errrr

American Troops are still in Korea because of the threat of a North Korean invasion. The same goes for germany and Europe for fear of a Russian invasion. Essentially those locations are leftovers from the Cold War.

I'm not quite sure why Iraq, though. I don't really think anyone knows. WMD and being a harbor for terrorists, I guess. Except WMD never existed and now the terrorists have a reason to be in Iraq, i.e. to attack US Troops.

the US needs to be on friendly terms with North Korea before they withdraw troops from South Korea. I'm not sure if that's gonna happen soon, considering how crazy Kim Jong Il is.

Also, do you think if Hillary gets the nomination, she would nominate Bill Clinton as her vice pres? that would be pretty novel. A Clinton/Clinton ticket  

McCain winning most of the votes is making me physically ill. I can't believe the voting public.

Actually Al Gore has been pretty popular as of late. A clinton/gore ticket could be possible too =))))))

(crazzyman has creepy smily faces)

As long as a Democratic Candidate becomes president I'm happy, as being a full Democratic / Left Dutch person. Both are unique. Never in the Western history a woman became a president and neither became a colored candidate ever president. Both will help the US off the cliff as its kind of balancing right now. Good for the import a disaster for every middle / low income in the US itself and in the end for the entire economics in the rest of the world.

We shouldn't have toops in Iraq or Korea or anywhere else at this point, ally or not, its far too expensive, unless the other countries wish to pay us to have a military prescense in their country I see no reason to waste our money, when we are running a massive debt, partially due to huge military expenses, cutting military spending should be a goal of the next administration

We're not fighting a tangible enemy like we did in past wars. It's just like the war on drugs. Or for an even better example, Anonymous vs. Scientology. There can't be a time when we can declare victory over "terrorists." It's designed to be perpetual, and will go on as long as the "terrorists" still "hate our freedom" (which they WILL if we keep putting troops in their countries and keep installing governments). Our economy is tanking and our military is spread way too thin. We can't afford this continued war effort any further. In case anyone forgot, btw, this is exactly what Bin Laden was trying to do to begin with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

And McCain has already been quoted as saying "there's going to be more wars" (an article with the quote: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=54294 ). He's also talked about military options against Iran. I just don't understand why the American people, after being so fed up with our current war, would actively vote for ANOTHER man who's firmly pro-war. He's standing right in front of everyone saying this, but nobody's listening.

Where do we go from here?

On the Dem side at least, Obama suddenly has the momentum back. Whereas he was losing almost every one of these states but Illinois three weeks ago, he took 14 of 22 last night. He lost the big contest in Caloifornia, but ran very strongly in the South and crushed in the Midwest, and even stole a state (Connecticut) out of Clinton's backyard.

The upcoming calendar favors him as well. Here's the contests up to March 4, with my judgment of who's favored:

Feb. 9

Louisiana - No clear favorite
Nebraska - Obama
Washington - Obama

Louisiana has both a large black population and a lot of blue-collar whites, so it's hard to see who has the advantage here. Nebraska is midwestern, where Obama has been dominant, and the Washington Democratic party skews liberal and middle-class, which favors him as well. Both are also caucus states - Clinton has won only one caucus so far, Nevada, while Obama has taken half a dozen.

Feb 10

Maine - Clinton

It's a New England state. Clinton has dominated the Northeast so far, losing only Delaware and Connecticut.

Feb 12

District of Columbia - Obama
Maryland - Obama
Virginia - Obama

This day heavily tilts towards Obama - it's almost as if he wrote this part of the calendar himself. DC is a majority-black constituency, and Maryland's Democrats are split between wealthy whites and urban blacks. Clinton has a shot in Virginia, but for the most part VA's Dems resemble Maryland's - Northern Virginia white liberals and blacks outnumber working-class and rural whites by a good margin.

Feb 19

Hawaii - Obama
Wisconsin - Obama

Hawaii should be Obama-favored, but while it's well-known that whites and Hispanics favor Clinton and blacks favor Obama, the voting preferences of Asians-Americans (who comprise a majority of the state and the Democratic party) aren't known to me. If I had to guess, I'd say that there is no clear advantage for either candidate on that basis alone. Wisconsin is Midwestern Obama territory.

Edit: I competely forgot that Obama was born in Hawaii. Oops. He wins here, hands-down.
March 4

Ohio - No clear advantage
Rhode Island - Clinton
Texas - No clear advantage
Vermont - Clinton

If the elections were today, I think Clinton would probably win all four, but only the New England states are momentum-proof. Ohio Dems are, like Louisiana, mostly working-class whites and blacks, while Texas is a hodgepodge of every Democratic constituency - whites of all socioeconomic strata as well as blacks, Hispanics, and a significant Asian population.

Obama probably has a cash advantage, as well. He raised more money in January, even though Clinton won more contests, and he relies less on large donors (much of Clinton's donor base has already maxed out for the primary season). Neither campaign will run out of money, per se, but his ability to bring in more cash could be a difference-maker.

 Well that's why I like Mccain.  You look at his positions and he's a hardcore conservative... yet conservatives don't want to embrace him and call him a traitor.

Because he's willing to compromise. 

Yeah.  It allows for quicker deployment in areas of trouble.  If you've got some problem in someone invading Kuwait, it's easier to aid them from Iraq or Germany then it is to mobilize troops from the US and wait for them to arrive by boat.