I would disagree. I don't think it has "no impact."

The power people create by coming together and turning out in record numbers to be politically active should not be underestimated.

In years past, people across the state didn't participate in the caucuses, (now if that was because the candidates had already been decided upon by that point or because they weren't aware, or simply didn't care I'm not sure) now, however, like Howard Bass said, this could be the catalyst. We have proven we're capable and interested, so perhaps this caucus change things.

I'd rather have primaries as well. But voter turnout on the democratic side has been at an all-time high all across the nation for both primaries and caucases, so I don't think it has alienated too many people.

The caucuses are fine for die-hard politicos who want to be involved in that aspect of the process. For most people, a chance to vote for the person of their choice is their main concern if they are concerned at all. Again, limiting the time when people can cast that ballot goes against Minnesota's long tradition of making it easier, not harder, to vote.

Plenty of people locally were alienated on both sides of the aisle if you read and/or watched the news in the days following the MN caucuses.

Don't read too much in to more democrats than republicans turning out for caucuses and primaries nation-wide, just like you shouldn't really pay much attention to national popular vote polls. Last I checked, we still are a republic and elect our president based on the electoral college results. McCain will pick off a lot of independent voters who long have loved him.

Also, the democrats worst nightmare is unfolding. They will fight amongst themselves all the way to their convention at this rate while McCain can concentrate on the general election campaign in fairly short order.

If my comments were straight from FoxNews, your comments were straight from Air America!!

A+ candidates?!? Wow, that viewpoint comes straight out of left field. Let's see, if they had their way, both Obama and Clinton would have us cut and run from Iraq, legalize gay marriage, socialize health care, and raise taxes exponentially in the process. That may be an A+ in your book, but it is an F for the other half of the country!

Conservatives know how important the Supreme Court is and how important this election is in terms of the future direction of our country. They will unite behind McCain because he is way the lesser of two evils when compared with Obama or Clinton.

Rush has marginalized himself over the last several years and no longer speaks for most conservatives. Coulter is a conservative shock jock who again does not speak for most of us.

I wonder if your bosses at the local paper approve of the term "moron" when referring to other people. Not the most respectful term for a supposed journalist. Guess you didn't learn respect when you were a student at JFK.

Sounds like a vast right wing conspiracy. Guess it started a lot longer ago than Hillary Clinton thought!

It's easy to look back at history and pretend like you know what people intended to do or not do. Do you know all of the people who voted for Ford or Carter back in 1976? Have you interviewed enough of them to have a statistical sample where you can conclusively say that conservative people willfully pushed the worst president in the history of the USA (Carter) in to the White House on the chance that Reagan would be elected four years later?!? Wow, you have a vivid imagination!!

You give the neocons to much credit. They don't have that kind of power no more so than the ultralibs on the left.

Conservatives are more intelligent than you give us credit for. We know that a moderate Republican is far better than a ultra liberal Democrat and will vote accordingly.

Regarding your use of terms like "moron", it just seems childish for a grown man, and certainly not befitting a former student of Mr. Kuklish.

Who is Mr. Kuklish? Never heard of him.

I'm not bagging on Ford. You're right. He stepped into a tough spot - a no-win situation - and did the best he could. (Although he was on the Warren Commission, which are big points against him).

I'm just saying Ford had little or no chance of winning in 1976 - not after Tricky ******, Agnew, Watergate, the fall of Vietnam and a sluggish post-war economy. The rightnies knew the country was likely going to lean left in the next election and it did. It was time for change. The righties didn't want their golden boy - Reagan - sacrificed in that election and especially at Reagan's age too.

It's not like Nixon, where after losing to Kennedy in 1960, he was still young enough to run again 8 years later. Reagan didn't have that luxury. Reagan was 65-66 in 1976 election. He had one shot and one shot only. So to lose in 1976 might have been the end of Reagan's politcal career. It didn't matter if Ford lost. His politcal career was over anyway.

You are a dreamer if you think Obama will beat McCain in a landslide. I have never claimed to be nonpartisan in my posts on this web site. I am conservative and I vote for the conservative candidate. Clinton and Obama would try to make the USA a socialist country so calling them socialists really just puts them in the company they would have us keep.

What makes them socialists is their intent to try to force socialized medicine down our throats, force us to pay for day care, child care, elder care and every other kind of care in between; basically the expansion of the nanny government. Their goal is a massive expansion in the scope and reach of the federal government. That is what makes them socialists.

No, it isn't a stretch if you take your head out of the liberal rags that you probably read to get your news. Read the New York Post at least once in awhile and you'll see a totally different picture of Iraq that what you get from the NY Times, the Red Star, etc. Talk to my friend and neighbor who spent over a year in Iraq helping to plan the surge that has been so successful that you barely hear the Dems talk about Iraq anymore because, that's right, we're winning! Pretty soon Hillary will be for the war again!

9/11 happened on Bush's watch so he is partly to blame, but he can't be blamed for the eight years of Clinton doing next to nothing including leaving with our tail between our legs from Somalia (see the movie "Black Hawk Down"). His response to the '93 Trade Center attacks and the Cole bombings were anemic at best and emboldened Osama and Al Quaeda to try 9/11.

At least Bush responded to 9/11, unlike the Clintoniaon approach of appeasement and more talking. People who devalue human life like Al Quaeda are not interested in talking. They are interested in killing you and me and all the "infidels". We would get more of the Clintonian appeasement with Hillary and even more pacifism with Obama. No thank you.

To see how well the surge is working, you only need to listen to the lack of criticism from the Dems. The silence is deafening because they don't want to bring up a subject that works against them.

We can both find military friends who have differing opinions on the war. What matters is what is happening on the ground, and on the ground, things are getting better for the people of Iraq and Saddam is no longer in power. All the opinions in the world can't change those facts.

You may hear conservative talk radio or watch conservative TV but I don't think you are listening. Not one sided? Please, your writings in these online chats are as liberal as mine are conservative. I at least admit that my views are conservative. Don't try to mask your true colors. Embrace being a liberal. You are good at it!

President Bush is not a great President, nor is he even close to being the best President we have ever had. I admit that. I'm curious as to your lack of response to my comments on President Clinton. Maybe that is because he is indefensible in his failure to adequately respond to the rise of Al Quaeda during his presidency, his failure in Somalia and his repeatedly not being faithful to his wife, and then lying about it under oath. Did I mention that he was impeached by the House and almost impeached by the Senate? What, no comment? Your silence is deafening.

I voted for Bush Sr., and didn't vote for Al Gore (Not Bush Jr. either). I throw away my vote that year as I was turned off by politics.

But the last eight years have really pushed me over to the left side of the field. Bush has been that bad. Socially, I've always leaned more left, but fiscally, over the years, I tended to go right.

I don't embrace being a liberal or conservatie. As Barak Obama says, "There are no red states. There are no blue states. There are the United States." I hate following the party line, even though I have recently.

As bad as Bush presidency has been, I'd also say Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 presidents in this country's history. Yes, I said that. Perhaps, not for his economic plan, which are still being debated today. He was sort of dud on social issues. AIDS came along and Reagan buried his head in the sand like an Ostrich.

But Reagan brilliantly ended the Cold War and brought our hostages home from Iran. But for me, his greatest legacy is he untied a country torn apart by Vietman, 400-plus days of Iran hostages, a miserable economy, Watergate, Nixon, Agnew and Jimmy Carter's inability to lead and get results.

Reagan restored patroitism in a time when the country desperately needed it. The country yearned for it and he delivered in a big big big way, despite rising deficits and Iran Contra.

Reagan was a great uniter of Dems and Republicans and of the American people. He restored the country's self-esteem, which in turn helped lead to great economic booms. When people are happy and feel a sense of pride, good things will always follow. However, the country doesn't have that Reagan feel anymore. Bush has divided it and destroyed it.

That's why I like Barack. He has the Regan appeal. So did JFK, despite his womenizing. (But again, those are gnat turds in pepper).

And I wouldn't put Clinton in the uniting class. He's a great great poltician - one of the best ever - but to me he was not a uniter who transcended party lines like Reagan did. Like JFK. And perhaps like Obama.

Good thoughts. Well written. We all evolve to some extent politically. Thank you for sharing how you have evolved.

Obama certainly has generated a lot of enthusiasm and optimism and other good isms mostly among Democrats but admittedly among some moderates as well. I won't even say he can't or won't win because anything is possible in this country.

A thought has occurred to me recently that we are not getting the best and the brightest to run for President anymore because it has become all about the money and party machinery. None of the choices overwhelm me with excitement, but I have to vote based on what I think is right. I think abortion is the murder of a human being, for example, so I must vote for the pro-life candidate. I voted for Rudy Perpich, a DFLer, for Governor for that reason and not for Arnie Carlson because Rudy was pro-life and Arnie was pro-choice.

As Jack Nicholson asked, "what if this is as good as it gets?". Sadly, the current crop of candidates is as good as it gets but I don't think it is the best we could get.

Most conservatives are not against the death penalty because we value human life so much that if a person takes another person's life, they should pay with their own life (i.e. eye for an eye). My own opinion on the death penalty is evolving as I read about people released from jail decades after they were convicted because the DNA evidence clears their name. If we are capable of making such a gross error in our justice system, then I think the death penalty needs to be very carefully reconsidered.