Look, I'm a bona-fide lefty, and while McCain would have never gotten my vote in 2000, at least he had my respect. That went out the window with "the embrace" in 2004. In that moment I saw a guy whoring himself out to someone who was and is hell-bent on ruining this country based on party loyalty. I'd like to ask Senator McCain: What is he, a Republican or an American?

I can't get the picture of McCain being hugged or hugging Bush. Why do we overlook so many signs? Rove-Bush maligned McCain in SC or was NC about having a black child - their adopted child from India. Please let's look at people for what they are. Why can't people just be who they are instead of saying what they think will get them in good with a certain segment? And I think that applies to all politicians. Why don't they present a clear picture of where they stand and what they will try to do and stick to it?

We Democrats keep pushing the pedal to the metal with frustration even though the rear tires are buried in mud and we're down to a quarter tank. With the Bush Administration at it's weakest, knee deep in the poluted waters of Katrina with 2000 people still missing, do we solidify the party platform and come together in unity willing to compromise so the party has some broad appeal? No, we spend time and energy discussing McCain and Hilary while the rain pours and the foreseeable forecast is for rain, rain and more rain.

We liberals get more excited about McCain than anyone else. In 2000, a self described independent with liberal leanings likened her current interest in McCain to a heady flirtation. She quickly realized realized that his integrity, his maverick quality, his service record all could not overcome the fundamental core issues that she voted on.

While, this country certainly wants integrity and strength and McCain's efforts in the last year are commendable, it doesn't overcome his support of Bush in 2004. He knew all too well who Bush and his ilk were then, more than the public does today.

Nonetheless, this man of integrity and principle who loves his country stood with Bush and supported him. If he even had remained silent, that would have been understandable and might have even passed for courage by omission.

Hilary? Condi? As a professional woman, I can tell you that this country will not elect a woman president in 2008. This country can send our military men and women to "liberate" other countries so the women can throw off their head to toe garments, but we aren't ready to put a woman in the Oval office. We don't even give them the courtesy of calling them by their rightful titles of Senator Clinton or Secretary Rice, it's first names only.

Wasted breath and wasted space isn't what we need in these perilous times. We'd better get our foot off the gas pedal and look around at where we are and stop musing about what might happen in 2008. We best get out of the truck, get some fresh muscle, get in the mud and the muck to pull or push this truck out of the hole. And a map, a map is always nice. . .

Someone's already mentioned Chuck Hagel, although his voting machine company associations make me uncomfortable. Still, there he is. From the same state, Coach Osborne is being talked about for gov. Another repub senator who actually has made a presidential run and is truly a decent person, man of integrity, all that, is Dick Lugar - rock-ribbed conservative, etc, but an honorable man. And I think he might be younger than McCain.

For the dems, it's time for a west-coaster or three. LA Mayor Villaraigosa is a rising possibility, I like Barbara Boxer a lot more than Feinstein, and isn't there a very liberal physician from Washington state?

One simple reason:

The moment McCain becomes a target of the left, the right wingnuts will embrace him with open arms. Continued lefty love will only further fuel their distrust ala the McCain/Liberman principle.

Talk about Faustian deals! Settling for, or even being happy about, McCain as a candidate in 2008 would certainly be Faustian. Were any of the comments from those willing to settle for McCain from women? Not likely. Especially now. First South Dakota, and now Mississippi and Missouri are up next. Imagine McCain adding another justice to the Court! Their decisions aren't just about women. Everyone's civil liberties are at stake.

McCain, unlike Bush, has never tried to imply that he is anything less than extremely conservative. That's why he would never run on a split ticket, or consider becoming a Democrat to get the nomination. So, he gets credit for ethics, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

Someone asked for other names... read the news. They're out there. However, I do have a suggestion for a "dream ticket" for 2008: Feingold & Conyers. And I even posted something about it. If you're interested, you can google it. No "settling" in that ticket. Imagine Feingold debating McCain! Hah! And Conyers v whoever the GOP could front? No contest.

Not everything is about testosterone, even though I guess that is the reason for the McCain LoveFest. However, I do have my own litmus test for candidates after the debacles of 2000 and 2004. I will only support a candidate if I am convinced that he or she will support my/our/your right to vote and have that vote counted. Which is why I dreamed up Feingold and Conyers.

Who else has cast the votes proper for an opposition party, held the hearings (even if in the basement), spoken truth to power, including calling for Bush's impeachment? Not even McCain, for all of his obvious machismo, has been consistent when his values have come up against what we must still refer to as the Bush Administration.

The dissection of McCain's faults is very welcome, since it's evident that he's as expedient as the next right-winger. But this gets us no closer to locating an alternative, and it seems to me that this is the best use of our collective imagination and intellect right now.

Admittedly, it's at present a rather thin roster -- of those whose present stature is considered sufficiently 'presidential' I'd vote first for Howard Dean (though he promised not to run, and carries the additional handicap of the major media's antipathy; he sank in 2004 not because of the 'scream' but because the media went after him about ten seconds after he promised to break them up) and John Edwards, despite his initial error on the war, but there ought to be other possibilities besides a few hack governors.

I'm offering two more names: Bill Bradley, who lost the nomination to Gore in 2000. Bradley is a man of stature, integrity, and intelligence. He's untainted by associations with party blunders or craven cowardice. He could win.

And one more, a long-shot. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

So, Salon readers, you large (well, semi-large) pool of smarter-than-the-ordinary observers: what do you think? It's not a minute too early to locate someone we'd actually be happy to fight for.