But living in Indiana the temptation to log a protest vote is tempting since even Dick Cheney would carry the presidential vote in Indiana. In 96 I voted third party.

but I kind of wish there were more choices.

I don't think ANYONE could "end the war" by 2008. If HC managed to bring about peace in Iraq (assuming that's what we're talking about here,) she would be a political genius.

If she managed to do this by next year? In that case, I would not hesitate to vote for her.

But that's a wild hypothetical, isn't it? Barring any unlikely political heroism (like ending the war) from Senator Clinton, I wouldn't want to vote for her. I don't like her; she always looked and sounded insincere to me. I hate to say it, but if it came down to McCain vs Clinton, I'd have to think really hard about it.

This is the first time that we will have our nominees by the end of March, instead of the end of Summer.
Have you every diagramed a sentence? If you have, you know that you begin with a noun and a verb. You can add an object, and build on from there with articles and adjectives, etc. If you have a really long sentence with lots of clauses, the diagram can get long, wide, and complicated.
That is how I see this nominating process. So far, we have a noun and a verb for each person running for President. For some, we also have an object or an article. I'm waiting to see the rest of the diagram before I make a decision.

Justice Stevens is circling the drain. I want a Democrat to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court alters the fabric of our lives for generations. It matters more to me that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 than which particular Democrat. I'm funny like that.

I will not vote for anyone in the primary that voted 'yes' on the IWR; I don't believe that dumbassery should be rewarded. However, once the nominee is chosen, it's balls-out to the finish line.

a candidate who will actively abide by the wishes of the real rank and file of the party.

What is NOT NEEDED is another Presidential candidate who carries out his own agenda once he has hijacked the nomination. This is what happened in 2004. We were assured by the nominee that he would absolutely make sure that all of the votes of the election were counted and verified as to their integrity. Instead what we got was an outrageous sellout. We are all too painfully aware of what the consequences of that spinelessness have been. Our only consolation prize is that he is not running this time around.

Because there will likely be no alternative that is acceptable from the other party,the only viable action will be to vote for the Democrat. The other possibility which would be very bad would be feeling compelled to not vote at all. I,personally,do not even want to think about that.