In this country where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state there are several areas where the laws and customs of the church bleed over into the laws and customs of the land. One of those areas is "marriage."

With the advent of civil unions, it's time to simply make ALL unions civil unions for legal purposes, and send marriage back to the church where the premise of "ordained by God" belongs.

I have heard many conservative folks say that they could endorse civil unions, but have a problem when it comes to the term "marriage". The solution is simple. Separate the two. Give marriage the religious significance and backing of the respective churches, while granting all couples the same legal rights and social position through civil unions.

It would be much the same way that birth certificates are a legal record, while baptismal certificates serve as a church record. Marriage requirements would have to meet the requirements of each individual church, while civil unions would be granted to all adult citizens by the state.

It's already in the constituion, this separation of church and state, now is the time to put it into practice.

According to Politico.com...

On ABC’s “This Week,” presidential politics will be front-and-center when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential contender, visits with host George Stephanopoulos. Richardson recently returned from North Korea, where he led a U.S. delegation to recover the remains of fallen soldiers from the Korean War.

I am very frustrated by what I considered to be a
general east coast and specifically a New York City
bias in the main stream media. Both Hillary and
Guiliani are garnering unfair notice and publicity
because they are the "hometown" candidates of the
major main stream news organizations.

The broadcasters already have a working relationship
with these candidates and feel more comfortable
covering them and speaking with them in interviews. It
is very noticeable...and I think it's high time
someone called them on it. And I think that someone
should be the Democrats.

We have a very strong field of viable candidates. Some
of whom are not getting a fair share of the media
coverage and as a result a less than fair shake in
regards to getting elected. I think this is shameful.

It's time we the people tell the media who we want to
be our candidates. It's not right that the media has
so much power as to be able to slant the election in a
candidates favor. We really need to start making a
concerted effort on behalf of ALL the candidates. We
do them a disservice, by not allowing their ideas to
be heard. We do the party a disservice if mainstream
America thinks that all we have to offer are Hillary
and Obama. We do America a disservice if we just sit
on our hands and accept it.

If all you hear about in the news is Hillary and
Obama, pretty soon the message is that one of these
two candidates is going to win because they're ahead
in all the polls. But WHY are they ahead? Because they
are by far the superior candidates...or because they
are getting all the media coverage?

We need to fix this...and I believe we can fix this

I haven't yet decided on which candidate I will support with my vote in the primary elections. I think it's way too early to make that decision. The field has several very good choices, and I am in no hurry.

It's not like there is a such a thing as a candidate smorgasboard where I can go and build my candidate from scratch. Let's see...Give me a heaping helping of ending the war in Iraq . Throw in some addressing of the health care crisis, please. Add a fix for the trade deficit to protect the American working class. A nice serving of improving our school system. Hold the wasteful spending. And oh yeah, could you give me some honesty, decency and trust if it's not too much trouble?

I want a leader who can work with other nations on solving the world's problems by using diplomacy first and foremost. I want a leader who is respected and respectful. I want a leader who can work with others for the mutual benefit of all. A leader who inspires, but also has the experience and expertise to back it up.

Fortunately, there are several candidates among the Democrats who come close to fitting the bill. It will be a welcome change to be able to go to the polls this time around, and not have to vote for the lessor of the evils.

I am not willing to rule out anyone at this juncture, so I will remain undecided for a while yet. It isn't that no one has struck my fancy yet, it's that there are several who interest me. I do have a few that I like better than the others, but I am unable to pick a clear favorite.

And that's a good thing!

I was a bit puzzled this morning when all the news accounts claimed surprise and astonishment at Barack Obama's successful fund raising efforts. Evidently no one is paying attention to the fact that American's are sick and tired of business as usual. Even though Hillary Clinton is a woman, she still represents the recent past. People want a fresh start and a fresh face.

Hillary Clinton is every bit as polarizing as she was when the Clinton's were in the White House. Raising the most money isn't going to make her more likeable. Those that like her really, really like her, and those that don't, really, really don't. And there are more that don't like her than do in the middle of the spectrum where the pendulum swings. Let's not forget that America was embarassed by the Clinton's when they were in White House. American's are tired of being embarassed by their leaders. Fool me once.

Those that called Hillary's nomination a "slam dunk" and inevitable, really had no basis in fact for those assumptions. I'd advise those television pundits to watch and listen more carefully before spouting off. They all are beginning to look like complete idiots and it's awfully early in the game to be embarrassing yourself like this. Shame on them.

People are in no mood to be fooled twice. This isn't going to be like any election in our lifetime, the closest one being the election of Jimmy Carter in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam.

The internet will get out the information that television is too biased to broadcast. While all the major news outlets are falling all over themselves to cover Hillary and Obama, Edwards has been leading the polls in Iowa all along. One has to wonder if tv news sources are reporting the news or inventing the news? TV pundits are going to go the way of the dinosaur if they don't smarten up.

I think the Democrat Party would be wise to ask for more balanced press coverage of all of the candidates at this very early juncture. Backing the wrong horse could be fatal, especially if someone like Fred Thompson or Chuck Hagel should enter the race at a later date. It's much too early to limit the choices. It's imperative that the Democrats pick the right candidate. Listen to the people, not the pundits. The people have more votes.