That probably sums it up in New England, but much of the south and west of the country is dominated by religious 'values voters.' Those people scare me.

Heh, I'd call our current 'fearless' leader a newbie, even today.

Me too -- a great deal, in fact -- not because of their beliefs, per se, which they have every right to practice and teach to their own, but because fundamentalists of any stripe inject a fundamental flaw into any democracy: they will use political power to impose their beliefs on the rest of us -- who for the most part don't share them.

The separation of church and state -- and equally important in my view, of church and science/technology -- is an important basis for a functioning democracy (and, in the latter case, for a functioning health care system and economy). The so-called "Dark Ages" were the result of such an imposition of "correct thought" as promulgated by the religious leaders of the times.

Huh? Lincoln was a war-monger and power-mad. He created a huge amount of strife and led the country into a war that could have been avoided. Do a little more reading about US history before you jump to conclusions like that.

I went to grade school and high school in New York City from 1943 until 1955, CAlverez -- what I said was what I was taught by NYC's school sytem. :)

I follow US politics reasonably closely - as it affects us all - and I was interested to see Hillary Clinton and "Mac is back" John McCain winning their NH primaries. This all makes for a very interesting year ahead. First woman President? First Black President? First Mormon President? The possibilities are almost endless.

The pundits are right at it, spewing their garbage. Perversely, I got a lot out of the fact that they all got it totally wrong in NH.

Democracy, in it's varying forms, is fascinating to watch. I stood for election at local and regional level in the UK, and the experience disappointed me enormously. Whilst I only speak for the UK, and moreover Portsmouth where I come from and stood, is that the average voter in my area was as thick as pigpoo. The stuff I got asked about on the doorstep (yes, in the UK, we knock every single door - phew!) was rarely anything to do with local, or regional issues. UK-wise, there is a good argument, IMO, for scrapping party politics at the the local level and getting candidates to be viewed on the basis of their manifesto and not on what party they are a member of.

On the lighter side, I was chased by dogs (and cats), had one guy so vehemently anti that I really thought he was going to have a heart attack on the doorstep (imagine the headlines: Candidate kills old man.....) and more than a few ladies who invited me "in for a coffee luvvie....". Getting sworn at was commonplace, too.

Still, an amazing experience, but glad I did not get elected, or I may not be sitting here in southern Thailand, enjoying a mid-afternoon libation and posting on Macosxhints.com!;)

I was highly amused at just how wrong the talking heads and pundits were on this one. Back to the drawing board on their methodology. It is going to be very interesting to watch this one play out... in both parties... particularly since nobody now is going to trust the polls to mean anything and voters may well turn out and vote for their candidate even though the pundits say they have no chance. This could be huge.

Clinton's winning New Hampshire was not an upset.... the pollsters just had it badly wrong from the beginning.

I don't worry about the religious right. They really don't want to push their religious agenda past two issues, abortion and same sex marriage, and the courts will decide those. I live in the South and the churches have been a part of our political lives at the state level for many,many years. They are, I guess, a special interest group and their endorsement is really no different than a labor union or women's rights group endorsing a particular candidate with the huge difference being they are tax exempt and prohibited from engaging in political activities in any significant way. Yeah, I know, and this issue has been to court in my state with no real resolution.

Now it does look like an Obama vs Clinton race even though it has been Edwards pushing the change agenda long before the other two joined in.

Do you recall a single, non-incumbent presidential candidate not talking about "change"?

Maybe you've been in the south too long then. Churches are deeply entrenched in politics there. So much so that as some one not from there, it looks a little too much like a theocracy.

I don't believe for a second that their agendas are limited to two issues either. The issues they push are designed to control peoples lives. To force people who don't share their religious beliefs into living by them. That's not what I'd call Christian.

.
I suggest we back off the religious issues, please.

-- ArcticStones

Point taken, and I am not expecting the huge changes to ever take place. Somehow, this year does seem different. If the Democrats win, I do think there will be enough support in Congress to pass a National Health Care reform package and some modest tax reform. But, I don't think energy independence is in our immediate future. I don't think they'll ever get the lobbyists out of the back rooms. And, I really see no big change in our foreign policy past working more closely with other nations.

If they achieve only 10 percent of their goals, it is a good thing and a reversal of the current trends. A little progress is still progress.

Huge changes really can't take place except under extraordinary circumstances (like 9/11/02 -- not that I agree with the response). Otherwise, people really want predictability and security. 10% would be a whopping success.