If you're not going to vote, nobody really gives a rat's ass what your opinion is. I'm not saying that out of any kind of pique or spite, but seriously. If you feel that the elections are irrelevant (they may be), why bother to opine?

It's kind of like the Pope's opinion on smooth vs. ribbed condoms. He may have one, but who cares?

"... Team Giuliani said its "bold" and "innovative" strategy -- write off Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina in the hopes of turning things around in Florida -- is still "looking good."

This strategy is neither bold nor innovative, it's something that we see every four years as candidates who see their chances going south decide to follow them.

It may be possible for Rudy to recover, I've long since given up on expecting any kind of rationality from the Republican faithful, but it looks more like a strategy to conserve resources while a failing campaign awaits a miracle to me.

The Republicans seem to be caught in a time warp. Huckabee is no liberal, he's just playing William Jennings Bryan to Junior's William McKinley. Just a smoother version of Pat Buchanan's pitchfork wielder.

The one big difference is that Bryan was a three-time Democratic nominee, and not a Republican. But then I guess believing in evolution was always more of a Democratic thing. They've moved on, but the Republicans seem fixed on reaching back a century for their candidates.

As I've said before, I don't really give a rat's patoot about what someone put up his nose 20 years ago. It's what a person has been doing recently that interests me.

And what I have been seeing recently is a candidate using her flying monkeys to _suggest_ that Obama's past nose candy infatuation means that he shouldn't be president, but not having the required intestinal fortitude to let her staff know that they need to STFU on the subject because it's irrelevant, or to come out and make the claim directly because she does think it should be seriously considered and discussed.

Now _that_ does interest me. "Plausible Deniability" is for weasels, not Presidents.

One the one hand, I'm somewhat comforted that the Huckster realizes that his plan to start bringing the US legal code in line with some perverse vision of a christian Sharia would require a constitutional amendment. I'm not sure Junior's that astute.

On the other hand, I'm appalled that he's willing to do it.

I would compare Junior's handling of Afghanistan and Iraq to that of a certain mid-20th century military genius' idea to invade the Soviet Union before finishing off England. I won't name the genius to avoid the obvious comments from the trolls.

While the results are not likely to be as generally catastrophic, although a few hundred thousand families may disagree, the odds of success are roughly similar.

Back when I was a wee tad there was a term "Cafeteria Catholics" that was used to describe catholics like my mother who had difficulties with the church's stand on birth control, but bought the rest of the package. It was a pejorative used by those who held that one didn't get to pick and choose which doctrines one would accept - it was the whole package or nothing.

I hold that the Huckster is a "Cafeteria Christian", cannily choosing those christian doctrines that he thinks will help advance him politically and downplaying the rest. Sorry Huck, I'm not interested in any watered-down namby-pamby christofascism, I want you to go for the whole package. I'll know that you're serious when I see an amendment banning polycotton blends. Until then, you're just a poseur.

"The Bible was not written to be amended ...", Huckabee said.

And that's why the Reformation never happened and Mike and family happily attend a Latin Mass every Sunday.

Hell, everybody's for state's rights, until the states don't do what they want. Then, they expect the Feds to step in. It's a vice that's pretty universal and knows no party boundary. Nor does hypocrisy on the issue.

But it would be more decorous if the Huckster would wait a day or so before switching sides of his mouth.

If Edwards doesn't get enough delegates that he has a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, I believe that he can withdraw and have his delegates vote for Obama, should Clinton not have a majority. Or he could just plain release them to vote their preference.

That said, I hope Edwards pulls ahead gets the nomination, I'm just not holding my breath until it happens.

If Mitt wins the nomination, does that mean we won't have to worry about hearing "flip-flopper" from the Republicans for this cycle? Somehow, I think that they'll still manage to squeeze it in.

But - it's a long way from over.

I don't support Hillary - that doesn't make me sexist.

I don't support Obama - that doesn't make me racist.

I prefer John Edwards - that doesn't mean I grew up as a mill-worker's son and have a preference for trial lawyers. Just that I prefer his positions to anyone else's.

I hope Edwards wins the nomination, I think he'd eat any Republican's lunch. And I'll admit, I'm not above sniping at the others. But I'm not idiot enough not to realize that even a DLC-style corporate career pol or a wet-behind-the-ears freshman Senator is infinitely preferable to any of the current crop of Republican Reagan wannabes.

Sheesh, can't we just dial the idiocy back a little bit?

Sorry, won't happen. That would require far too much work for anyone on either side of the screen. And as a kiss of death, it wouldn't help sponsors sell a single extra car, french fry, or cell phone.

Now shut up and pass me the dip ...

C'mon, Kristol's gotta eat too.