In case you have been studiously avoiding this topic, the Bush era is over in about 1 year, 0 months, and 17 days.

Now a small state in the middle of the country, resorting to the most undemocratic means, has chosen its favorites.

Barack Obama took the Democratic side by 37% over Clinton's 29% and Edwards' 30%

Mike Huckabee won the Repugnican side, even though he doesn't quite know where Pakistan is located.

We'll keep you updated, we will.

I may be extraordinarily naive, but I don't think the Repugnicans have a chance.

Both Obama and Clinton (or Edwards for that matter) could debate Huckabee right under the table in about 30 seconds. Still, it's not over by any means for the other Repugnicans (Romney, McCain, Giuliani), this is just one state.

I know this is a silly question, but nobody over here seems to say anything.

I take it that in the primaries, only registered Democrats can vote for the Democratic nomination, and only registered Republicans ditto.  Otherwise there would be spoiler votes (ie convinced Republicans would vote for the Democratic candidate least likely to win the Presidency and vice versa.)  In which case why do the parties have to have primaries on the same day?

Or have I totally got the wrong end of the stick?

It seems that being demonstrably stupid and inarticulate is no bar to being elected President of the United States of America twice running.

So who is/are the good guy(s) in all this kerfuffle, Mr Dish? Are there any?

I was reading some of Barack Obama's book in a bookshop over Christmas and it seemed impressively self-assured and not full of empty rhetoric. He even casually mentioned smoking a cigarette as a student (tobacco only, I think). Not sure if he inhaled though.

You say niether, I say neither...

But, er, I think it's pretty safe to say that he was indeed elected in the sense of the process choosing him to run the shop at least in a titular sense. Whether one gives the credit to Jeb, the Supreme Court, Al Gore, John Kerry, the mysterious box on George's back or the good ol' US of A doesn't make a great deal of difference. To the beneficiaries or to the victims.

Please can someone answer my question about primaries?

Justin Webb, the BBC Washington correspondent, a few weeks ago about some society Washington lady said that "she fancies, in both senses, Hilary's opponent, Barack Obama."

Not surprised.

I'm also in favour of Richardson...   if a Repugnantan has to win at all, then let it be Ron Paul at least.  However, sadly, neither have the remotest chance

BBC News political pundits called Iowa utterly wrongly, predicting it would emerge as a Giuliani/Clinton result.  I was pleased to see Ms Clinton knocked back into third place, but I doubt her insufferable ego will have even registered the dent.

When do they start announcing their running-mates? 

A pity Rocky Anderson couldn't be persuaded to stand, though - but maybe next time?

I greatly fear the Republicans will walk it    Huckabee's promo clip with Chuck Norris plumbed new lows - apparently Huckabee says that his "foreign policy" will be to set Chuck Norris on evil-doers

Since no one else has. Generally speaking, yes. In both caucuses and primaries only registered members of the respective parties can vote for their respective candidates (but there are exceptions with complicated things called open or semi-open primaries where... it's more complicated).

As far as I can see though there is nothing actually to stop anyone joining a different party to the one they really support and voting for the duffest candidate. Maybe some do?

There is also the deep mystery as to why everyone agrees it should be Iowa and New Hampshire that are allowed to go first every time. I'm sure there is a reason but, as an outsider, I just can't work out what it would be.