http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Sort of like how Gore won Florida, eh?

So what's with Huckabee? Finished?

With Romney and Huckabee off the table that pretty much puts your extreme religious cult views on the backburner as far as national politics is concerned.

If elected, McCain isn't ever gonna claim mandate and appoint Borkies to the Supreme Court.

I believe your time has come to an end.

But Clinton is still ahead, because she has more super delegates commited to her.

I know I'm looking forward to having the Lunatic Fringe relegated back to the fringe.

Agreed. People have seen what religious nutjobs are all about, and won't be electing for "more of the same." Good riddance.

With the HUCKster being trounced that leaves NO EXTREME RIGHT EVANGELICAL fundaMENTAList Christians waving their Bibles at anyone. So it looks as though MOST of America is done with them.
Let SANITY enter the White House once again!

This Obama/Clinton thing is going to be long and drawn out. God help us all.

As far as McCain, if Rush Limburger and the rest of his Neanderthal ilk are making a point of bashing McCain for not being conservative enough for the Republican Party, well then I like him more!

According to CNN yeterday afternoon the delegate total count was Clinton 1113 Obama 963. So who is right?

Brian, the ultra conservatives are just stamping their feet in defeat and crying in their beer. John McCain is still pretty conservative. I just watched his speech, and here's what it comes down to:

1. Staying the course in Iraq. Yet 2/3 of the US want us out.

2. Making Bush tax cuts permanent. Yet, we are in recession, stock market return under Bush's watch is less than 2% annual, and we have record deficits.

Iraq and the economy are what it's going to come down to, and McCain is going to have a HELL of a time explaining to America how his shared conservative policies with Bush should continue on for a third term. McCain is the antithesis of the change a majority are looking for.

Yeah he's conservative in many regards. I don't agree with the trickle-down theory, it's grand on paper but unrealistic.

McCain, however, has enough common sense to not INCREASE spending when you're DECREASING revenue. And his philosophy in Iraq will cost him many votes, including mine if it's Obama.

That said, on a lot of areas from campaign finance reform to torture, he has gone against the GOP. He has worked out a LOT of bipartisan stuff, much at the chagrin of Bush. He personally dislikes Bush, that's OK in my book too.

The Republicans can do a LOT worse than McCain. Romney was not an answer, he changed his views too often and too extreme to have any legitimacy. Huckabee caters to the Religious Right crowd and the rest of us see him as too extreme. Ron Paul? Ummm no, nobody really takes him seriously. Yeah he has some warts, but a McCain nomination IMHO would go a ways to bring the GOP back to the middle somewhat, a move that has needed to happen for a long time.

I agree with you Vitalogy. The war is going to be a big issue in this race. John McCain said something just a few days ago about staying in Iraq for a hundred years. Center appeal or not, I bet that glib answer will be hammered flat in the coming months.

Brian, you are right. With McCain, the Republicans are behind their best candidate. We are still going to see some real fractures in the GOP. Especially if Huckabee is not only cast aside, but not even given lip service for the Veep. Odds are good that a crony will be rewarded with that honor -- Crist being near the top of list -- and Mike will be out in the cold.

The real danger comes once both parties have isolated the extreme right. I worry that one of the "chosen ones" (read: wingnuts) will try to decide our election for us. Some of those folks could get their wires crossed and start singing church songs with the wrong lyrics -- My r-i-f-l-e, yes that's the one for me...

I agree Brian, God help us all.

I don't know what is more dangerous for the GOP - McCain reaching out to Huckabee to be his running mate (and drawing in the far-right crowd, but driving away so many more of us) or NOT reaching out to him (and risk losing the Bible thumpers)?

I'll take the former. My guess is that the Religious Right will rally around McCain and try to get him in before going for Obama or Clinton, unless they push for a third-party person ... and they should know that won't work.

Without the south, the GOP loses. But when they cater to the south, they will not gain any blue states. Overall, I feel that the Dem nominee can win all the states Kerry won, plus Ohio. And that would be the election.

Brian, I feel for you. Sometimes a running mate is a make or break deal. Honestly, if McCain had been nominated with a solid number two, I would have voted for him in 2000. I could not in good conscience cast my ballot for a ticket with Lieberman. Lesser of evils is no way to have to elect our leaders, so I voted for Nader. If they pick a southern wingnut or a shill, would you vote for Obama?

To wrap up the story, Gore still took Oregon running away, but a few whiny friends -- who bought the myth that Nader was the problem and not massive voting fraud -- continue to give me crap about it. I certainly hope they put the same energy into this race that they have put into blaming Ralph for the shortcomings of their party and the manipulation of our system.

It is a tough call, but I venture the guess that you have already cast the one vote you will always regret. We forgive you. :0) This election is about a fresh start -- for all of us.

"Without the south, the GOP loses."

Read: Woodshed.

Littlesongs: With all due respect, and I mean this...you deserve to get crap for voting for Nader. It's people like you that allowed Bush to even have a chance to be appointed. I'm disappointed to see that you didn't have the judgement to understand what voting for Nader was going to do. You may have satisified yourself, but you let down your country by voting for a non-viable candidate.

I let my country down by exercising my right to vote for the candidate of my choice?

No. I did not.

The Democratic Party let me down by not having the swingers, brains or intestinal fortitude to fight for our right to a fair election. If the party still thinks that the act of placing a window cling in their Volvo is somehow "activism" they will lose again and again and again.

Talk to me of the efforts of the Party to ensure free elections. Tell me that they are working to restore international observation. Assure me that we have cast aside proprietary electronic balloting due to our tireless Democrats. No? Then drop the Nader myth once and for all.

Of course, I have seen their approach after 2000. The new DNC playbook says to simply eliminate third party candidates -- even if it means that the Oregon Secretary of State has to bend the law. If that is the future of the party, it is certainly not democratic. This is yet another good solid reason to be an Independent.

Add -- The Democrats are taking a whole lot of chances by continuing to hammer on a lie, rather than insuring fair voting. My hope is that this next election makes us move on from the divisions between us. However, if there is massive fraud, I will be among the first to say I toldyaso.

I don't think ANYBODY deserves crap for voting for someone. You and I may disagree with the choice of candidate, and the repercussions, but it is their God-given rights as a voting citizen of the United States of America to vote for whoever the hell they vote for, even if we don't like it.

I personally think Huckabee would put this county back 150 years socially, and I cannot in good faith vote for him. That said, Herb has every right in the world to do so.

I think Hillary Clinton is a slimeball and I trust her about as far as I can throw her, but if Andrew or Vitality want to align themselves with her, who the hell are ANY of us to call them out for doing so?

Ralph Nader is a borderline Communist extremist to me, who would kill the capitalistic fabric of this nation. That said, if Littlesongs chooses to vote for Nader because his views align with Nader's, or even if he is disillusioned with the choice of candidate the Democrats were rolling out (which was very prevalent in 2000 and 2004 and, sadly, will be so again in 2008 if Hillary gets the nod), then so be it.

Thank you Brian. In the end, I voted for the son of immigrants, a fiscal conservative who wanted to end corporate welfare, and a consumer advocate. I did not vote for the sickle and hammer or against the stars and stripes. I was, as you put it, "disillusioned with the choice of candidate" and my vote did not negatively effect the trouncing that Gore gave Bush in my state.

I fully support the right of every American to vote for anyone they choose. No political party should ever expect constituents to toe the line every time. We are a nation of individuals. If a party, by their actions, does not respect that individualism, they ought to find another country.

Ah, deep breath. I really really wish that there had been a fight in the courts in 2000. Mistakes are there to be learned from I s'pose, but damn. I would be quite comforted if I felt that the Democrats had learned something more from that election than how to point fingers after a loss.

Add -- Please do not take my salvos personally, Vitalogy. I have been annoyed by many wonderful sincere Democrats who still believe that it was all about Ralph. They get all squirmy when you use terms like bloodless coup and paper dictatorship. Their passive post-election post-mortem enabled that moron far more than I did with my choice. So -- I get a touch sensitive. Forgive me.

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for who they want. It's a free country, so do as you please. However, when I hear people complaining about Bush and then find out they voted for Nader in 2000, my response is "cry me a fucking river". I have about as much sympathy for you as for someone complaining about it being cold in their igloo. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Luckily, it's almost time to wake up.

And, I don't think it was voter fraud that swung the election to Bush in 2000, it was voter stupidity for not seeing how their vote for Nader would affect the country by allowing Bush to be appointed.

Thirdly, what the hell has Nader done to even deserve to run for president other than being born here and at least 35 years of age? Personally, I think he's a paranoid, egomaniac nut.

Non't forget a lot of Florida voters couldn't fill out a simple ballot correctly, the same ballot a 2nd grade teacher gave to her students, and just changed the names to cartoon characters, and the kids had no trouble filling it out.

The demo's should use some of their money, and have voter training day.

To focus on Nader's biggest accomplishment, his safety research influenced public opinion and forced our automakers to at least try to stop killing us by the millions. Do a little digging and you will find that he has been a tireless and incorruptible consumer advocate. He has dedicated his life to serving the American people and revolutionized product safety. He is very effective, but a far better asset behind the scenes.

So, Vitalogy, you see no evidence that the elections of 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 were rife with improprieties? You see no problem with the fact that both parties did not prepare for large caucuses on Tuesday and in some spots votes were not counted -- again?

I like you man, but we certainly see some things from different places.

Vitalogy, your posts, for the most part, are pretty good, but you blew it this time!

Voting for who we want is one of our most important freedoms, if not THE most important freedom. And NO ONE can tell you who you must vote for or condemn you for your choice.

You can try to convince someone that your candidate is the best, but in the end it is your individual choice and right to vote for whomever you want.

I personally think that there should be a system like Australia has (or at least used to have) where if you don't vote there is a fine. And it should be a big fine $100+.

Doesn't matter who you vote for, but you have to vote. Even if you go in and then don't mark your ballot as a way of not voting, which is your choice; you still must show up or submit an absentee ballot. (Unless you can show a really damn good reason for not showing up or submitting and absentee ballot)

"Doesn't matter who you vote for, but you have to vote."

Talk about a Permanent Democratic majority! The biggest fear of the right is full voter participation, because registered Democrats comfortably outweigh any other political party. Required voting is a radical proposal.

I agree with you passion that all people should vote. But I don't think required voting would pass Constitutional muster. It would be akin to some kind of "required speech" such as requiring people to salute the flag. And that would be scary...

How about this:

If they don't want to vote, fine. They get zapped with electrodes every single time they bitch and complain about their elected officials if they don't vote though.

If you don't want to do your part to change the process and vote, don't bitch about it!

Nah, I didn't blow it, I'm calling it like I see it! I've never said people shouldn't vote for who they want. What I'm saying is that people should be accountable TO THEIR vote. In this case, people that voted for Nader might as well have voted for Bush. And I highly doubt that any Nader voter supported Bush being selected president. So, while it may make for good storytelling about how you supported Nader, the result was that Bush got selected, which was a far worse result than Gore being elected. And, it was a result that was predicted by many.

Just like the show "Deal or no Deal", if you get too greedy, you get burned. Many times you're just better off to cash out with the smaller, but guaranteed amount, rather than gamble and walk away with nothing (or less than nothing in the case of Bush). As they say in my business, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Secondly, Nader is just not qualified to be president, period. I'm sure he's done some good things, but he would have been a disaster. Heck, he may have caused more damage than Bush, who knows.

As for the election stuff, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I know there are small time problems, but I don't believe that fraud exists on a mass scale that changed election results.

As for the election stuff, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I know there are small time problems, but I don't believe that fraud exists on a mass scale that changed election results.

Cool. Many many thousands of those "small time problems" did not get their votes counted in this last decade. That adds up to a very very big problem. Not for you though, so screw it, right?

I am glad you cleared that up for me. When you talk to minorities from another part of the country about our democracy, do not act all surprised when you hear things that make your skin crawl. To them, it is not about Scully and Mulder, it is more about Dr. King and Malcolm. They were shot, remember?

For a party that assumes it has the black vote in every election, they do very little to ensure that it counts. Since many people of all backgrounds have their hopes pinned on Obama, it might be a good time to think about these things. Yes, it is ugly and messy, but unfortunately that is America too.

I never thought that I would be asking a Democrat if they supported free elections, only to get answers that challenged the very definition of that freedom.

If it would make you feel better, I will get in my time machine and take my vote away from Ralph and give it to Al. Poof. Now Nader has only 21,047, and Gore has his total brought up to 188,442 in Multnomah County. Does this change anything? Of course not, so what did?

Hey, I really don't wanna be a killjoy. We ought to be celebrating! C'mon, we have all waited forever for this process to get rolling -- let's mambo with The Prez!

Mebbe we can restore the buoyant political mood with some good old fashioned conflicting information about the delegate counts:

• MSNBC shows Clinton with 855 and Obama with 861 at this point.
• CBS has Clinton with 1,069 and Obama with 1,001 delegates.
• New York Times currently has 904 for Clinton and 724 for Obama.
• National Public Radio is showing the AP totals of 1,045 for Clinton and 960 for Obama.
• CNN is reporting Clinton has 1,033 and Obama has 937.

"...Nader is just not qualified to be president, period. I'm sure he's done some good things, but he would have been a disaster. Heck, he may have caused more damage than Bush, who knows."

You must really dislike Ralph to say that Mr. Bush may be better. Fact is, Mr. Nader is one of the few politicians from any party who actually appears to believe what he says and is genuine.

Run Ralph, Run....with Mike Huckabee. It'll be a true populist party and we'll tick off all the hyper-partisans, left and right included.

Herb

I'm sure Ralph does believe what he says and is genuine. However, the bar is a tad higher to be deserving of the office of President.

Just a tad.... Nader's a kook.
And that's one of the MANY reasons why the HUCKster won't EVER get the nod.