Nobody is a coward and a jerk. Jen, I'm new to your site, but I'm already madly in love, and I think that intelligent political discourse is vital. BBQ is yummy.

I'm thinking Clark and his young supporter are dancing to Kajagoogoo's "Too Shy/ Hush Hush/ Eye to Eye" http://www.france-jeunes.net/paroles/index.php?tid=MjExNDE=

Jen, I know you're now wishing you never brought it up, but please tell us: why are you for a three party system? What will having three parties gain us? They'll probably break down into rightwing, leftwing, and moderate. The Republicans and Democrats will just play to moderates in their campaigning and take the moderate vote (see: the last three presidential elections).

I understand taking a principled stand, but do you really think this is the year to do it?

Politics make the polis tick; it would be sad to completely omit such privileged discourse from a blog about New York.

Says a member of the ACLU who will probably vote Republican this time round and Democrat in four years.

I do believe in the results of the process over time, but I'd encourage anyone greatly dissatisfied with the present choice of parties and candidates, to take a closer look at direct democracy, swiss style for instance (what I'm most familiar with).

It's the system, stupid! Why not have a popular line-item vote in budget matters, for example?

Have a nice day!

Nobody: Thank you! You're right, we should just stick to posting wacky pictures of the candidates, versus airing our thoughts about them. Seriously, we're taking that to heart.

Delegate counts at this stage aren't too significant. They tend to change to reflect the results of primaries. If things stay close between Kerry and Dean, then you might have an interesting convention - delegate brokering and whatnot - but it's too early to read too much meaning into delegate counts.

Please don't embarass yourself by trying to make relevant commentary on politics. Stick to things you know, like string music in the subway and where to find good barbecue.

A side note:

Check out the delegate scorecard:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

Even though Kerry got the most votes, Dean actually has more delegates. As of today (the 28th), Dean has 113 to Kerry's 94. That means that Dean is ahead. And delegates are what count.

I voted third party four years ago when I lived in Indiana, a state that was predestined from Creation to go to Bush, and I get shit for it to this day, and the fact that no pro-Gore vote in Indiana could possibly have won him the White House doesn't seem to matter.

OK, "I really really really really really hate the two-party system" *is* 100 percent valid, but it's also 100 percent not an argument. And as the face (and other parts) of this Web site, you endorsed the idea of voting third party to an audience beyond NY state.

Look, all the arguments people are posing are valid (to a degree) and I understand the desire to make sure Bush is not in office - believe me, I've heard it all before from friends and family. However, being in NY, with its history of going to the Democrats makes me feel like I can vote for who I rather see in office, third party and all. I'm hoping that once primaries finish and things settle down, and once there's a Democratic ticket, I'll like what I see. But right now, I'm just not that wowed, just tired of rhetoric.

Damn Jen, why gotta go do us that way? From the titty shirts to the silly panda nonsense to the shit-the-bed move of voting third party....you're killing me. Don't fall into irrelevence when you're on the verge of grabbing a Webbie or Bloggi, or whatever.

hmmm...if i think the bloggies should feature 6 nominees instead of 5 in each category, does that mean i should vote for a blog i know can't win instead of gothamist? you know, as a means of protest.

THIRD PARTY!?!?!? I'm crying.

Oh well, I'll agree to disagree with Gothamist on that one. Just give me a second to pull myself together.

I'm a Leftist. I'm dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's lack of backbone and leadership. But, voting "third party" is what got us into this mess in the first place. If Ralph Nader had directed his supporters to vote for Al Gore, Gore would have won easily. not that Gore is great, but he would have been better than Bu$h. Instead, the left is divided, and which is what the Fascists in power want. We will have four more years of Bu$h. And after that, my guess is we will have another Repooblican. We need to use our votes in opposition. We aren't voting *for* the Democratic candidate, we are voting *against* Bush. Unless you actually want him back, PLEASE DONT VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!!!!!

it should be noted that last year (as in 2003), there were some republicans that were talking about competing in new york. they thought the whole ny electing a GOP governor again was a good sign, especially since pataki has good pull outside the city. even if they didn't win, bush campaigning here would make sure the democratic nominee wouldn't take ny for granted.

Note to self: This is what I get for posting about politics on the site. I'm waiting for Sterling to rear his head on this thread.

like i said in a posting a few weeks ago, those of us on the left need to get it straight: this election is in no way about voting for the candidate most aligned with our personal views. it's about voting for the candidate that can defeat bush. it's about voting for the person who can capture the independent vote and maybe even take some republicans, because that person, as "conservative" as he may appear, is still the better option to the karl rove sycophant in office now.

This is what Clark is saying to the young man in the diner:

"I just flew in to New Hampshire, and boy are my arms tired!"

Thank you very much. I'll be here all week folks!

this reminds me of a political cartoon from four years ago: bush hears on tv that a vote for nader is a vote for bush. cut to: bush in the election booth, putting a check mark beside "nader"