Hillary’s campaign, after her Tuesday night “gang bang” (Wonkette), is claiming that she has come out on top. After a night of stonewalling, contradicting, and avoiding any (let alone direct) answers to tough questions, Clinton now seems, well, taken aback at her opponents negative disposition. She and her staff are disappointed, if you will, that her fellow candidates have “abandoned the Politics of Hope,” that they had all unknowingly signed on to before the debate. Or, rather, it would be more honestly told that Hillary spiked her losing the debate with this clever slogan so that people had no room to bad-mouth her after she again failed to tell voters what it is exactly that she means. Anyway, Clinton has come out on top. While everyone else is “piling on” to her for lying and hiding and dodging, at least she remains hopeful.

Of course, she should really probably just remain in the kitchen.

I really can’t stand Hillary. She was shady as a First Lady and I think that she’s even shadier as a candidate for the presidency. I couldn’t tell you what the woman wants for the country. I think that her response to her opponents’ demands for a more solidly attackable (and a much less flighty, slippery, or tricky) Hillary (who works a little harder to make full document disclosure from her days as Bill’s number two readily available), is pathetic. They’re only attacking you because you’re in the lead? Get a grip. They’re attacking you because if anybody knows anything about anything, they know there is one thing Democrats don’t need in 2008 and it’s another flip-flop, another scandal, or another secretive politician.

I wish Hillary would own up to her beliefs and have a little more faith in the intellect of the common-American. I for one am unconvinced of her sincerity, to say the least.

I mean, all I really wanna do is have sex with John Edwards. Wait, was that too much?

I don’t understand why there is such a major emphasis on spirituality in 2008’s presidential election, but there is. Starting a few months ago, I noticed the 24-hour news cable channels doing specials on Hillary and God, Obama and God, Edwards and God, the Democratic Party and God, and I wondered why.

I do grasp the idea that traditionally, conservatism and Christianity go hand and hand. Grass roots politics in cahoots with the Religious Right, the Christian Coalition, and the Bible Belt’s endorsements have steadily been Republican. This year, however, things might be a shade grayer, according to recent headlines.

I am unconvinced, however, that the lines of support aren’t as black and white as they always have been. I’m not saying that any particular candidate is or isn’t religious. Lord knows (an interesting but not deliberate choice of phraseology) that Giuliani is no more devout a Catholic than Obama seems to be a Baptist.

Analysts have said that religion is often a double edged sword for liberals. If they suddenly choose to mention Jesus in a stump-speech, they are booed for having brought religion into the political arena by the separation-of-church-and-state junkies who are at the backbone of progressivism and the fight for modern liberties in this country. If religion goes unmentioned then candidates are blamed for having a large portion of constituents untapped. When they do mention it, their sincerity is brought into question by holier-than-thou conservatives.

However, substance-lacking bible thumping gets you no where. Hallelujahs and the mention of your breaking construction of a great kingdom hear on earth may seem like a quick-fix to a political conundrum plaguing that’s been Democrats for years but without showing convincing signs that you are genuine or knowledgeable the work seems counterproductive. When you are asked tough questions, don’t dodge the bullet (Hillary wasn’t sure, despite how seriously and personally she takes her spirituality, on the exact theology describing necessary prerequisites for entering into heaven).

Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s devotion is not in question (he was a missionary in France during his college-years). But the fact his religion damns every Christian baptism that took place between the time of Jesus’s Apostles and the 19th century inception of Mormonism is just a touch judgy, for my taste.