Rudy is personally opposed to abortion, like so many others, (e.g. Bill Clinton). Rudy believes that Roe should be overturned but the states should decide for themselves(e.g. States Rights). So Rudy is a player and the Christian Right knows that. McCain is too old for anybody to be serious(also too short). The money elite like Rudy as well, so it looks like this Catholic can be a winner and can get back the working class Catholic votes. The Republicans will manage to put together a winning coalition. Rudy appears to be smarter than the Texan cowboy and most importantly, the money elite like him.

In regards to the Democratic Black candidate, we all know(but don't dare to say it) that the Blacks stick together. The Democrats, as usually, will manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. They will end up devouring each other. There is a chance that Gore will come into, on the cheap, to pick up the nomination from the weaken Obama.

"The real question on the Republican side is whether the conservative base simply doesn't know about Rudy's social positions (in which case a Republican primary will not treat Rudy well), or if it chooses to overlook them because of the heroism he displayed on 9/11."

They like him because they think he's a hero and because they can see he hates. He radiates menace even when he's not angry, and when he talks about enemies (terrorists, liberals), it's clear he hates them. In this he's like Bill O'Reilly (who also deviates from the right-wing party line on some issues) -- and remember, O'Reilly is the most popular right-wing TV host, more popular than the more ideologically pure Hannity.

And Giuliani didn't display heroism on 9/11. Cops and firefighters displayed heroism. Giuliani displayed empathy and didn't run around like a scared rabbit named Bush. (Please tell me he doesn't have you fooled, too....)

All the Republicans have to do is nominate Condi Rice and the election is over. The Blacks (because she is black) and women (because she is a woman) and Republicans (because she is highly qualified) will vote for her.

McCain and Giuliani have both been disappointments to me. I'm a liberal, so was not likely to vote for either. However, I had been under the impression that they were both moderates. Clearly this is no longer the case.

McCain wants to overturn Roe. After that statement, he went to an abstinence-only event. He also delivered the keynote speach at the Discover Institute, an organization that is taking the lead in pushing teaching of ID over science.

Giuliani's latest was to state that anyone that is not a liberal by the age of 20 has no heart; anyone that is not a conservative by the age of 40 has no brain. As a liberal, I find this statement quite insulting. As a former candidate for the liberal but not the conservative party, I would suggest that Giuliani has no brain. Alternately, it could just be firmly wedged in his colon.

On more thing, does anyone know where Obama stands on anything? We know he voted against the war in Iraq. Does he have any plan for how to get out of Iraq? Does he have any opinions on any other issues? He sounds good, but says little that is concrete. I couldn't even find anything about his stance on any issues on his website.

Obama is Black and that is good enough for me. The Crackers will go for Edwards.

Tyrone, bigots come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and creeds. I find your comment both racist and offensive. Cracker in particular is a highly offensive term. To the best of my knowledge no one in my family has ever owned a slave or cracked a whip at any other human being.

Raymond, your comment is twice as bigoted. You have insulted both blacks and women. I believe the majority of both blacks and women will vote based primarily on the politics of the candidate, as will I.

Does anyone else find it both surprising and disappointing that even readers of MotherJones, a group I would expect to be educated and liberal, would display this level of bigotry? I'm usually quite pessimistic and cynical. Perhaps I'm not pessimistic enough.

Misanthropic Scott, your observation is right on. I have often wondered if these bloggers are actually working for the right to sort of muddy our conversation. Then again, I can be both pessimistic and conspiracy-theoristic. Trying to have a fair and level-headed conversation with Tyrone is pointless; I tried to last week on other posts and he is as protective of his bigotry as any other extreme racist.

Paul Miller, thanks for the warning. I'm new to this blog. I've been reading MoJo for years and was surprised to hit this on their blog. Perhaps Tyrone is really a white bigot trying to make blacks look bad. Or, perhaps he really is a black bigot.

It's actually pretty painful to me to see bigotry among people that have themselves been victims of persecution. Those of us who have a history of being persecuted should be banding together to fight exactly the type of bigotry that allowed atrocities like slavery and the holocaust. And yet, I've met some pretty serious bigots among both blacks and jews.

It seems racism and bigotry are consistent with all of humanity. Perhaps this just shows how closely we are all related. Did you know that just 70-80,000 years ago there were only 3-7,000 people on the whole planet? Like the cheetahs, we've been through a bottle neck and are all very closely related.

There are no Us and Them; there is only us. We need to put this sort of thing behind us so we can solve the real problems that will spell our own survival or extinction as a species. As a misanthrope, I am, of course, much more upset about all the other species we are taking with us, but that's just me. Too bad we didn't die off 70,000 years ago. It would have saved the world a lot of grief.

But, back to my original question. Obama seems well-spoken and well-educated. He'd be a far better image for our country than our current blithering idiot who can't even pronounce the word nuclear. I am glad to know that he opposed the Iraq war, as I did, even then. However, I still have not heard anything truly concrete from him.

What are his plans to get us out of Iraq without dramatically increasing the death toll all around? Where does he stand on global climate disruption? Where does he stand on national health care? Where does he stand on choice? Where does he stand on LBGT issues? How does he plan to secure this country from terrorism? How does he plan to deal with nuclear proliferation, including but not limited to Iraq and North Korea? What are the issues he finds important and his plans on them?

It's a little early to tell if this auction is going to be more than a show, electing the slickest pro out there, or finding the person who can do something positive, to bring this country back on course. I will say, Tyrone did get some good thinking going! I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and gladly allow him that right, as long as he doesn't abuse it! I will wait a while to see where the pros want to take us. It would be great to hear their approach on getting us back to a "constitutional government".

I assumed Raymond's comment was sarcastic. Same with Tyrone. Am I giving them too much credit? I continue to hope that people will actually engage their brains before they start posting. But I am afraid Paul may be correct in thinking that some here simply want to mess with those others who are trying to have a meaningful dialogue.

Which begs the question - why are people so afraid of some ideas that they feel compelled to interfere with any thoughtful discussion of those ideas? I think maybe these kids need a time-out.

The latest Time poll shows Giuliani beats all, including Ms. Clinton. He is a player and the money elite supports him.

Interestingly, I did a bit of research on Obama's voting record on the League of Conservation Voters site. His environmental record for 2006 is 100% versus Hilliary at 71%. I may just change my vote. He should be speaking out on his record. It's actually quite good. He says little that is specific.

I'm not sure I like all of his votes in the human rights/civil liberties arena. But, I'm unlikely to like all of anyone's votes on all subjects. With global climate disruption threatening to be as damaging as is currently being forecast, I think that this one issue should strongly take center stage.

It does make you wonder if it isn't a little smarter to be slightly vague at this point. I mean, Obama seems to have a macroview of America right now, sort of a rousing and generalized approach. In contrast, every one of them who come out with these very specific idealogical statements on Tuesday [abortion is a personal choice] seem to flip-flop by Friday [it is a poverty to blah, blah, blah], once they've emerged from the mound of hate mail their first comments ellicited. It may not seem as sincere, but if one plays it a little more neutrally at first, they can read voter perspective by watching the flailing about of the other, more boisterous candidates.
I have been remiss in studying Obama closely only because it's early in the game, but I think someone who seems more thoughtful and flexible is far better than the goof-ball we call Mr. President right now.
And, Misanthropic Scott, I agree about the prevailance of bigotry among people who should know better.