I do not give a damn about the outcome of the Democratic primary.

I think that it is clearly going to be won by one of Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

I think that, while there are differences between them - I have a mild preference for Edwards over Obama over Clinton - such differences pale into total insignificance when compared with the differences between any of them and any of their possible Republican opponents. Any of them would make a perfectly good candidate.

I don't think that Al Gore is going to run; I don't think he'd win if he did; I think that he'd make a good candidate if he did but not sufficiently better than any of the others for it to matter much.

As such, I am watching the primaries with amused indifference - it's striking that there is, if anything, more vitriol between the supporters of the different candidates that there is against Republicans (although I think that's because you get people disagreeing with one another - no-one defends Republicans, so they don't draw so much heat).

The battle that actually matters won't begin until February.

contempt.

You're so above it all. MKJ

I imagine that if I was, I'd have a horse in the race and be involved to some extent. But even if I did, I think I'd still realise that the difference between my horse and the other horses wasn't great when compared to the difference between horses and elephants.

In the meantime, I have to get back to doing everything I can to make my country better.

Perhaps you should nibble on truffles and chuckle at the silliness of it all. MKJ

I heartily applaud doing everything you can to make your country better, but I think that you et al would be able to do so more effectively by spending more effort & money ensuring that the winner of the primary beats the Republican, and less worrying about who that is.

Now if the election is tampered with as usual, all bets are off.

surely by the corporations as any Republican. So the Democrats are a little more people-friendly? Great! As Neil Young might say, they've a "kinder, gentler machine-gun hand"...

Which is -- for the first time in a long time, Dems can look at a slate of presidential contenders and say, "she'd make a good president, but so would he, and so would he . . ." and so on.

The 'Licans are bankrupt in so many ways and the Dems have an abundance of competent White House candidates -- all with more backbone than the average Congressional Dem. I'm overjoyed to have a choice.

I don't think Gore will run either. However, if he did run in the general, I think he'd win. And I think he'd make a fine president.

The only problem -- for Dems and 'Licans alike -- is that Schimpanski and Co. have left such a trail of destruction in their wake that the next president (Dem or 'Lican) is likely to be a one-term failure, with the faint hope that the *next* White House occupant can begin focusing on something other than damage control. I don't think people recognize the cost of the Bush presidency yet but it is world-historical-high.

And we'll be paying it for decades.

When it's all perceived as blurry and hard to read, it does make for indifference.