Prop 8: The Musical

Look at all the fabulous queer-friendly folks in this video from funnyordie.com!

I fucking love Tina Fey. And Amy Poehler.

Two letters to Barack Obama

Here's the letter I wanted to write to Barack Obama tonight:

Dear Barack Obama,

Quit being such a douchebag, please. I understand from your past and recent actions that you don't give two shits about queer people or women, so I don't imagine that a plea from this queer woman will mean much to you. However, I imagine that by now you've even started to alienate voters you actually care about (straight males, mostly the white ones), so I thought I'd just make this friendly request on behalf of your...I don't know...integrity, I guess. You were supposed to be the Great New Hope, but you're quickly becoming indistinguishable from that pile of shit that resembles McCain. Pretty sure that's not what you promised a few months ago, although I'll have to go back and study your transcripts. You're a shifty motherfucker, so I may have missed it.

Anyway, I don't expect you to stop being a douchebag just for me. I mean, I didn't even vote for you in the primary like I said I would, so I know I ain't done nothin' for you lately. But you seem to have endeared yourself to other progressives, and they're gonna start to get pissed, what with all the shitting all over their values and stuff, so maybe you could do it for them. Or for yourself, really, since you're gonna need their votes to get that white house. Or maybe you could do it because you promised us you were different, that you were a decent guy who cared about all the people society just doesn't care about (wait, that was Edwards, wasn't it?). Anyway, I know for a fact you promised us you were different, and I'm pretty sure you at least strongly implied that you were a decent guy. But if you don't quit being such a colossal douchebag, well, then you're not a decent guy at all - you're just another fucking politician.

And all the shit you've been doing the last couple weeks makes me want to cut your nuts off.

Straighten up or fuck off,
Gender Blank

But because I am a civilized and mature adult, here is the comment I actually left on his website:

I am a registered Democrat who will be voting for Cynthia McKinney in November because Barack Obama has proven over the last several weeks that he doesn't care at all about women (comments on abortion, telling Bernie Mac he was just "messing with him" after pretending to chastise him for his misogynist remarks) or pretty much anything else his most vocal supporters care about (FISA, Iraq pullout, pandering to evangelicals, gun control). At this point Barack Obama and John McCain might as well be the same candidate.

Barack Obama is supposedly a great orator, so I don't believe all of these things are simply instances of him "misspeaking." He is either misspeaking (in which case I just can't trust anything he actually says), or he means what he is saying (in which case I simply can't trust him). Either way he loses my vote.

Barack Obama is behaving like a political opportunist with no integrity. He promised something very different from what he has delivered thus far. I refuse to hold my nose and vote for him just because he's the Democratic nominee. I will instead gladly cast my vote for a Green.

If John McCain wins the election because enough true progressives are fed up with Obama's crap and vote for Cynthia McKinney or some other candidate, it will not be our fault. It will be Obama's fault for treating us like our votes are expendable. In any case, at this point it doesn't seem like McCain will be much more horrible for the country than Obama's recent actions suggest he will be.

Sincerely,

Gender Blank

I kinda wish I'd actually written the first one.

Day of Silence

I heart Tina Fey

Bitch is the new black.

MSNBC sorta blows

I know you already know this. But it bears revisiting every once in awhile. They provide enough examples at pretty regular intervals to keep my rage-o-meter at least partially engaged at all times. Plus, they continue to employ Chris Matthews. That's enough to give me heartburn by itself.

What I'm most irritated about over the last few days is their coverage of the Democratic race for the nomination. First, after Super Tuesday failed to deliver a decisive front-runner, MSNBC.com ran a headline all day long that said something like "Democratic Race Could Go Negative" with a subhead indicating that this negativity would split and damage the party (sorry - I can't find a link to the article anymore).

Don't you just love it when corporately-owned douchebags predict inevitable disasters for their opponents based on a history that completely contradicts the prediction? After all, the ensuing article noted (at the very, very end) that up until that point the Democratic race had been pretty darn civil. They could at least wait to see what happens and then make a reasoned analysis. I mean, even Jerry Falwell waited until after the disaster of 9/11 to blame the gays and the feminists. Just like a gentleman should.

Plus, so far they've been wrong. I know it's only been five days since Super Tuesday, but I haven't read any reports of a huge wave of negativity between Obama and Clinton. There is still time, of course, but they seem to be making a pretty concerted effort to be on good behavior (relative to most political campaigning, anyway). I hope they don't make me eat my words in the coming weeks.

Another thing that's bugging me right now is this photo of Barack Obama on MSNBC.com.
















I just can't help but think the top dogs at MSNBC are chuckling just a little at running this Angry Black Man photo. Or Evil Black Man. He looks more evil than angry. Now, I know that photojournalism is all about capturing a "moment." But after winning the four contests last night, wouldn't you think Barack Obama would be having a happy moment, and wouldn't that photo be more appropriate to run? Or was it just too tempting to slap up an unflattering photo that plays into the stereotypes that lots of voters have?

Perhaps I wouldn't be so cheesed if they didn't run that photo next to this one of Mike Huckabee looking all serious and presidential.










I'm not irritated by this because I'm a fan of Obama (he only got 49% of my vote on Tuesday). I'm irritated by this because I'm a fan of fairness. And balance. But in a completely non-Fox News kind of way.

Or maybe - and probably most likely - I'm irritated because I just got done reading this and this over at Shakesville. Melissa says it way better than I could, so just go read about MSNBC's misogynist douchebaggery over there. Don't forget the comments sections when you read stuff at Shakesville. The regulars over there are a smart and savvy bunch, and the discussions are often as good as the posts.

Anyway, MSNBC is beyond having some 'splainin' to do. If they want to remain a viable candidate for my entertainment attention, they're gonna hafta make a grand gesture of some sort. Suspending David Shuster isn't quite enough for me.

Chris Matthews would be nice to have in the trophy case, though.

Political Leaderboard

The vote looms

We're a day away from Super Tuesday. God dammit, I need more time!

'Cause here's where I am right now: I've publicly agreed to support Barack Obama, who I believe is a great choice, but I keep secretly rooting for Hillary Clinton, who I also believe would be a great choice, albeit for very different reasons.

I saw people standing at the corner of a busy intersection in Albany this weekend holding Hillary signs, and I admit that I felt emotional. These were people standing out in the misty cold for a viable female candidate, and that's never before been possible in my lifetime. Or anyone else's.

And then I saw this video about Barack Obama, and it gave me chills. Truthfully, I get chills nearly every time I see coverage of Obama making a speech. Not usually because of his actual speech, but because of the crowds' reactions to his speeches. I can't say that he totally lights my fire, but the fact that he lights so many other fires is certainly inspirational.

Is it possible to be inspired transitively? 'Cause if so, I'd like to express my feelings about Barack Obama as a logical equation: If I am inspired by people's excitement to engage in the democratic process, and Barack Obama makes truckloads of people get excited about engaging in the democratic process, then I am inspired by Barack Obama.

But here's the thing. Even though there are things about her that make me cringe, I am directly inspired by Hillary Clinton. I don't think there's anyone smarter in the race. Maybe even in the party. She is damn near unflappable. She can play the game with the best of the boys (I'm not necessarily interested in someone who plays that game, but I still admire that she can do it so well). She's been smeared more than any woman in American history, but she refuses to give up, and a day before Super Tuesday she leads the polls and the delegate count for the Democratic nomination. I just can't help but be inspired by that.

But can she win against John McCain? I'm not so sure. I think she could if Obama were on the ticket with her, but I'm not sure he would accept that offer. I think Obama would be able to beat McCain with a few different people as his VP, which ups his stock with me. But I don't know that he would put Hillary on the ticket (even though I believe she deserves to be there in some capacity), and I don't want to miss an opportunity to vote for a well-qualified female candidate. Who knows when it will happen again (not saying that there won't be a well-qualified female, just that it's not easy to squeeze through the process like Hillary has)?

So, dear readers, what do I do with all this? I have a day to figure it out. Any advice out there?

Edwards drops out

A little factoid: Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month.

Huh.

Fuck you, Mr. Edwards

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business," Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

This, in response to Hillary Clinton getting almost teary talking about her country.

Now, I'm no great Clinton-lover, but this comment by Edwards is below the cooter. That's worse than just below the belt. He deserves nothing short of a feminist ass-kicking for going there. I mean, really, John? I'm fairly certain Hillary could fuck you up pretty easily.

Hillary getting choked up about her country is actually a point in her favor, in my opinion. And you, sir, are just a desperate douchebag hoping the cool kid picks you to be on his ticket.

On the Republican side

Just wanted to add that Johnson County Republicans chose Romney with 32%, followed by Huckabee with 22% - indicating that Huckabee is going to have a hell of a time in New Hampshire.

'Cause Iowa Republicans in general are a pretty born-again bunch, especially in the more rural areas (which is most of the state). But the ones in Johnson County, and specifically the ones in Iowa City, tend to only be Republicans because they're rich. They're really more like Libertarians than true Republicans. Except for Mike Thayer. He's about as socially conservative as they get.

But Granite Staters have a decidedly Libertarian bent. "Live Free or Die" and all that shit. They're Republicans because they want the government to stay out of their business, not on accounta Jesus. So I don't think Huckabee is going to find quite the reception there that he got in Iowa.

In addition, New Hampshire is Romney's back yard. Now, I left New Hampshire before really getting a pulse on how those folks felt about ol' Flip Flop Romney, but I think he'll probably win their primary.

Of course, who knows what the addition of Guiliani will do to the race in New Hampshire? He wrote Iowa off a long time ago, and Iowa voters returned the favor. He isn't in the top three in NH right now, but maybe he'll mention 9/11 again and it'll work this time. We'll know in a few days, I guess.

My prediction for Tuesday, btw, is Clinton-Obama-Edwards, Romney-McCain-Huckabee. Huckabee might climb to second on the momentum of last night, but I don't think it's gonna happen. I think Obama will gain enough ground in the state over the next four days to make Clinton sweat, but I think she'll hold on for the win (she currently has a 12-point lead there). Which will make me happy, because I think the country needs to see a woman do well. But I'm an Obama girl (er, woman) now, so I'll root for an upset.

Any different predictions out there?

I'm the new Obama Girl. Er, Woman.

So, I promised to endorse whoever Johnson County Democrats chose to be the party's candidate for President, and they couldn't have been any clearer. The gap between their Chosen One and the second place guy was even wider than the gap statewide, which was already pretty astonishing. Here is the breakdown:

Johnson County
updated 12:33 a.m. EDT, January 4, 2008 100% reported

Obama 52%
Edwards 24%
Clinton 21%
Richardson 2%
Uncommitted 1%
Biden 0%
Dodd 0%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

So that means my official endorsement goes to Barack Obama for President 2008. And in a huge way, too. I'm a little shocked and disappointed in a strange kind of way, although I think I would have felt that way no matter who got picked. Or maybe I was hoping JC would give me a reason to endorse Clinton, 'cause I want to like the female candidate, but she certainly didn't earn my vote based on her record or her talking points. Johnson County voters were her last hope of getting my endorsement, but they weren't extremely impressed either, I guess.

I have to give Clinton points for her speech last night, though. She focused on the party and the Democratic vision and said she can't wait for the contest ahead rather than insisting she will be the winner. Smart move.

And congratulations to John Edwards for coming in slightly second. It was a good showing for him. But I couldn't wait for his speech to be over. And not because of his accent (sorry for my prejudice in the last post, Phydeaux). It's just that he kept talking. And talking. And doing that contrived politician-y thing where they mention local people with tragic problems in an attempt to make us gullible voters believe they actually know those people and give a shit about them. All politicians are guilty of this from time to time, but Edwards is the only one I saw do it last night. And the only mention of his wife, unless I zoned out during the middle, was to mention her cancer. Classy move.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, took a moment to actually recognize his wife and her role in helping him through the whole thing. It seemed genuinely celebratory, which was great to see. And he was charismatic and hopeful as all hell, which explains why he has been inspiring all sorts of young people to come out and get involved in the political process.

And for that I am truly thankful, because seeing that kind of enthusiasm and turnout for a candidate is a reason to really get excited about what he might be able to accomplish. Because, as MonkeyPants said, any of the top three would be fine, they'd all be way better than Bush, and there probably wouldn't be much difference in the way any of them would do the job. But if one of them makes more people want to get involved in the process or makes people start caring about politics and the direction of the country, well, that's sort of a big deal and definitely a reason to celebrate. And to earn my highly-coveted endorsement.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. The people of Johnson County - and now I - believe you're The One. Don't fuck it up.

My presidential pick

So, I thought I'd weigh in before the Iowa caucuses and go on record with my pick for the next President of the US of A. It's a biggie, this election, which is why a celebrity such as myself needs to put out an endorsement to try to sway as many undecideds (or wrongly-decideds) as possible.

But here's the trouble.

First of all, I've been way too busy to follow every detail of every campaign as closely as necessary to make a truly informed decision. And if you haven't noticed, there are a bazillion fucking candidates, so even someone trying to follow every detail would have to make a full-time job of it.

Second of all, I've done a lot of those online polls where you can vote for your values and then find out at the end which candidate you match up with best. And every time my top pick is the nutjob from Cleveland. But I can't seriously endorse a candidate who looks like an elf. Or believes in them.

Third of all, there is nobody among the top three or four Democrats who really stands out to me and makes me say "That one there! That's my woman/man!" I haven't yet decided if that means that there are no great candidates in the mix or if it means there are several equally great candidates in the mix. But either way, I'm not excited about anybody.

Fourth, I'm not in Iowa or New Hampshire during an election cycle for the first time in my life. Which means, unfortunately but thankfully, I haven't seen a single ad from anyone yet. Not that I decide who to vote for based on ads, but the ads help me decide who I might not want to vote for. If candidates run especially nasty ads, for example, they turn me off. But not all negative ads are nasty. Some of them bring up really important points against other candidates that TV-watchers might not hear other places, depending on the types of television shows they watch. And, very occasionally, candidates come out with ads that are inspiring or clever or just plain slick, which can help a little. So, while ads need to be evaluated through a very dense filter, they can be helpful. But I haven't seen any, so I haven't been helped.

Lastly, the top three candidates on the Dem side have gotten endorsements from some key people, which doesn't help me at all. My graduate school mentor came out in favor of Clinton, some Iowa City political activists I trust and admire are supporting Obama, and my parents will be caucusing for Edwards. These are all people I would gladly take cues from, but they've sort of cancelled each other out. Thanks for all the help, y'all.

I've asked myself the following questions to try to help me decide. Number one, does running a slick campaign deserve my vote? If so, I'd lean toward Clinton. In the early stages of the campaign, anyway. The rollout of her announcement and the stuff right afterward was pretty genius. I didn't see much of the Edwards or Obama stuff, so Clinton wins by default, even though I suspect she'd win this category anyway.

Number two, does possessing a vagina deserve my vote? I'm undecided on this point. Certainly Vagina-Americans need to have some other qualifications to hold the highest position in the land, but it is tempting to root for the first viable female candidate in American history. At least to root for her to be good. Which I'm not convinced she is. All I can commit to saying is that if I decide to base my vote on vaginal ownership, I'll probably go for Clinton.

Number three, can I stand a southern accent like John Edwards'? 'Cause I know he does a lot of work for poor people, and even though his haircuts are kinda expensive, I know he cares about the little guy. And that's important to me. But he just sounds irritating. That statement is rooted in a northern/midwestern bias against southern accents, and in no way do I think it reflects the great diversity of intellects among people with southern accents. Bill Clinton, very smart. George Bush, not so much. But, whether it makes me an ignorant bitch or not, people with southern accents have to work harder to win me over than others do. And I'm not sure he did. Based on tolerability of accent, Obama or Clinton would take this one.

Number four, how much experience is enough? Because if experience matters, I don't think Obama has enough of the right kind. He will, but I don't trust his gut yet. Maybe in another four years. On experience, it's Edwards or Clinton. People might argue that Clinton has roughly the same experience in the Senate that Obama does, but I call bullshit on that. We all know she was involved in a lot of stuff while Bill was running the show. Which isn't necessarily a point in her favor, 'cause a lot of questionable shit came out of Bill's reign. But at least she's got experience doing stuff.

Number five, is it more important to vote for the most progressive candidate or the one I think has the best chance of beating the Republican for the job? Clinton actually would lose both of those, in my opinion. I think she's the least progressive of the top three, and she might just carry too much baggage. If I vote most progressive, I think I go with Obama. If I vote best chance to win, I think I go with Edwards. And then I remember that Obama gave a platform to friggin' Donnie McClurkin and start to rethink the whole progressive thing. So, I guess Edwards wins this one.

So, where does this leave me? With a toss-up, that's where. So what does a celebrity like me do when pressured by the masses to endorse someone for President in 2008? I mean, this my Oprah moment, so how do I figure this all out? Is there an answer? I think there is.

Trust Iowa.

That's right. I will put my trust in Iowa. I used to live there and have personally and often witnessed the thorough deliberation Iowans put into the caucus process. They take this shit very seriously, they ask the tough questions, they weigh things very carefully. At least the ones in Johnson County, anyway.

So, perhaps I should be more specific. I will put my trust in Johnson County Democrats to choose who I will endorse for President. Whoever emerges victorious after the caucus in Johnson County will get my support. It's not that I don't care enough to do my own research, but I know that thousands of people in the Hawkeye State are doing it for me. So I'm going to give it up to them and have faith that they will pick someone deserving of my very important endorsement. It's the least you all deserve!

Fingers crossed, and I'll weigh in on Friday.

A Republican over Hillary?

Go here to find out with which candidate for President you have the most values in common. There are only eleven questions, so the quiz is far from comprehensive. And there were a couple of questions for which I had two viable answers and one question for which I didn't want to choose any of the available answers. So, I'm not putting a lot of stock into the whole thing and what it means.

And yet...

I found it not at all surprising that my values are most in line with Dennis Kucinich and second most with Mike Gravel. I always seem to gravitate toward the lefty nutjobs who can be politically honest because they have very little to lose for it. What I found most interesting was that the candidate with whom my values are third most consistent was a Republican.

What the effing aytch?

Now, Mike Huckabee is pretty decent for a Republican, but let's get serious, folks. Ain't no way he's better than all but two of the Democrats.

So I tried a little experiment. I went back and took the quiz again and changed the answer to one of the questions for which I was trying to decide between a couple of the available options (mandatory caps on carbon emissions versus investing in alternative energy sources - they both seem important to me). The new results put Bill Richardson as my number three.

And then I tried it again, changing back to my original answer on that question but changing my answer on one of the other tricky ones (does it really matter to me if the candidate has been a governor versus a senator or a representative? Not really). This time Barack Obama popped up as my number three.

And that is comforting to me. It was really messing with a core part of my identity to find myself with a Republican in my top three. So I was pleased that I shared NO values with Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Fred Thompson. Because they're pretty big tools.

But here's what's most distressing to me after taking the quiz three times. No matter how I changed my answers around, Hillary Clinton never shared more than three values with me*. Out of eleven. Now, I'm no math wiz, but that's pretty bad.

'Cause I really, really, really want to be able to vote my values in every election, but I also understand how important it is to keep Republicans out of office in this next election, which makes me more likely to support whoever ends up being the Democratic candidate. And at this point it's looking like Hillary just may be that candidate. In addition to feeling distressed that I may have so little in common, value-wise, with the next President, I feel a little distressed that I have so little in common with Hillary. Because, for whatever reason, I keep wanting to like her. I want to be able to root for the first viable female candidate for the highest office in the country. No matter how much she disappoints me, I remain unwilling to kick her to the curb. Kinda like I was with her husband back before my feminist sensibilities were so defined. What is that all about, anyway? I keep trying to convince myself that she really doesn't believe the things she says but insists on saying them so she'll get elected, at which point she'll turn into the socialist feminist superhero I deserve to have as my President.

Anyone think that's likely?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Anyway, go take the quiz and see who you'd vote for if you were voting strictly on your eleven values.


*In case you're curious about my breakdown, here it is based on my last attempt (out of a possible score of 11):
Kucinich (11)
Gravel (7)
Obama (4)
Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, and Paul (3)
Clinton, Biden, Guiliani, Huckabee, and Brownback (2)
Romney and McCain (1)
Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson (0)

How well do you know the United States?

Here's a little quiz fulla questions (only 25) taken from the new naturalization test to become a U.S. citizen. I missed three, resulting in a score of 88%. Not my best work, for sure, but I'm not in jeopardy of getting yanked outta the country or anything. I can think of about fifty people I saw today about whom the same probably cannot be said. And I think I only saw about fifty-two people today.

Oh, if only some of them could get yanked outta the country for being stupid. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm never watching TPIR again

Drew Carey? Seriously? I can't stand that guy! He's not funny, but he sure thinks he is. That's the worst. I broke up with an otherwise pretty decent person for the same reason. Sure, it came out later that she was a lying manipulator, but at the time I just thought she was extremely unfunny, and her constant attempts to prove otherwise by laughing at her own jokes, ba-dum-bum-style ("HOHhhhhh!"), drove me fucking nuts. It was a break-uppable offense. That's how much funny, or at least understanding funny, means to me.

Which is why I will never watch The Price is Right again. Not that I watched it a whole lot before, but it's off limits now.

But Drew Carey's failure to 'get' funny isn't even the worst thing. No, folks, it's true. There's one thing that trumps unfunny in my book. It's pretty grotesque, but all my sources have confirmed it. Drew Carey supports Republicans. And that, my friends, is virtually unforgivable. There are very few people I know in real life who are Republican-supporters who have managed to stay off my shit list. But they have had to be amazing fucking people in every other respect, or at least be related to me by illegal gay laws, for me to keep talking to them. And then it's only kind of grudgingly. It's like befriending a Death Eater, very nearly. Only they're not killing people. But they are supporting an administration and a party that thinks killing people, so long as they're brown and living above an oil supply, is A-OK. So back to the Death Eater thing.

And there we have it. I refuse to watch shows hosted by Death Eaters. I'm drawing a line. A line I actually drew quite awhile ago, back when I found out Patricia Heaton and Kelsey Grammer were Death Eaters and couldn't look at them the same way again. So, I'm re-drawing the Death Eater line. Zero tolerance from me. I'm trying to protect our country here.

Dick. I mean Motherfucker.

An afternoon with Photoshop ain't always a happy one.

Activism alert - lazy edition

Interested in any of these issues?

Tell Your Representative: Start Bringing the Troops Home
Tell Your Senators: Close Guantanamo
Tell Congress: Save Habeas Corpus, Restore our Constitution
Tell Your Representative: Repeal 'Dont Ask, Don't Tell'
Tell Sen. Obama: Stop Supporting Dirty Coal
Tell Congress: Send Scooter Libby to Guantanamo
Tell Steve Jobs: Unlock the iPhone!
Support Green Energy Legislation
Support Solar Energy in Pennsylvania
Don't Let AT&T Ruin the Internet


If you want to take action on any of these issues, go to ActForChange, the online activism system of Working Assets. Tons of petitions to sign, and you can send letters to your congresspeople with a few clicks. It's activism for the lazy. Right up my alley. I've already told my congresspeople three or four things that are on my mind today, including the fact that I think Dick Cheney ought to be impeached. I also signed the Live Earth Pledge at Al Gore's urging.

Now I need a nap.

Just the type of liberal I am

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Working Class Warrior, also known as a blue-collar Democrat. You believe that the little guy is getting screwed by conservative greed-mongers and corporate criminals, and you’re not going to take it anymore.

Take the quiz at www.fightconservatives.com

Who you rootin' for?

Go here to see how your values and priorities match up with those running (or considering running ) for President of the United States. I was surprised a bit at how mine turned out. Specifically, I was surprised that Al Gore was so far down my list.

This is the second time I've taken this quiz over the last three days. My results were a bit different percentage-wise this time, but the overall ranking is, I believe, identical to the previous ranking. It points to the test not being a perfect metric, as there are only two choices for priority (high or low) and often two opposing choices for answers to the questions, neither of which has much nuance. But the quiz is better than most I've seen, and I encourage its use for entertainment at the very least.

For me, it is making me do some more reading about the candidates, and that's never a bad thing.


My Results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (79%)
3. Barack Obama (79%)
4. Alan Augustson (77%)
5. Joseph Biden (71%)
6. Hillary Clinton (70%)
7. Christopher Dodd (68%)
8. Wesley Clark (66%)
9. John Edwards (66%)
10. Al Gore (63%)
11. Bill Richardson (59%)
12. Mike Gravel (59%)
13. Ron Paul (43%)
14. Elaine Brown (43%)
15. Kent McManigal (42%)
16. Rudolph Giuliani (29%)
17. Mike Huckabee (28%)
18. John McCain (25%)
19. Mitt Romney (21%)
20. Tommy Thompson (18%)
21. Chuck Hagel (18%)
22. Sam Brownback (15%)
23. Newt Gingrich (14%)
24. Tom Tancredo (14%)
25. Fred Thompson (11%)
26. Duncan Hunter (9%)
27. Jim Gilmore (8%)