1 ok, I'll say it. FREEEEEEEEEEEED! Yippee!

2 He's in, and for now he has my vote. Have you considered Dr. Condoleezza Rice for VP. Mr. T? You should. If only to drive the other side over the edge.

3 "Hell—everyone's going to get mad at me, but I haven't promised I won't vote for Mrs. Clinton, either." I'll pretend you didn't write that. I'd much rather see you write-in Ron Paul than punch a hole for Hillary.

4 Did I say it was likely? The rationales would be some combo of the following: 1) The "Nixon in China" effect: would a President Hillary have a freer hand in conducting the WoT than her opponent? 2) Is there any chance that she would, in fact, be an "uncompromising" war President? 3) Whom are we planning on nominating, and does he/she/it have a brain in his/her/its head? If we put up Fred or Rudy, I'm in. If not, I've got some hard thinking to do, and the libbertarians (or, possibly, even, the Dems) could, conceivably, grab my vote. Just being honest.

5 1. If she did put up Janet Reno (as she acknowledged in winks and smiles about 46% of the time), she is the author of the "Inspector Clouseau" policy of dealing with terrorism. In-line with general Euro-Left thinking. For example, 911 would have been "answered" with trying to send the FBI into Afghanistan to "investigate". Taliban resistance and gamesmanship would have been met with UN games and acknowledgments of America's past failures--as Bill Clinton actually DID do immediately after 911. 2. Sure, cruise missiles would fly and night watchmen would die. It depends how you define "uncompromising'. With Hillary, I see it as always Left-leaning. After all, we need to be loved by those new Euro Neo-Socialists, don't we? New World Order? You betcha! The military would have to consider "carbon footprints" in any future operations. 3. Voting "None of the Above" or for a third horse in a two-horse race always sends a message. You are willing to let the greater of the two evils win in order to make a point. And suffer the cosequences. Remember Hillary's knee-jerk reactions to all the news of the day in the past year? Immediate gun control, tax the oil companies back into the stone age, global warming taxes, etc., etc. Hillary will always go with the leftist thouught swarm when the chips are down. Don't ever forget that. Doesn't she now disavow all those war on terror votes that you agree with? Doesn't she even reject that term, "War on Terror"/

6 You make a good case. And I haven't forgotten Hillary Care.

7 Hillary Care is coming with or without her. Individual States are now setting up programs that take care of the uninsured. Or, at least, that's what's supposed to happen. Instead they set income limits so high(NY $86k/yr) that they capture people who already have insurance. These unfunded obligations are SO huge that one day SOON the Fed Govt will have to bail them out and you'll have a defacto single-payer system to replace the hodgepodge. Notice how many times you've heard how many people are uninsured in the US in the last year. They even tried to use it last week or so as the reason that life expectancy-at-birth dropped in the US. Except there is NO science, NO statistical basis behind that number. The number is CALCULATED--simply pulled from someone's ass. They lowered the number to scare people as part of the Hillary Care Universal Socialized medicine program. The 56 million uninsured part was the first thing set to paper, and it justified the subtraction. Cuban officials filing the UN paperwork added an extra 2 years this time around when they discovered another warehouse full of cement that can be used for all the needed dental work (filliings) in the coming decades. By the way. I always trust your decision-making abilities. I hope someday Hugo Chávez and I can be friends. You leave open the possibility of voting for Hillary. I bet we have as many zeroes after the decimal point in our probablity analysis before we hit a non-zero value.