that good has triumphed over evil once again.

why so many people in the US--people who are not stupid and pay at least some attention to what is happening in the world--are clamoring for deep and unbalanced spending cuts when this approach has been or is being tried elsewhere around the globe, and the result is a devastating economic crash. The evidence is right there for anyone to see. Perhaps it is simply a matter of semantics. The word "austerity" is applied when referring to the situation in another country, but the word "austerity" is avoided when someone talks about what measures should be taken here. Here, it's called "balancing the budget" or "reducing the deficit." Never "austerity." I suppose if the MSM began using such a scary word here, it might alert too many people to the truth.

who may have been busy with other races will be available, MSM will talk of his record, women voters who may not have paid enough attention before will be alerted to his sexism, and more. Basically, no one can guarantee the future.

understand, with my tiny pea-brain which of course I have simply because I am female, what this Alice Lehr person has written, who, although she, too, is probably a woman and speaks for me, and...as such...uh, what was the question?

Now to be serious. Yesterday I learned--from Romney himself--that we voted for Obama because he's giving college-age women free contraceptives (insinuating, in my mind at least, that we women are sluts). And today we females are selfish and egotistical as well?

So this is how the Rs will win back female voters?

of Mormons didn't vote for Romney.

for college-age women to vote for Obama? It certainly appears that Romney has just insinuated that we women are sluts. Not wise, Mitt, but thanks for reminding us of what Republicans think about females so we'll remember who not to vote for.

and don't want to have another stressful race so soon after the last one. I get that. But some of us in other states are tired, too. Such is the nature of politics and political activism, and each state has its own set of problems and needs.

I just don't think it is right to hold a person back if that person turns out to be the most capable one available for an even more important position in which to serve our country.

And one of these days Scott Brown will undoubtedly be back and Dems will have to beat him all over again, whether it's sooner or later.

are both well qualified to be SOS and I believe either would do a fine job. I am not aware of any others who might be considered for the position (but what do I know).

I trust our president to choose whichever candidate would serve our country best. After all, he knows Susan Rice and John Kerry a bit better than any of us do.

of Scott Brown seems to have become a tsunami. I'm surprised at how certain many DUers are that they can predict the future. I include all the DUers from Massachusetts who insist they know the Great Fearsome Mr. Brown is invincible.

Perhaps President Obama has a different take on what is best for the country. And perhaps he is in possession of information or facts that he will take into consideration when he makes his decision. I think it is best left up to him.

May the best and most loyal and most capable man or woman be given the job of SOS, which is of the utmost importance in determining the future of the world and our position in it. That applies to the job of SOD as well.

tidal wave of DUers who seem to be terrified of Scott Brown.

As to what is best for the country, I think that decision should be left up to President Obama and the individuals being considered for high-level positions.