Thanks, Pragcon, I confess that I did not know that.

Back to the point of the thread, which is Kondracke's assertion that Democrats "don't get" religion. He's near the truth, but not quite there. I have lost a lot of respect for Kondracke since he's joined the FOX News team. His core values seem to shift depending on who signs his paycheck. He's never struck me as a person who truly "gets it." I've never heard about him talk about religious issues before. Now, suddenly, he's praising the morality of America's faith community. I do think that some Democrats need to "get it" (by understanding it) when it comes to religion. Same holds true for some Republicans. One of the biggest problems for my party is not understanding where "average Americans" come from, or how to speak their language. We have for the most part been losing elections for 10 years now, with the exception of Bill Clinton, who ironically, does seem to "get it." He understands how to talk to those of us who attend church in rural America. We Democrats need to evaluate how we were painted as the party that doesn't stand for moral values. I don't think for a minute that is true. But in politics, perception is everything. Kerry made a few blunders. He took advice from handlers who told him that he could win support from hunters by having a phony photo-op in Ohio. He listened to people who told him that he could win support of black Christians by having photo-ops in their churches. He listened to advisers who told him that celebrities were so cool that he'd benefit by hanging out with them. If Kerry had been himself more and stopped trying to fake it, he might have won. Same for Gore. W, of course, is just as phony. I mean, the guy was a cheerleader at Yale, and now he pretends to be a swaggering, macho Texan. He won this election by presenting himself in terms that would be attractive to mainstream America. He won twice by turning his opponents into mere cartoons of themselves. The more we Democrats try to paint ourselves as something we are not, the more elections we are going to lose. I'm not sure who on the national scene is going to lead us out of this. Barak Obama, maybe. John Edwards at least talks the talk. It will take someone with a real understanding of life outside Washington. Maybe a governor. A Midwesterner would be nice for a change.

I mean, the guy was a cheerleader at Yale, and now he pretends to be a swaggering, macho Texan. Ooh, care to elaborate?

Rah-rah-sis-boom-ba, GO TEAM!!

The more we Democrats try to paint ourselves as something we are not, the more elections we are going to lose. I'm not sure who on the national scene is going to lead us out of this. Barak Obama, maybe. John Edwards at least talks the talk. - KanDem Nope. It isn't going to be a state senator from Illinois coming to Washington or a trial lawyer-turned-politician. Your new political leader is Hillary. OC Democrats are in denial about this, but we OC GOPers have told you for over a year that Hillary would be the big winner from a Democratic loss in 2004. She's the most popular Democrat in the country--among Democrats. Bill will once again be in the center of party life, and Hillary is your next nominee.

---and she'll probably win.

I'm not so sure about that

I agree that the DEM nomination is hers for the taking but I'm not so sure that she can win. Of course it all depends on who is the GOP candidate. The last time the DEMS ran a northeastern liberal senator, he lost by about 3.5 million votes.

Ah, yes. And it only seems like last week.

Hillary is not our leader. If I'm not supporting her for Pres, then she's not going to win the primary.