And if we're very lucky, the Religious Nuts will follow through on their earlier threat and nominate someone because they hate McCain. Mike Huckelberry is available and likely willing. Go! Run! You know Jesus wants you to!

I assume you are dismissing the possibility of Hillary as an independent.

Is pretty damn big. It may include an independent run.

After eight years of Dubbya I think that most of the Trustafarians and hippier-than-thou Naderites have learned their lesson so I'm not concerned with another vanity run from the hasbeen on the Pacific Green ticket. But I'm really stoked with the idea of McCain having to contend with both a Constitution party and a Libertarian party candidate with that much national name recognition. Common, spoilers!

Would crap their pants if she and her delegates didn't show up at the convention.

They'd also be stunned if aliens showed up insisting that Ron Paul was a Democrat and should be the Democratic Nominee. It has about as much chance of happening as your scenario of Hillary and her delegates bolting.

I'm just saying. It's best to treat her nice.

They're treat her nicely, don't worry about that. As nicely as she wants? Maybe not, but if she wants the nomination in 2016, she'll play ball. And she'll want that if she can't get it sooner.

... in many states.

Hillary doesn't want to be campaigning when she's 68. If she doesn't get the nod this time around, she'll run plan B to try again in 2012.

And McCain didn't want to be running at 72, but you take what you can get.

..handicapping the 3/4/5 slots. Who really is the biggest loser? I smell big bucks from fox entertainment. The ultimate reality show, the quest for the Don Quixote title.

...I don't recall anyone in Hillary Clinton's camp ever suggesting she might not support the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that might be (though, of course, she always says she "expects to be the nominee").

Now, I vividly recall Michelle Obama demurring from a firm statement earlier this year about supporting anyone but her husband in the fall. She said she, at least, would have to think about it, or something equally noncommittal, should her husband NOT be the nominee.

It was shocking to me at the time -- surely others remember this incident too!

I wonder if many supporters of Senator Obama will vote for Nader if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.

I can get enthusiastically behind Senator Obama if he wins the nomination and I hope his supporters will mostly, at the very least, still vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who wins. From what I've seen I have my doubts.

This is just plum awesome news, awesome! And Wes, I'd LOVE to see Clinton run as an Independent! I'd even concede an Obama loss due to vote splitting if only to see a viable third party emerge.

Democracy needs Third Parties, most of the rest of the world already has 'em...what's the hold up America?

I wish 3rd parties could make a go of it here but I don't see that happening as long as the two current parties draw the district lines. Also, it would be easier for third parties to succeed with smaller Congressional districts that are better organized by a common background rather than having one group or other intentionally diluted.

Also, in Parliamentary systems like the UK the Prime Minister isn't directly elected so the representatives have to make alliances to get enough votes. They can also do a vote of no confidence whenever the wish and get a new PM. I've envied that greatly since 2001.

The "holdup" is likely our system of government. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have more effective minor parties. As it is, most minor parties get shut out at the national level.

These are the choices? Oh Lord, there has got to be something better out there...

Hillary running as an independent? LOL!! I swear, wessenality, you need a two drink minimum to read you.

"In most states, Ralph Nader will probably be there, too, though his influence is likely to be limited."

I would not be so quick to negate Nader's appeal. He gets virtually NO PRESS from the media, but is still running significant poll numbers. Many view him as the ONLY candidate that looks at the unending Israeli/Palestinian conflict in an objective manner.

You seem to be operating under misapprehension that Clinton can marshal and command her delegates like her own personal army. It's simply not so.

I understand that you possess a fervency of loyalty and devotion for Sen. Clinton usually reserved for the likes of Chairman Mao, but I doubt that a single delegate or super delegate or elected Democrat would back her in an independent run.

Of course, the idea that a party animal like Sen. Clinton would desert the Democrats (and all their money and machinery) for an indy run is ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) on its face - a sad little fantasy dreamt by a sad little troll with nothing left to dream.

My fantasy is still alive and well. Hooking and fileting Obamabots. Not mentioning any names of course.

With Obama changing your life for you.

but why do they get shut out? There's nothing in the system that shuts them out, only voters.

What I mean is, there's no reason why the Senate Majority Leader must represent one of only two parties. If there were three parties, there'd still be a majority, you'd still need a majority to pass legislation...etc etc etc.

I just think that the electorate has to be willing to take their lumps and lose a few cycles before they see results. Incidentally it's not a coincidence that many third parties had their start during the Depression, when the electorate had absolutely nothing to lose.

p.s. to wysiwyg - in the UK they have Single Member Plurality, there's no coalitions unless the party that forms the government doesn't have a majority, then you get a minority government and the only way to pass legislation is to get other parties to agree with you. It's pretty great when it works (it's how Canada got Healthcare)...also non-confidence votes kick ass :)

cheers!