As a member of the 12% I don't care so much about remarriages or divorces but what that may mean to the philosophy that candidate appears to believe in and will use as president. Sometimes divorces happen and sometimes they need to happen (i.e. Edwards) but don't for whatever reason (i.e. Clintons) -- I care more about someone who will be a leader of this country and its journey out of its economic decline. Period!

And then there are the liberal bully-boys Teddy Kennedy and Chris Dodd who coined the term "waitress sandwich" to describe their disgusting behavior.

In 2012 I will vote for the person running against Obama mainly because I don't respect him or his appointees. Obama was elected by those who wanted to prove to us and themselves that they were not racists and now they need to prove they aren't idiots.

Private sector unions bargain for more pay/benefits with owners/managers who are aware any additional payroll costs can cause collapse of competitiveness and the business itself. Public sector unions bargain for more pay/benefits with taxpayers who can only pay for additional payroll costs by raising the tax rate or fees for services.

Abortion is the one issue my wife and I argue over, but we both are from an era before ultra-sounds and tiny cameras could actually show how well formed a fetus is at 2-3 months -- it's not a blob of cells like those of our generation believed back in the day. Abortion and a woman's rights to control her own body is an important issue to my wife but this country and its future is worth more to her.

There is a big difference in a private sector union negotiating for better pay/benefits with the owners of the business (usually stockholders) and something entirely different in public sector unions negotiating for better pay/benefits from taxpayers through elected representatives who receive campaign contributions from those same unions. If the private sector business foolishly makes a deal with union members it can't support and its product becomes non-competitive it will go out of business or move to China but Cleveland (as an example) can do neither. This is why FDR and even the AFL-CIO's George Meany recognized this difference. Most folks do not today and that's why unions continue to advance only in the public sector.

I'm still waiting for the seas to rise as manmade global warming melts the Arctic ice and I live in Florida on the ocean. Been waiting for over 15 years for Al Gore's "alarm" to raise the water level even an inch. I guess now I'll have to wait for Jane Fonda to sound the "all clear" on this "China Syndrome" nuke thingy.

Kids today play "protestor" like we played "soldiers" in the '50s after WW2 -- it gives them a linkage to the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War protestors and the people in the streets of the middle east. It's just a linkage not the real thing of course but they don't know the difference.

Can someone tell us how bargaining for a larger share of the profits in the private sector with knowledge that it may make the product less price competitive and possibly kill the goose is the same as public sector unionization where there is no profit -- NONE -- and they collectively bargain with taxpayers' who can't buy the product elsewhere?

When employees bargain for a greater share of revenues in the private sector their employer can agree and add that cost into the price of its good or service and if that increase makes the good or service uncompetitive then the business can renegotiate with the employees or even go out of business -- the unions in the public sector have what kind of counter balance exactly on their excessive pay/benefits or work rules? I know of none.