It's starting to look to me like a 50-50 split. If that happens, anybody care to take odds on the GOP flipping Ben Nelson?

Well, don't give Republicans all the blame, anyhow. They're just political opportunists playing to the base.

If you want to blame somebody for the dwindling rights of choice for women in this country, then blame the women (and men) who aren't fighting to save choice. Because the collective voice for choice is barely a whisper anymore, imperceptible against the roar of the forces against choice.

Cuccinelli is as low as you can go without running into garden slugs. He's as vile as they come. And he stands a very good chance of getting elected in November because, thus far, Virginia Democrats are doing a piss-poor job of organizing and fundraising.

There's maybe a 10% chance you're right.

More likely, though, McDonnell's trying to capitalize on the reality that he comes across better in debates.

Anyhow, unless the Deeds campaign starts showing some serious smart campaigning, and raises money like crazy (though I expect the national Democrats will match every cent the national Republicans give to McDonnell), there's a damned good chance McDonnell will win.

And that's a sorry day, a big-leap-backwards day, for Virginia.

Nice gesture, Senator Leahy. Thank you for the effort.

But this won't actually go anywhere. The religious right is already in high dudgeon about how this would (you know the drill) destroy marriage. Apparently, Hispanic Catholic bishops are already pestering members of Congress to kill this.

Today's hearings will do a good service by highlighting an injustice in America. And then, no doubt, after a nasty period of RR&R (Religious Right and Republican) gay bashing, the bill will die a quiet death of neglect (or be bargained away later).

Seriously, Jerome, your affiliation with Moran is clouding your judgment when it comes to poll reading.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Moran's numbers drop, what with the extraordinarily nasty ads he's done lately (and what's to come?).

His hair ain't presidential.

Too bad, though, that the American press will probably ignore this.

There's no doubt in my mind: Huntsman is definitely trying to position himself as the candidate who's NOT from the loopy right wing of the right wing of the GOP.

What convinced me was a few weeks ago when he came out in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples. Now, being from Utah, he doesn't have to worry about ever being put on the spot to do something about that position.

So why suddenly make the effort to appear, if not downright gay friendly, at least not a gay-basher? What other answer is there but, to repeat, he's trying to prove he's an alternative to the Palins and the Jindals and others of that ilk on the loopy right wing ... of the GOP.

Of course, putting on a Dumbo hat doesn't disguise the fact that, to his core, he's a disgustingly smelly elephant. But he's trying.

All this reminds me of the debates last fall, when the dopester villagers on TV were just certain of a tie or even a McCain win, and then the polling started coming in, and Mr. and Mrs. America had their say. Three times the villagers were wrong then, and they're still wrong today.

The booing of Hillary and Mike was truly tacky and very, very childish.

Very bad form, Obamites. This demonstrates why so many of us grownups are supporting Hillary.

I like this young woman (and not just because she's a Hillary supporter, though that certainly demonstrates superior intelligence).

No, I like her because she's obviously young, and bright, and gives a damn.

You're absolutely right.

But there's one thing even worse, and that's poor reporting.

Obama's supporters have no sense of humor. Or irony.

And many of them just plain aren't very bright!

Actually, Obama's said he got his anti-marriage equality views from his religion.

Yes, the UCC as a denomination favors marriageequality for same-sex couples, but individual congregations are free to take their own positions.

But I'm not sure it's correct to say Obama got the anti-equality view from within his own UCC congregation (though that's probably true). The real truth is that he got his view in the church of political expediency. He and other prominent Democrats can be gay-friendly only up to a point.