Well, excuse me. If you read the rest of my post, you see the factual errors & fallacies put forth by those who are so focused on their pet issues that they are not willing to support what we have seen to be an effective politician, and one who is not as liberal as some around here would have you think.
My NY-Centric view of this politician includes a lot of memories, far more than just crime reduction, not all good, but most that occurred prior to 9/11.
Perhaps chief among them was enacting policies that liberals hated at first but came to see as wise, just, and necessary. And that's the key to a lot of what he did here: he changed the minds of a lot of people who now don't look at things like the knee-jerk liberals they once were. That's more important to me than his views on gays. And it's something that no other possible candidate has as much potential to do, given the opportunity. I know that finding a way to throw around references to homos or make lame Ted Kennedy or Helen Thomas jokes is of paramount importance around here, but I like the idea that even liberals can learn to see things from another point of view, one that's a lot closer to the one that many of us on this site view as being a far more rational way of looking at things.
For those of you for whom this is an unimportant trifle, carry on. For those who haven't seen it enough times in these threads, I think you're due for another 'gun-grabbing, cross-dressing, baby-killing' cliche-spout. Have at it.