acceptable candidate to moderate Republicans in the North and former Democrats in the South, as well as independents. He has obviously achieved a lot of material success as a multi- millionaire trial lawyer. But I won't hold that against him.

As a gay independent voter, I find Hillary Clinton's web site almost offensive. Not only is there no discussion of gay related issues, but her video on the invisible voter does not even mention gay voters. How much more invisible can you be? Needless to say, I could not find any endorsements from gay leaders on her web site, although I am sure she has some.

John Edwards discusses gay issues on his web site and includes a list of endorsements from gay leaders. He is not where I would like him to be on gay marriage, but neither are the other major Democratic candidates. But I won't reject a good candidate merely because he is not perfect. He does support civil unions and other civil rights protections for gays. That would be a big improvement for gays living in the South who currently have no such protections. Not everyone can live in Massachusetts or California.

I am thinking of changing my party registration just to be able to vote for a gay friendly, electable candidate. In a closely contested primary election, votes such as mine might just make the difference. And I will be voting.

Myth 1: Hillary is the most experienced candidate.

Fact: Hillary has no executive experience, and has served in elected office for less time than any of the other candidates.

Myth 2: Hillary is the most capable of 'taking it to the Republicans.'

Fact: While it is true that Hillary's campaign frequently employs disingenuous personal smears, she more often than not engages in the DLC tactic of conceding entire issues to the Republican Party and adopting Republican rhetorical frames that promote negative views of Democratic policies. Just this past week, while in the process of aiding Republicans in the ongoing Barbour-Allawi Coup of the Iraqi government, Clinton stated that Republicans would have an advantage over Democrats in the case of another terrorist attack. Essentially, Clinton ceded the issue to Republicans, reinforcing the notion, contrary to current popular opinion, that Republicans are 'stronger' on national security.

Myth 3: There is no substantial difference between Clinton and the other leading Democrats.

Fact: Actually, we can't really tell, because despite the inaccurate media frame that Obama lacks 'substance', Clinton has endorsed virtually no significant policy positions during her campaign. Though we can't be sure, this seems to imply that she is waiting until the general election to adopt a platform that is significantly more conservative than anything that would be palatable to Democratic primary voters.

Myth 4: Clinton is the candidate of the experienced and informed.

Fact: This is true only in terms of career politicians who fancy themselves technocrats. In reality, academics prefer Barack Obama by a wide margin. That doesn't just mean liberal arts professors, that means economists, health care experts, foreign policy wonks, etc.

Myth 5: Hillary is the most electable Democrat. Americans are too racist/conservative/etc.

Fact: What? Like a racist is going to vote for a female Democrat? Like a dyed-in-wool conservative is going to vote for a Clinton? Get real.

Myth 6: Hillary has the nomination locked up, so you better just get used to the idea of her as the Democratic nominee.

Fact: Actually the voters get to decide the nominee, not the party leaders or pundits, not even Hillary-boosting blog trolls.