text: You raise a very good point. Part of the problem, IMHO, is that the Dems attempt to embrace a wider spectrum of the population than the Reps do (these days). Its hard to streamline so many interests.\n\nPart of the problem is that hard core elements dominate either party, which make them less appealing to "moderates." This is reflected in the mistaken rhetoric that one is either a conservative or a liberal. I have views that some consider "liberal," but support the death penalty and own several firearms, for instance. \n\nIn the last election, the Democrats ran a Liberal senator from a Liberal state against a moron with whom enough red-necks and Bible thumpers connected to eke out a win. Bush could have been defeated. All the Dems needed was a candidate who actually came out and stood for something. I wanted to like Kerry, but he lacked charisma and he seemed to say whatever he thought was politically advantageous. Unfortunately, the neo-fascists, um, neo-cons, were able to seize on that indecisiveness as what the country doesn't need in a time of "war" (of Bushie's own making). Result: the guy who actually fought in a war was deemed a weakling/coward/liar; while the coke-snorting deserter was "The War President" (again, in a war of his own making). That the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be portrayed as God-less and soft on "terrorism" and national defense is a flat-out disgrace. They deserved to lose because they lacked the guts to run a candidate with strong convictions and a voting record to back them.\n\nRight now, Obama looks like a candidate who could appeal to a broad spectrum of our increasingly diverse population. But, unless the DemoCommunist extremists drop their efforts to disarm the populace (and thereby rendering us defenseless against enemies from within and without), and to make us a socialist nation by lavishing benefits upon everyone it'll be hard to vote for one.