I'd like to make a comment here, but I can't make up my mind what I'd like to say.

And I thought Florida was weird!
Does this mean that Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot?

Well, Ticonderoga ... get back to us on that, will ya?

Who on earth thinks that the Corporate NAFTA Bendovercrats will change ANYTHING!

The Corporate Media have Selected the two furthest right of the Democrarts. The elections are over. The rest is Psy-ops. If you want real politics, make it yourself.

Nichols' ominous message – he repeats it four times – is that Dennis Kucinich is not a "serious" candidate. Seriously, Nichols, it is precisely such insidious shit as yours that undermines the Kucinich campaign and discourages us all. Get serious!

I think Hillary is not electable because she is a woman. Unfortunately, we still live in a male dominated society with men being the "deciders". Obama looks like the most electable democratic candidate. He should chose wisely who he runs with. If I voted who best represents me, I would vote for Dennis Kucinch.

That's right. Obama & Edwards pulled out on the advise of the DNC. They also further "punished" Michigan by declaring that they will seat NONE of our democratic delegates at the convention. I feel very much disenfranchised by all this.

After Chris Mathews' sickening propaganda for Clinton last nite, I turned the tv off. Anyway, I wish Obama would stop using the Republican Frank Luntz revised definition for Global Warming, "Climate Change". And when they asked how the candidates will provide energy for the coming 9 billion people on the planet, why didn't any of them dare to bring up the obvious solutions for and results of too many people on earth--family planning, birth control, overpopulation, diminishing resources, resource wars, extinctions, desertification, pollution, global warming and so on? Still the candidates don't make the connection that the environment IS the economy, not vis. Unlike religion, their knowledge of science seems minimal. Dems and especially Reps are trying to guide the ship of state by wishful thinking alone, ignoring the science.

I lived in Honduras.

The country has many more civic, and class-based organizations than does the US.

Why?

Because the two-party system is the oligarchy's patronage game.

However, in the US, we don't even possess this type of civic and politically active society.

In the US, the average working person has been ensnared by consumerism and quick-rich real estate and mortgage schemes.

Now, when they truely need strong, politically active, grassroots, class-based civic organizations, the average US citizen doesn't have them.

In other words, the average US citizen has found themselves politically impotent during the start of an economic recession.

At least, in Honduras, the average Joe hits the streets in Tegucigalpa in response to the oligarchical political parties' gambits.

Jim,

That's correct; Obama and Edwards removed themselves from the ballot. Michigan Democrats pushed their primary into January, in violation of DNC rules, which stipulated that only four states could have primaries/caucuses before Super Tuesday: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. In response, the national party stripped Michigan of its delegates and persuaded Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the ballot. Furthermore, all of the major candidates boycotted the state.

So Hillary had no serious opposition (Kucinich was on the ballot) in a meaningless primary. Yet 40% of voters opted for "uncommitted", a significantly large number. Nonetheless, I disagree with Nichols' assessment. I'm sure most of those votes were from disaffected Obama and Edwards supporters. Furthermore, I don't doubt that the African-American community would have gone for Obama had he been on the ballot (though the exit poll cited is meaningless).

However, concluding that this spells trouble for Hillary is a mistake. First off, all the candidates boycotted visiting Michigan. Thus, Hillary did not make any effort at campaigning there. Given the results in New Hampshire, what we can conclude is that many, many Democrats are skeptical of Hillary and will not merely fall in line because her nomination was considered inevitable (at one time anyway). BUT, most of them aren't entirely against her either. She can win over a large amount of those lukewarm towards her, but she has to work for it. And work hard. Obviously, she didn't in Michigan because of the boycott. Hence, the result.

I think this is especially true with black voters. Obama will almost certainly win a majority of black votes in any state. But Hillary can potentially win a large minority of African-American votes if she campaigns hard and personally for them. Thus, had the boycott not been in place, had she campaigned in Michigan, the result would have been very different.

Lastly, Nichols' comparison to Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004 is flawed; both were INCUMBENT presidents running without opposition ANYWHERE. Primary voters tend to fall in-line behind an incumbent president as a matter of course (Jimmy Carter excepted) and when there is no opponent nationally, it's unlikely that they will truly waste their ballot on "uncommitted". This is not the case here; Hillary is not the incumbent and clearly voters strongly feel she is not entitled to their votes. Furthermore, she faces major opposition and the votes for "uncommitted" were largely supporters of her two opponents.

Thus, all Michigan shows is that Hillary cannot take anything for granted. Her aura of inevitability is long gone; she is going to have to campaign hard to win the nomination. But she is no weaker after Michigan than before; she remains a co-front-runner with Obama, with a possible slight edge. No more, no less.

The guy who really screwed the Pooch for the Democrats is Howard Dean. Leading the charge to strip Michigan and Florida of their Delegates. Two of the most important swing states in the general election and Howie elects to alienate his voters in them. Smooth move Howie.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Let me point out a couple of things. First off, the Secretary of State is responsible for running elections. In Michigan, Terri Lynn Land is the Repuker Sec. of State. She sent out the absentee ballots with "undecided" and a "write in" space on them. That would indicate that you could write in a canidate like Kucinich, but to do so according to the Sec of State
would make your ballot invalid. So countless ballots were voided but the idiot offered the option of re-voting if your ballot was invalidated. How does that work? Then, we have a "Govenor" that is useless. Unfortunately,
she calls herself a "Democrat" but we Dems that voted her in instead of mr amway call her incompetent. Just another political hack like hillary who aspires for a cabinet position in the clinton administration. So it seems that once again, we people who are just looking for a fair election have been stiffed by our "own" for the sake of their own political aspirations.
I cant wait for the kaos granholm will start or the lack of anything she will do once she has her cabinet position. Useless is an understatement. I live in a state going down the tubes because the legislature of idiots cant balance a budget, along with dealing with ANY problems and then after they cut everything but their own salaries, discover we had 353MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS that they supposedly didnt anticipate having.

Granholm and terri Lynn Land have FUCKED the Democratic Party and everyone hoping to throw the entrenched loser parasites out of government.
(Dont forget the first family of democratic jerk-offs, the Dingells)

By the way, how did you like the LAME questions asked in the debate last night? Lets have a debate WITHOUT any "news" jerk-offs. I want to know when someone is going to put the "healthcare buisness" out of buisness.
After fucking up my knee, I would much rather deal with a system like Canada's then the bullshit that we have. And I have "GREAT" healthcare...
snicker, snicker

Dont forget....."HANG JANE"

Wonder what would happen if a growing number of states, recentful of the Iowa-NH lock, consider following the Michigan-Fla route? Sure would be a path to changing things --though it seems to me that parties shouldn't be in the business of disenfranchising voters.

MCPETE, do you know about the treatment for a damaged knee, where the pad between the upper and lower bones is repaced with a substance put in with a needle injection? Worked great for mine. The prescripton costs about $700 bucks but that's better than an artificial knee and it don't hurt.

There are ten very good polls that show Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama CANNOT beat the Republican candidates. John Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all of them, and with plenty of votes to spare.

I think TimKidd has got it right. But how would it be if there was an "Uncommitted" or "none of the above" in the general election? I think this would take away the idea of a mandate.

Come on Kucinich-nicks.

Kucinich got out-polled by "nobody" ... 40% to 10% if I read this correctly. It sounds like even if Kucinich was the only name on the ballot, he'd still lose!

At what point do people realize that this campaign is just a diversion that wastes time, resources and energy? Those efforts need to go OUTSIDE the Democratic party and towards building a party and movement.

The Dems seem determined to lose the 08 election. They couldn't even unite behind Clinton when she was the only serious contender on the ballot.

Another reason why the Dems seem determined to lose the 08 election - a fractious minority aggressively pursues the illusion that Kucinich is a serious contender.

And why isn't DK a serious contender? Because of his looks. That's the most a-pathetic conclusion I can derive from this sorry nation. We're all a bunch of vidiots more concerned with American Idol and how our President 'looks' than what anyone says or does. We should have been warned the first couple of hundred times this happened. JFK was so handsome. Reagan such a movie star. Clinton so erudite. Bush Jr. someone you'd 'like to have a beer with.' We have truthfully never progressed past high school popularity contests in this country, and THAT is why DK is un-electable. Sad, sad, sad.

The good news out of Michigan was Romney winning. If we can just get him nominated, we could run either Barack or Hillary and win hands-down. The Mormon thing, the Wall Street thing, the "too cool for school" thing, the "solve everything with more subsidy to corporations" thing. Looks presidential? Not hardly.

Yes, norwegianwood said it all!

AdjunctS, thanks for agreeing with me. I always appreciate that! :-) Your point about an "Uncommitted" choice in the general election is an intriguing one. I don't know what would happen, but it would seriously alter the dynamic of the race and, yes, distract from any notion of a "mandate" by the winner. I do know that Nevada offers a "none of the above" option in its primaries and its general election, I believe. So the idea is not completely outrageous.

COMarc, it was even worse than what you thought for Kucinich. He got 10% in some left-leaning areas, but statewide he polled 4%. And you're completely right, Kucinich's campaign is simply a distraction. Regardless of his handful of diehard supporters (most of whom seem to post on CommonDreams), he has next to no impact on the Democratic Party. He is not a serious candidate for many reasons, norwegianwood, not simply his looks. I won't go into all the reasons here (they've been discussed on CD MANY MANY times), but one point stands out: he doesn't take himself seriously. As I said yesterday, his endorsement of Obama as a "second choice" in Iowa established that. He knew he had no chance of gaining 15% in the caucuses and rather than stand on principle, he urged his supporters to hedge their bets. That is not something a serious candidate ever does.

But anyway, COMarc, you are right; efforts to build a strong and independent progressive movement need to come from outside the Democratic Party establishment. It's a shame Kucinich doesn't realize it (or is too timid to formally break with the party).

In addition to all the democratic votes that didn't go to Clinton, several people I know choose to vote in the Republican primary either for Ron Paul or McCain

I hope Ron Paul decides to run under the Libertarian Party

As a Michigan democrat, I am outraged at my party for taking away my voice in this manner. And there are people such as Carl Levin who had a major role to play in this debacle. I have always had a lot of respect for him, despite some questionable decisions as he's a hard, dedicated worker for the state, but he has let his consituency down big time on this one.

I've heard some of the explanations mentioned here. But here's how I understand it. Howard Dean had a role in punishing us, however, it was the party leadership in the state that set this whole thing in motion. They wanted our primary to be first or very close to the first primary in the country, even though they were warned not to go there.

My understanding as to why there were no write-ins allowed, and you had to choose uncommitted instead, was because the other candidates, who were all offered this option, refused to allow their names to be written in because Michigan broke the Party's rules, regarding scheduling this primary too early.

Did I now want to give an "uncommitted" vote to the party who took my voice away? I think not. Could I trust them to use the uncommitted votes against Hilary Clinton? I think not.

And the Democratic leadership were very actively trying to encourage all those who did not want to vote for those on the ballot to choose uncommitted "so our voices could be heard". Yeah, right. Well I hope they can hear me now when I say "screw you"! You've made my state an embarrassment. I have lost whatever faith I had left in the Party.

Did I want to vote Repub for Romney (or Huckabee) to screw with their races for the nomination? Nope. That's not why I vote in elections. So, Michigan Democratic Party, thanks again for, well, nothing. This is the first election I have deliberately skipped in probably well over 20 years.

And why did all this occur in the first place? Because supposedly Michigan is more representative of the population breakdown of this country than either Iowa or New Hampshire are, therefore, we should go first. And we all know that whoever wins the first couple of primaries decides the party's nominee in this crazy system we call a democracy.

And that my friends is the problem here (well one of the problems anyway), not that Iowa or New Hampshire gets to go first. I mean someone has to go first for crying out loud...why should it be Michigan over anyone else?

Let's scrap this whole process and have the nationwide primaries/caucuses on the same day and take away this media inspired advantage please. Some nice day in the spring, say in March or April, then on to the National Conventions.

This "my state first" approach has taken my right to vote for my choice (John Edwards) away from me at a critical time for our country. I think I will no longer self-identify with what seems to be more and more the Republican-lite party, the Democrats, and consider myself to be an Independent.

One more comment on what the Michigan democratic vote means for Hilary, particularly the vote of Michigan African Americans for uncommitted. My thought here is that the Dems won't lose Michigan votes if Hilary is the nominee instead of Obama...Hilary has a lot of support among Michigan African American voters still. But first, choice is Obama.

Given the alternative of Clinton vs. any republican candidate, I am pretty certain, our AA voters will vote party lines and stick with the democratic candidate. But can you blame any of us at this point, those of us who consider(ed) ourselves Michigan democrats, if we just sat the whole thing out and let the chips fall where they may?

TimKidd, I thought Nevada had caucuses, not primaries. I'd be very interested if they did have the "none of the above" option to see what the percent was.

Also, I would bet that many of those voting for Kucinich are voting in protest against the mainstream candidates -- who else is saying "Impeachment"? They don't think Kuncinich will win (which is not the definition of "serious," anyway), they just want some form of protest to show up in the polls/media. Come the fall they will vote Green or be scared into voting for the Democratic candidate.

Regardless, I don't see his work hindering the growth of a progressive indepedent movement. This movement rises or falls based on its own grassroots, not because there is a leftwing in the Democratic party.

People are finally realizing what a terrible candidate Mrs. Clinton is. She is very hawkish, dishonest, and ready to stoop to gutter tactics in order to get elected. She is very Bush like despite her protestations.

Again the real issue ignored if not pushed under the rug and out of site. The DNC by voiding the election in MI engaged in the disenfranchisment of voters.

If you factor the Diebold effect into Clinton's vote the real vote may have been closer to 1%. I wonder if they outsourced the hacking to India?

As a Michigander who voted in yesterday's bizarre primary, let me add another thought or two.

First, voters arriving at the polls were allowed to pick whether they wanted a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot.

Because of the weird machinations between the Michigan Dem leadership and the DNC over the timing of the primary, the choices available on the Democratic ticket were Hillary, Dennis, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Uncommitted, or a write-in option blank (where if you wrote in Obama, Edwards, or some other real candidate who had withdrawn, you were spoiling your ballot). Also, the DNC has declared that no delegate selected through this balloting process will be seated at the national convention anyway.

In contrast, the GOP ballot listed all nine candidates by name, plus an option for uncommitted. Yesterday's primary results will determine what delegates really do get seated at the Republican convention.

Statewide turnout was below 20% of registered voters, and nearer to 15% in heavily Democratic areas. There was absolutely no TV campaigning by Democrats. Statewide, the Republican primary attracted 275,000 more total voters than the Dem race, even though Michigan has gone for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton in the last four general elections, and Jesse Jackson won the Michigan Democratic primary several years ago.

There was an internet email effort in early January from DailyKos openly suggesting that Michigan Dems simply ignore the Democratic non-ballot choices, and instead "make mischief" by voting in the GOP primary, throwing their votes to Mitt Romney (who won), so that the Repugs would continue with a full candidate field, keep pissing away their money, and sniping at one another.

Voters on the Democratic side were hard pressed to figure out how to treat this crazy ballot in order to send any sort of coherent message. Some people voted for Obama by voting for Kuchinich because Dennis had previously pledged his support to Obama in Iowa. Other Dems voted uncommitted, believing their votes might ultimately translate into delegates for Hillary because our state's Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a big Clinton supporter, and will be very influential in determining how Michigan's delegation will vote at the national convention (assuming a workable peace treaty with the DNC can be hammered out between now and then).

All in all, don't read too much into the statistics generated by this colossal SNAFU. The only clear winner of anything in Michigan was Mitt Romney, and even that was more than a bit misleading given the abysmal turnout and potential crossover mischief.

Bill from Saginaw

Kem Patrick, you wrote "...ten very good polls that show Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama CANNOT beat the Republican candidates. John Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all of them, and with plenty of votes to spare."

Are these current, and where did you find them? I know our man Edwards was up at the top several months ago in those head-to-head GOP/Dem polls, but what about now? I'd appreciate the info.

Wasn't he terrific in the Vegas debate (despite the tilt towards the other two, revealed by Russert and Williams)?

Norwegianwood, you are part right. Truth is, even a caucasian, tall, very handsome, extremely charismatic candidate with Kucinich's views would still have serious problems getting nominated, much less elected. So its not just K's looks, but his mostly "far-left" political platform.

Kucinich is by far my favorite in the field. Edwards is my second choice and Obama a distant 3rd. Hillary doesn't even seem worthy of any consideration. I cannot fathom how anyone on the left would seriously consider voting for a hawkish, conservative candidate like Hillary. I hope Hillary's campaign collapses, I'd rather see Obama win even though he doesn't appear to be all that different from her. Still, I believe Obama may have moderated his views somewhat just to become more "electable".

Poor Delusional Daniel David - While I tend to agree that Billary would have a chance against Romney, there is no way Barack Hussein Obama is going to win in the general election. The sooner all you star struck Democrats get that notion through your thick skulls the better. Obummer will never be president of the USA.

Of the 3 leading Dims only Edwards is a sure thing in the general election, and that is mostly because of the fact that the Repugs have the B team running this year.

The reason why Kucinich has not become a "serious" candidate is because he doesn't take money from lobbyists and because he is banned from most important debates. HE HAS BEEN SILENCED and that is the real reason. Not his looks, or that he doesn't take himself seriously.

AdjunctS, sorry for the confusion. Yes, Nevada does have caucuses in the presidential race and I don't know if one can caucus for "none of the above".

I was referring to primaries and the general election for state offices in Nevada; there is a ballot box for "none of the above".

RichM, a quibble: the ballot choices were Hillary, nobody, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel. I list them in the order they finished.

There is no ominous message for Clinton in the results that ultimately don't count. There are, however, ominous messages for a state that has been in economic decline since at least 1981. One of them is that the Democratic party blithely writes off the state's voters while expecting their allegiance in November.

"Nathaniel Heidenheimer January 16th, 2008 12:20 pm
Who on earth thinks that the Corporate NAFTA Bendovercrats will change ANYTHING!

The Corporate Media have Selected the two furthest right of the Democrarts. The elections are over. The rest is Psy-ops. If you want real politics, make it yourself."

Hysterical comment. I love "Bendovercrats" - that's exactly what they are. Last night's debate (re the exclusion of Kucinich) was PROOF that we do not live in a true democracy here - despite the fact that we pillage foreign soils in the name of democracy for all. Now, tell me...are there pseudo-intellectuals out there that will persist on arguing that CONSPIRACIES are not possible, and do not happen??? Yes, I'll still hear this idiocy spewing from the mouths of many individuals. I am so disenchanted about the 2008 race at this point that I am just not interested any more.

I urge you to watch Democracy Now today where Amy Goodman interviews Dennis Kucinich as if he had been allowed in the debate last night: http://www.democracynow.org/

By the way--what do you mean, DK's "looks"? There is nothing at all wrong with the way he looks. In fact, I think he is very good-looking.

Yes, watch Democracy NOW...it was a great episode with Kucinich...answering the essential question that he was barred from doing last night. Too bad that someone could not steal the footage and secretly run it on MSNBC...FOX NEWS...CNN - so that he would have more exposure.

Great...so our normally-Conservative Muslim-voters here in MI have 'crossed-over' to vote for Kuchinich (I'm sure THAT bit of News will help him a LOT once it gets-around!).
As for Granholm and Stabenow, and their "supporting anyone", that's the "kiss of death" around-here...[Granholm is the LEAST popular governor since one of my-Relatives was Michigan's first (great-great-grandpappy, Augustus Cornelius)-- and THAT was back when MI was only a Territory...(Romney, OTOH, could ride-through on Daddy's coat-tails, here -- but don't ask Me 'why', because his dad sukked, too!)].
What a mess [this Election, so-called]. I'm glad I didn't even bother to Vote (first-time, ever...and I'm older-than-Dirt and once highly 'politically-active', and a former Office-holder, myself).

When, oh, WHEN does this Nightmare end?!

Reality check.the 40% undecided was higher than any average received by any of the republican candidates, so I am guessing that means we are in pretty good shape if anybody can beat the repugs.

but that aside, yesterday during the Thom Hartman show on Air America Radio (Thom also writes many articles for CD) he polled the first 76 callers and came up with this:
Edwards-40
Kucinich-18
Obama-7
Clinton-5
Nader,Paul,Gore,Dean all received 1 vote each
as well as actor Christopher Walken (hmmmm)

Now the listening demographics of Air America are all over the place, 20-80 years of age, and he took random calls from 76 different area codes around the country, so these may be pretty representational of the real picture. Now, from what I read and what I see and hear from everyone and anyone I know or come in contact with, or polls that I see on progressive sites, this is pretty accurate, we all love Dennis, but maybe feel Edwards is close to his values and more electable.
So can anyone tell me honestly where all this support for Obama and Clinton is coming from? are the polls bogus, like they were in the 2004 election? you know they were for New Hampshire, how does a guy poll 11% ahead of her one day and then lose the primary by what was it 2%, that really isnt possible by any measures. So what is going on here people? Is the fix in?

I was listening Hillary Clinton bloviating today in Nevada about (once again, as in 1992 and 1996) coming to the rescue of the middle class. First they're going to have to find it, as it is disappearing month by month with increasing velocity. Thanks to Bill Clinton, who bought the snake oil economics of WTO, NAFTA, "free trade," deregulation, etc.,etc. On top of that , good old Bill signed on to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which gave us Fox News, MSNBC and corporate consolidation and control of the airwaves. So, you can get propagandized twenty-four hours a day by right wing pro-business, pro-war, religious flat-earth types. Or, or you can get dumbed-down by endless stories about O.J., Britany Speers, car crashes, fires, murders, rapes, runaway brides or missing persons from not just your own neck of the woods, but from anywhere in the country if nothing voyeuristic is happening where you live.

Hey you people who called Kucinich's campaign a distraction --- LISTEN UP!!:

If you find getting out of Iraq, healthcare for all Americans, cancelling of the NAFTA and WTO to bring good jobs back to our shores, a DISTRACTION, well then I'm happy to be 'distracted'!! Excuse Kucinich for distracting you by trying to be a decent leader for this country to bring a better life for all of us.

If you ask me the corporate Repukican-lite campaigns of Clinton, Obama and Edwards ARE THE DISTRACTION! They distract from what our real problems are -- namely the corporate hold on this country!

But it seems you want another 4 years of corporate rule -- because that's what you'll get with the "CEO". Now, stop distracting me, I'm busy.

Principessaglamenco -- You said it exactly!

These people have not even bothered to really hear Kucinich or they wouldn't make these kinds of ignorant statements. Makes me agree with someone else on Commondreams who was musing that maybe this country doesn't deserve a Kucinich yet. They are still sleepwalking. Such a shame. A man like Kucinich only comes along once in a lifetime --- if you're lucky. It sickens me to see him so underappreciated. Well alot of us appreciate him -- even if the media silences us. WE'RE HERE. And we're not going back.

None of the above wins every election. Half the people don't vote at all. Winners in a three way race often don't get half of the remaining half.

I attended a Kucinich rally in Santa Ana, Ca in 2004. It was, quite frankly, surreal.

The candidate was late, it seemed like every speaker before him was pushing some kind of gender/ethnic agenda, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was heckled for her stance on immigration, I would say at least half the members of the audience were members of the Green Party (as I was) and everwhere one looked someone was hawking something, e.g. Tee shirts, books, posters, hot dogs etc.

DK finally arrived and gave a good speech but by then a significant number of people had wandered off and the circus on the lawn continued while he was speaking.
I left with the idea that I would remain in the Green Party and that Kucinich was not going anywhere in '04.

There was nothing wrong with the message but a lot wrong with the messenger and the way the message was/is delivered.
When he endorsed Kerry later on it hit me. He exists, whether in his own mind or not, as a gatekeeper for the Dems, to keep lefties like me from straying from the fold (too late in my case). I have no doubt he will do the same this year. The sooner his campaign collapses, the better.

The winning ticket is Kucinich/McKinney.

I'd like to see party primaries and caucuses discontinued, and instead have a general election that includes everybody running as the first voting even, and a runoff election for the three or four highest winners, REGARDLESS of party. If one of the parties wasn't represented by one of the three highest winners, nobody would finally vote on them. It would more closely approach a presidency achieved by popular vote instead of the final two candidates being chosen by the two parties with those "extra" superdelegate votes for the party bigwigs.

I'd like to see party primaries and caucuses discontinued, and instead have a general election that includes everybody running as the first voting event

Some interesting posts. Where do progressives go from here? I suspect that question will be answered for us. If the sort of steamroller politics such as we saw in New Hampshire, where it sure looks like computer fraud led to a Clinton victory prevail, then we will see the disillusion that we are experiencing spread to the idealistic supporters of some of the more "serious" but not favored candidates wondering why they are being foot soldiers for either corporate party. I think Ron Paul supporters are already feeling this too.
Then the question becomes, do we have time to create a new party in time to save ourselves from impending fascism and environmental catastrophe and possibly world wide war? The Greens have only limped along not much more convincingly then the progressive wing of the Democratic party, but that could reflect the fact that the immediacy of the Bush threat caused many progressives to stay longer then was sensible in the Democratic party. If, as it looks, Hillary is to be the anointed one, there will probably be quite a run for the door of that party, myself included, to which many other progressives will probably say,"what took you so long?" If Obama or Edwards somehow win this will likely be delayed. Cynthia McKinney will be a great candidate to rally around with the main objective of educating people to the things that took us a while to learn too. The press will tolerate her campaign since it will help the Republican, assuming he's someone they favor. This could be interesting.

I get to vote in Florida's "primary" that means nothing too. Was it just a dream when the Democrats here said they wanted every vote counted in 2000? Uncommitted doesn't describe how I feel.