A liberal hasn't won in almost half a century, so why do so many insist on a liberal litmus test? That is guaranteed to keep us out of the White House. In order to win, we need to nominate someone who specifically is not liberal. Like it or not, only non-liberals win the presidency.
If Kerry took Clinton's advice and came out against gay marriage, it may have made the difference in Ohio, and thus the election. Ditto for guns and abortion. All liberals get killed on these cultural wedge issues, so if we want to get serious about winning, then we need to nominate someone who is shielded from these kinds of attacks.
We need to back the Democrat most likely to win. Hillary is not my first choice, but I am willing to back whatever candidate looks the strongest, regardless of their positions on the invasion, abortion, gays, guns, etc.
Everyone should discuss the pros and cons of every potential candidate, and fight for the one they like the best, but in the end, if we want to retake the White House, then we need to rally behind whoever is most likely to win. We are the pragmatists and Republicans the ideologues.
Brent Reilly at www.HowToKickRepublicanButt.com