I'M voting Dean, much to my father's chagrin...(well, not really, since I bet him ten dollars on the primaries and he's probably going to win, but that's cuz he's a sleazy Mic) I mean, I understand that Clark and Kerry have more conservative conversion, but that's because they're conservatives. What's the point in even HAVING two political parties if they're just going to mold together and be the same? Everyone goes on and on about how "oh, well, anything to get Bush out of the white house" but how the hell is a closet republican or "conservative democrat" going to change anything if they just kow tow to what Bush-like republicans want anyway? I suppose Dean's major error in judgment is his honesty and his pro-activeness...something that our "democrats" apparently don't want, and that's why there are so few REAL democrats left. I think it's rather sad that people will go with a "Bush Lite" in order to win. What's the point of winning if you're not winning anything in the end? What IS winning? The TITLE of "democrat"? Or just the fact that the name "Bush" is no longer attached to President? Ursula makes an excellent point, as did Dr. Governor Dean...how can someone beat Bush in a debate if they agreed to everything he suggested initially? Sleazy under-the-table shit makes the nausea rise up in my throat, excuse me while I vomit.