As a conservative, I'm conflicted. Part of me hopes Clinton gets the Democratic nomination simply because she would be (in my opinion) almost too easy to beat in a national election. That's my cynical side.

My better nature hopes Obama gets the nomination. Why, you ask? Two reasons. One, a good, credible candidate would force my side to try harder, be smarter, and ultimately make him better. Also, on the off chance that the dem would win, I think he would ultimately do less damage to the country than Clinton.

So I don't know how to pray.

Obama vs. Hillary, both losers!

Pray for Kucinich. Any other Democrat is a shoe-in.

Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't underestimate Kucinich.

DGol:

Pray for Kucinich. Any other Democrat is a shoe-in.

Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't underestimate Kucinich.

I guess we shall see . . .

It would be nice if, just once in 20 years, the GOP ran someone the party could say positive things about--rather than running someone who simply isn't a Democrat.

The last time the GOP did this was 1984 (Reagan v. Mondale). Since then, it's basically been Vote for the non-Democrat.

I used to be a Republican. Used to be before the party gave itself over in whoredom to the social and religious conservatives.

Used to be, these nuts were Democrats. Thank you, Lyndon B. Johnson for giving them the heave-ho! (Only a Democrat would truly understand the menace posed by social and religious conservatives. They kept the Democratic party in slavery to, well, slavery.)

Republican used to mean "the government is here simply to protect your rights, principally your property rights and the rights that follow from owning property". It's not much of a platform, but it's a platform.

Now Republican means "we're not Democrats".

You still having a tough time deciding for whom to vote? Just vote for any Democrat. Otherwise, you're not voting. You're just pulling a lever.

I don't think Clinton will be easy to beat at all. But if she were consider this:

I'm a Democrat and I remember feeling the same way about the Republicans in 2000. On the one hand, if McCain was the nominee, he'd probably beat my guy (Gore). But I liked McCain and thought he would be a far better president than Bush. But if Bush were nominated, he'd be easier to beat. (Turns out I was right. Bush lost the popular vote, after all. I think McCain would have won cleanly).

After six years of Bush, I'd say the lesson is this: hope for the better person to win, even if you think they'll be harder for your side to beat. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for. What wouldn't I give for 8 years of McCain istead of Bush?

I just find it funny that Clinton, arguably the most conservative of the democratic candidates, is the most hated by conservatives.

Clinton is "hated" because she is an opportunist(she's a real New Yorker,yea right).

Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Barak Obama, John McCain, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson aren't opportunists? I hadn't noticed.

A year ago, I would've agreed with you on the Clinton thing, but at some point in the last year I started to think she's likely to win. She acts presidential, and she's started to win over some people that used to hate her (my parents included).

The Republican field is pretty weak - I really think Giuliani (who I think will win the nomination) will crumble during the general election, he's become a caricature of himself - I lost a lot of respect for him in the '04 election when he said that he immediately turned to somebody when 9/11 first started and said "Thank God George W is our president." What a crock. And his current shameless pandering to the religious right will come back to haunt him. I say most of this out of disappointment - I lean Democrat, but there was a time when I would've voted for him.

I think you misjudge the Dems' chances in general - I'd never assume they won't find a way to screw it up, but right now the nation in general is leaning Democractic, I think that's pretty clear. Not a slam dunk, but I wouldn't say them winning is "off chance."

Benslate I'm with you exactly, with one exception.

I lean liberal, and have respect and affection for McCain. I knew immediately after South Carolina 2000 that the republican party was going to hades. I never hated any political result as much as I did SC 2000. Not even Bush's elections, which I considered kind of inevitable after sc 2000.

Because I assumed a Mc Cain Gore matchup would have been good for the country, and I knew that legacies (Bush Sr and Jr) were a mistake, and Bush Jr was a disaster.

It didn't take a genius. I agree Hillary will be tough, but I don't think she's got the nomination wrapped up.

Now let me say something new. Party loyalty is for chumps.

You know what's wrecked the politics of this nation? The parties. As long as they are the only legal recipients of large moneys, they will continue the work of the parties, which is to squeeze out anyone that won't continue the parties' monopoly on large monies. This squeeze out began after Perot got 19% of the vote, and the league of women voters was replaced by retired party hacks as the hosts and rulemakers of who gets into the presidential debate. Its wonky, so people don't understand it. But party control of the process is what's given us this lousy, incestuous governing class we have now? Not a reliable party hack? Won't vote as your told by those who have accepted huge corporate bribes? Then you won't get nominated.

The two parties act as if they are opposed. they are not. Its really a two man con called "Let's you and me fight". You know, like the con called "the bishop's game". But both parties are funded by the same corporations and individuals, and both will do as the paymasters wish. Its a fake fight. Oh they both want to be in power, that part of the scrap is real, but they're not too distressed as long as the baton gets passed back and forth and no others can enter the club. Because a newcomer might go after changing the way the money flows. Not until party power is broken will non hacks be nominated in large numbers.

border on psychopathy. Glad you saw that.

If Guiliani panders to the religious right, not necessarily a bad thing, then you can say that the Democrats pander to the Sharpton/Jackson crowd,no!