Ugh.

Well, at this point, you know how bad my ability to make predictions is. So no more predictions except one: in November, there will be a Presidential election.

I'm still a Dean guy, and he does still have a chance -- he still leads in delegates. And though he was beaten handily by Kerry, Dean handily beat Edwards and Clark. Dean really does have to win a state next week, though. His chances look slim, the reason being people don't perceive him nearly as electable as Kerry. I've said bullshit to this assertion before, and I still say bullshit.

Is electability even a viable issue? With differences -- albeit subtle -- on how to lower health care costs, how to deal with the war in Iraq, how to improve schools, and how to handle homosexual relationships and guns and free trade and job loss, shouldn't we support the candidate that most closely represents our personal politics than who we think can beat the incumbent? I emphatically, unquestionably must answer "not really." Electability is important; it was a factor in why I didn't support Nader in 2000 (that, and Nader is a loon), though I wasn't the biggest Al Gore fan in the world. I want to punch that butterfly ballot in November with pride instead of resignation.

I still believe that Howard Dean can beat George Bush, as the McGovern comparisons simply can't stick. I could certainly see a scenario in which Kerry/Edwards ticket -- or a Kerry/Graham ticket -- gives Bush a run for his money -- I doubt it, but I could see it. I want Dubya out of office as much as the next sane person, but not at any cost. I want to vote in November because I truly believe in the candidate and not because he isn't George Bush. I think we all do. At least, those of us who aren't full blown fascists.

That last part was satire.