Edwards? C'mon. I'm surprised Hitchens could say anything posititve about him. Plus Edwards war views couldn't be any more opposite that of Hitchens.

Also, I think we could all really use new names in the Whitehouse. If Hillary wins, it would automatically mean 24 years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House and 28 years if she gets a second term.

That's nearly 3 full decades. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy going on or anything, but let's get a refreshing start, please. That includes NO GORE. I completely hated both candidates in 2000 and though Gore lost, I could've cared less. I really didn't, actually.

Edwards is the best candidate running.

Gore is unlikely to run.

Hitchens knows the Republicans are in a no-win position and would like it if he could stir up something to throw the Democrats off track.

I'm pretty fed up with both parties myself. I just try and pick the best offering. This time, it seems to be Edwards.

The only candidate with a clue about foreign policy is Ron Paul, but as you say, Bush has destroyed any chance of a Republican candidate winning the next election.

I haven't said that about Bush at all. I think this idea that the American people get really sick of one president that they completely disregard his entire party because of him is ridiculous. It's just not true. Like when that Senator got caught soliciting a cop in the airport bathroom a few months back and everyone on the news asking, "What does this do to the Republican party?"

What does this do to the whole party? Are you kidding me? Nothing.....one republican less. That's all. It doesn't mean every Republican Senator is sucking schlong in the bathroom anymore than every Democratic President will therefor have baby batter on the blouse of their young interns like with Clinton and more often than not Kennedy. The american people as a whole just don't see it that way. They put the person on trial, not the party...unless they hate the whole party anyway, but if that's true it wouldn't make a difference whether there were scandals or not. That's just being partisan.

Nor do I think Ron Paul is in any way wise in regards to foreign policy. Ron Paul says, "I want to trade with them," in referring to our enemies. I feel like that policy, which he calls the old republican way (or to that effect), is what got us in these problematic places to begin with.

Think about it. When you trade with scum, you only get that reputation and it haunts the country as a hole years down the line. All of the criticism now points towards the "assholes" that we used to support over the last 60 years. That goes for everyone like Reza Pahlavi, to Sadaam Hussein, to the Saudi royalty today.

Don't you get a funny feeling in your stomach when you think about a president doing business with people like the Taliban? Is that moral? I'm not suggesting war, I'm just saying a lot of the leaders on that side of the world are total scum, including the Saudi royalty. It's bad enough that we have to deal with them, but lets not add to the problem.

It doesn't mean every Republican Senator is sucking schlong in the bathroom anymore than every Democratic President will therefor have baby batter on the blouse of their young interns like with Clinton and more often than not Kennedy.

The difference being that one side tends to grandstand on condemning such behavior while happily perpetrating it behind closed doors.

Again, there you go: saying 'they're all doing it behind closed doors."