If you decide to vote Democratic, your choices are between big business candidate Hillary Clinton and "change" candidate Barack Obama. If you decide to vote Republican, your choices are between warmonger John McCain, Christian fundamentalist Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.

John McCain is no "maverick." Indeed, there are a few issues he's not completely horrible on -- he's pro- campaign finance reform and opposed to torture. But on the wide array of issues, McCain has consistently sided with the forces of injustice. In particular, his strong support for the illegal occupation of Iraq and the so-called "war on terror" are disturbing.

In regard to Iraq, he has stated that it would be "fine" if the U.S. maintained the occupation for the next hundred years. He believes that we should "maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The only problem: this is not "fine" with the vast majority of Americans, nor is it "fine" with the vast majority of Iraqis. Upward of 70 percent of Americans consistently state they are opposed to the war in Iraq (despite all the "progress" we've made) and even more Iraqis are opposed to a U.S. military presence in their country -- and that's right now, let alone for the next 100 years.

In addition to that, who decided it should be up to John McCain, or any of us, to maintain the illegal occupation? It should be up to the Iraqis. Only racists and superior-minded westerners believe that we can run Iraq better than the Iraqis. They say they want us out, so let's get out. It's the only democratic thing to do.

Back to McCain's quote, he likes to trumpet around saying we need to fight these "Islamofascists," a made-up term that has no bearing on Al Qaida's actual ideology or goals. McCain seems to think that the more he says we need to stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaida, the more likely that that statement will become the real reason we are there.

But it doesn't take a genius to figure out why we are there -- oil. If Iraq had been in the middle of nowhere with no oil, the U.S. would not have invaded. We're not building an embassy bigger than the Vatican for nothing (which the Iraqis there call "Bush's palace"). Bush recently issued a signing statement, declaring that he doesn't care what Congress says and is going to build permanent bases in Iraq anyway.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Al Qaida was in Iraq before we invaded. Of course, they are there now, but they are a very substantial minority among all the armed factions -- the chances of Al Qaida taking over are extremely slim. In addition, it is the U.S. presence there that is attracting new recruits. This information is easy to find and uncontroversial. Our presence is the problem, not the solution.

Mike Huckabee is an interesting fellow. His fundamentalist views are a problem with American society generally -- there aren't many places in the industrialized world, for example, where the majority of citizens believe in miracles or angels or whatever other wildly unsubstantiated claims.

But his candidacy did spark fear in the minds of the Republican establishment, for the reason that he can't be controlled.

The Republican Party thought it could court the fundamentalist vote for the longest time, but of course they never wanted one of them to be the nominee.

If Huckabee actually managed to get into office, who knows what policies he would have initiated. He's dared to raise class issues, showing that at least he has taken some of the Gospels seriously. While he was governor of Arkansas, he took the poorest people of the state off the tax rolls and showed that he was a forgiving person by having a generous parole policy (when the current fashionable solution is to just keep throwing people in prison).

Huckabee's candidacy is bound to eventually fail, but nevertheless he has made it clear to the Republican Party that the fundamentalist vote may no longer be so willing to fall in line behind whomever the GOP declares they should follow.

Ron Paul has managed to fill a void long sought after by people -- one of genuinely challenging the status quo. The only problem is, the system he wants to institute would be barbaric and insane, and wouldn't work anyway.

He wants a system where people are cogs in a machine and unable to challenge their corporate overlords. He wants to end the tiny and ungenerous welfare system we have. He thinks that things are best left to "the market."

Anyone who's marginally studied "the market" knows that it isn't so-called "free trade" that drives innovation -- it comes out of the state sector. It was the Pentagon, using our tax dollars, that developed the Internet, telecommunications, computers and other technological developments. Corporations spend almost all their money on marketing, not research. This makes sense because, well, their main concern is making money, not helping the consumer.

His foreign policy position of non-interventionism is attractive, even if it's for the wrong reasons. The problem is that while he wants to leave Iraq, there's no talk of paying reparations to the Iraqi people for what we've done to them. He also wants to withdraw from the United Nations, and in the name of isolationism will no doubt ignore international treaties if he sees fit (because the "one world government" may try to impose its will on us).

The remaining field of Republican candidates has some interesting characters, but the one who will win -- John McCain -- will continue the spiral of death in Iraq. Whichever Democrat eventually gets the nomination doesn't offer much of an alternative.

Hillary Clinton's record is clear while Obama goes around talking in generalities about "change." Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory committee and he may end up once again being the only candidate who offers a genuine departure from business-as-usual.