Assuming the Court’s ruling holds up, here is the Question of Doom[sup]TM[/sup] for a Democratic candidate:
“Mr. Candidate, would you support a Constitutional amendment which would allow the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance?”
No matter how our candidate answers that, he alienates somebody.
And Vegas gives 50-to-1 odds that he will choose to alienate the atheists, because they don’t have enough politicl clout (read: lobbists) for them to matter. 
Perhaps you mean “atheist Democrats”, which would explain the first assumption, but not the second.
No, but I really doubt that Bush’s opponent will be an atheist Democrat.
Yes, of course I meant “atheist Democrats”. What is the second assumption you are referring to?
I don’t think Bush’s opponent will be an atheist either, but that doesn’t totally preclude the person from believing in the sep. of church and state. Oh wait, I forgot, I learned this week that it pretty much does.
It seemed like you were thinking of the candidates who claim support for “under God” to be “following the lemmings” rather than genuinely believing in it, which I don’t think is going to be the case.
I don’t suppose we can just skip the “God” stuff and focus our attention on the “liberty and justice for all” part.
Silly me. What was I thinking.
I see. I think you have a point, I was thinking that someone who would get as far as being the Democratic nominee would at least have a hidden desire to obey his oath to defend the Constitution, even when it’s politically unpopular. In retrospect, that was indeed quite naive.