Carol, I've been pondering what you wrote, but though I've voted as a Dem for 42 years, I can't think of what you mean by "the Democrats have used race and gender to divide and conquer". Divide what? Conquer who? When and where? We're united in support of every group you can name. You mean candidates divide us ? When? Are you sure you're not projecting? Seeing us through your experience, instead of ours? Your saying "it's kinda funny" betrays you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, so to speak. Whenever people laugh at, instead of with you, you can be sure they don't know what they're laughing it. Seriously, that's how humor works. I'm an old white woman who supports the young black male candidate, but that's neither here nor there.

It seems to me that Democrats are facing the same problems Republicans are:

For-almost-ever the religious right has lashed out mercilessly against those it doesn't consider Christian enough. Now the Republican's most competent candidate is a Mormon, someone they have been taught to loathe since they were six. And they aren't sure they can stomach that.

Similarly, the Democrats have used race and gender to divide and conquer. Now they are in a blood bath over who deserves to get the black vote (because "those people" all vote the same) and who deserves to get the female vote (because girls vote emotionally for their same gender and don't look at substance).

The cry is to get back to the "issues," but race and gender have been THE Democrat issue for, like, ever.... And haven't Democrats long delivered the affirmative action sermon that the unqualified deserve certain benefits for the purpose of righting past wrongs.?

Of course, Edwards is out there using the old class-warfare wedge. Maybe Democrats will "unite" around that one....

It's kinda funny, really. The divisions they have sown are coming back to bite both parties.

When pondering the merits of Clinton vs. Obama and find myself favoring Clinton a bit, my memory takes me back to the days when she was the one in charge of destroying the women who Bill had preyed upon. It makes me shudder....

DIMIK72: You may be a little too subtle when calling spiderman2 "our little creationist". As you can see from his writing, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed...

...and definitely not normal by any measure I can think of.

This is the webster's definition of normal:

according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

As our little creationinst will note there is nothing indicating that being "normal" is "natural" or for that matter desirable.

In fact normalcy is just the rule of numbers and that rule does not say much about intelligence. History has often shown the greatest strides for humanity when the "normal" flow of things was broken. It was people who went beyond the "normal" who created the science that will cure our little creationist when he/she gets sick. Moreover normalcy is contextual. There have been times when it was the most "normal" thing to support Adolf, hate Jews, believe in segregation, perform female genital mutilation and so on. I am therefore not sure I like being that "normal".

I hope our little creationist still enjoys his/her stereophonic sound for it was "created" by the ingenuity of people who went beyond the "normal" human desire for food, sex, and sleep.

I wish I could have enjoyed the debate like some people. I do agree that John Edwards showed why he is a top attorney. But unfortunately, he isn't one of the two. Obviously, I can't help but consider Obama the best for multiple reasons. He has the courage to dare to open up to the independents and republicans. A president of the United States is the president of the entire country. Give credit where credit is due. Hillary and Chuck Norris aka Bill Clinton are out to create false arguments by misconstruing words. After her e-mail making Obama out to have been a drug dealer (a la daddy Bush's racist Willie Horton attack ad) and furthering the false Hussein name for Obama as though he is a moslem terrorist that are down and dirty and immoral, how could I ever vote for her. I consider them contemptible. I will never forget how his sexual adulterous fling in the oval office came out so that even little children had to be explained to because Clinton is a vulture and a pig. It was beyond his impeachment that the country got so fed up that all democrats were pulled into the mud and called immoral. ONly the republicans though they could save our country when in fact Al Gore was a good family man and it was Bush who had to quit his liberal use of drugs and alcohol to finally save his marriage. It was Clintonandmonica who allowed the republicans to take over the government and even eventually the supreme court. We are now dealing with a war based on lies, with torture, with relief of taxes for the wealthiest, etc., etc. I will never forgive or forget. I will stay home or maybe even work for a republican or an independent if she gets the nomination.

I wish I could have enjoyed the debate like some people. I do agree that John Edwards showed why he is a top attorney. But unfortunately, he isn't one of the two. Obviously, I can't help but consider Obama the best for multiple reasons. He has the courage to dare to open up to the independents and republicans. A president of the United States is the president of the entire country. Give credit where credit is due. Hillary and Chuck Norris aka Bill Clinton are out to create false arguments by misconstruing words. After her e-mail making Obama out to have been a drug dealer (a la daddy Bush's racist Willie Horton attack ad) and furthering the false Hussein name for Obama as though he is a moslem terrorist that are down and dirty and immoral, how could I ever vote for her. I consider them contemptible. I will never forget how his sexual adulterous fling in the oval office came out so that even little children had to be explained to because Clinton is a vulture and a pig. It was beyond his impeachment that the country got so fed up that all democrats were pulled into the mud and called immoral. ONly the republicans though they could save our country when in fact Al Gore was a good family man and it was Bush who had to quit his liberal use of drugs and alcohol to finally save his marriage. It was Clintonandmonica who allowed the republicans to take over the government and even eventually the supreme court. We are now dealing with a war based on lies, with torture, with relief of taxes for the wealthiest, etc., etc. I will never forgive or forget. I will stay home or maybe even work for a republican or an independent if she gets the nomination.

A normal person praises his Designer for giving him 2 ears to enable him to listen stereo phonic sound or music. One ear would only absorb a mono sound and it's not delightful to the ears.

A secularists would think two ears just accidentally protrude out of his head. He has no idea why it's there but blame it to pure accident. Why it didn't protrude on their forehead, they never gave it some thought.

A normal person gives credit to whom it is due (his Creator). A secularist gives credit to the word "incidental" or "random".

A normal person knows were he came from. A secularists don't know where he came from.

A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks that he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.

These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal because he often gives credit to the Supreme Being who made him. These secularist don't know who to thank for. Thank you ACCIDENT ?

(Is 'anonymous' above 'spidey'? He jumped awful hard on Jozevz, whose harmless incoherence is not without charm when swift-scrolled - unlike spiderman2... who above wrote the online equivalent of Bush's war in Iraq.

Obama must be forgiven his kiss, imo, considering Evangelicals' demonstrated need for such pseudo-reassurances and the dire possible consequences of ignoring those needs. What's a little pandering compared to having them elect a President Huckabee?

I told you, secularists are a minority in this country. They just speak louder coz they are not normal. Actually, I like all these presidential candidates (reps and dems coz they all believe in God) except that the dems has the tendency to listen to idiocy or is it just for show? I hope so. This is a Nation of God as the bible had said. Here's a good read to awake you (secularists) up.

A normal woman bears a child in her womb for 9 months. A secularist woman, usually 3 months only.

A normal man marries a woman. A secularist man marries a man.

A normal person believes somebody created him. A secularist person believes they are a result of an accident (whether a car accident, I don't know)

A normal person considers another person as his relative. A secularist person treats apes as their great grandpa.

A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.

These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal when they are the ones who are not normal. When did 3 months became normal to deliver a fetus?

"Just a question apropos of nothing perhaps. Who is the bigger idiot and the more incoherent writer: Jozevz or Spidey?"

Hands down without a doubt the answer would clearly be Jozevz, only if you intentionally meant to omit our current moron n' chief who is presently infesting in the white house.

Just a question apropos of nothing perhaps. Who is the bigger idiot and the more incoherent writer: Jozevz or Spidey?

I don't agree that Edwards is electable. He is more of a sideshow. I think its a fight between the old Queen and Clinton Dynasty, and the young challenger. I also think its going to be a difficult battle for Obama. It will all hinge on the minorty vote in my opinion. Historically, many hispanics have always seen blacks as competitors for the same governmental resources. In my area most hispanics despise Obama and are rallying around Clinton even though many of them don't like her. I don't even know why the republicans are in the fray this time around. I guess they feel the need to show up with a contender. I don't see how MaCain can win the support of hard core conservatives. The Hucks religious background turns many people off, and Rommey has the religious thing, plus many see him as a just another pretty, rich white boy.

I have to agree with Dr.R.P. While all of the candidates are electable, I'm not sure we will have a big love session after the convention. Part of Obama's appeal comes from his role as the anti-Clinton candidate(more specifically, the anti-Hillary). The Clinton policy of mutually assured destruction campaigning has a lot of potential to backfire and create a massive population of disaffected and depressed voters. If Obama wins the nom, then it's almost certainly a landslide victory for Dems... if Hillary wins the nom, all bets are off. Large groups of Dems will not vote for her and huge groups of Repubs will come out to vote against her. Bad for everyone, in my opinion.

I am not so sure about the statement that Democrats will get behind the candidates that is nominated. I know many Obama supporters that hate Clinton about as much as the Republicans hated her husband in the 90's. I suppose some of them will drag themselves off to vote if she is nominated (and not a single one of them will be voting for the Republican nominee), but some of them will remain home. (and lets face it, Edwards is a fine candidate but doesn't really have a chance).

My only other comment is that I am one of those secularists who is very bothered by Obama's practice of what I like to call "Evangelitics".