I’m following The Anchoress’ advice and taking a deep breath for a moment from all the craziness going on in politics to blog about a matter that, while not nearly as serious as a presidential election, is very important nonetheless.

MSN Lifestyle has ranked who they believe are the "Ten Sexiest QBs in History" - and Mr. Tom Brady is number one on their list.  I agree, of course. 

I’m cool with most of their selections, with the exception of Tony Romo.  I think he falls in the "cute" category more so than "sexy."  He has a boyish charm, but doesn’t make the ol’ heart go "THA-THUMP" (what are you thinking, Jessica?).  Peyton Manning wasn’t on the list, and I think he falls more into the "cute" category, too.  Very cute - like guy-next-door kind of cute. And Bret Favre, who was on the list, falls more in line in the "ruggedly handsome" category rather than "sexy," IMO, although the two can be interchangeable sometimes.  But hey - why quibble? I think most women would agree with me that each of the ten QBs mentioned does possess appeal to varying degrees …

I would have had an honorable mention list, and one would have gone to Rams QB Gus Frerotte, who I thought was a total hunk when he played for the Redskins.  And Steve Young would have been on that list, too. 

Scratch that. I would have taken Romo off the "10 sexiest" list and added Steve Young.    I mean, look at this pic - hello?

I remember the one and only time I saw SY play football - it was against the Panthers here at Panthers Stadium many years ago.  It was the only time I ever rooted against the home team. Sigh …

BTW, is it just me, or does Doug Flutie look a little like Mitt Romney in this pic?

Now, on to another burning issue: Super Bowl predictions.  Anyone thinking the Giants will pull off an upset on Sunday?

I know the fireworks are just starting in the Dem debate, but something far more pressing is occurring and that is the disarray of the Republican party.  I wanted to repost something I just posted over at Hot Air - it’s part of what I’ve been working on most of the day today - the post I’ve promised on Romney, McCain, and the state of the Republican party (or more importantly, conservatives).  I’ve edited and added some stuff to this post that I couldn’t do at HA, because it has already been posted.  Some of the points I made in the following post I made in my last one - and in the comments section of it, so sorry if parts seem repetitive.  I wrote this after reading some of the comments at HA and other blogs, message boards, conservative sites like NRO, and opinion pieces over the last week or so.

Like a lot of conservatives, I am torn this election, because I don’t like McCain. I’m not overjoyed with Romney either, and it’s always perplexed me that some of the same people who will wipe the floor in defense of Mitt Romney (like many of the pundits at National Review) will jump all over John McCain for flip flopping on an issue for political purposes. Yet, that is Mitt Romney’s stock and trade. He’s done it for over a decade. I think it was John Derbyshire who wrote over there recently that you didn’t know what Romney’s position was on an issue until you could see which crowd he was speaking in front of. But between Romney and McCain, I guess most of the NRO crowd somehow believes that Romney won’t flip flop again, whereas they think McCain will. It makes no sense, but whatever.

On the other hand, McCain’s performance in the debate last night was/is a case study on why conservatives can’t stand him - his arrogance and smugness, not to mention his cheap shots on Romney for his work in the private sector and his outright lies about Romney’s postion on timetables for Iraq, were some of the most offensive things I’ve seen from any campaign since the race for the nomination started early last year.  Shame.on.him.

I remember in 2004 how conservatives argued about the importance of getting out to vote, because we were in the middle of a war on Islamofascism, both in Iraq and elsewhere, and we needed to keep Republican leadership who understood what the cost of losing in Iraq would mean both in the short and long term, none of it good. Kerry would be a disaster, conservatives argued, because he’d be cutting and running out of Iraq as fast as he could, regardless of the consequences. Conservatives were already disatisfied with Bush on a number of issues - like immigration, the Farm Bill, his ‘alliance’ with Ted Kennedy on NCLB, etc, but conservatives knew it would be catastrophic to not vote in the 2004 elections, because we wanted our men and women in uniform to be able to come home with their heads held high, and for the sacrifices made by their fellow soldiers not to have been made in vain. Not only that, but America’s reputation as a defender of democracy was at risk if we cut and run, and we knew Iraq would turn into a genocidal bloodbath if we did so. So conservatives pushed on and said “stay the course” with their vote.

Not much has changed four years later, just the faces of those who want to represent our party in the general election. The top three - Mitt, McCain, and Huck, all know the value and importance of winning in Iraq, and not rolling back the progress we’ve made in the overall GWOT. We’re still in Iraq, more of our troops have been hurt and maimed, and many more have made the ultimate sacrifice - all for their country and the people who have stood by them and said "we will not forget you" since day 1. It has been, after all, a war worth fighting and one worth winning.

We’ve seen the progress in Iraq that has taken place in the last year, a progress that will continue only if we have a CIC who understands what the consequences of failure in Iraq and elsewhere are in the fight against Islamofascism. Also, let’s not forget this: Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated in so many words that genocide is not a reason to keep US troops in Iraq - that is an astounding display of ignorance and naivete coming from two people who want to be elected in a position that would see them be the driving force behind our foreign policy decisions and in control of our armed forces.

America has an obligation to finish what it started in Iraq, not leave it unfinished as we did in Vietnam (thanks to anti-war Democrats who still today have not learned their lesson on that front). We’ve already seen that with perseverance and determination, things can change for the better in Iraq, that we can succeed, and that one day our troops will be able to come home with their heads held high, knowing that not only were they coming home to a country that supports them, but a CIC who, when the chips were/are down on the floor, wanted them to win, too.

On the "principles" argument, one side says “I’m going to stand on conservative principle and sit out this election, because I’m fed up with not having more solid conservative options for a nominee, and I’m not going to settle anymore” while the other side is saying “I’m standing for the conservative principle of victory and honoring committments the US has made.” But in the end, this is not about who has the most or best principles, because we all have good principles. Each of us right now is either determining or have already determined which principles are more important. We do this every election cyle, and this one is no different.

No matter what my differences are with the candidates - whether we’re talking Mitt, McCain, or Huck - I would not hesitate for a second to pull the lever for any of them against whoever the Dem nominee is. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq, as well as the overall GWOT.

I’m not crazy about McCain’s position on Gitmo or ‘rights’ for terrorists, but on Iraq, he’s been consistent from day one (and was for the surge before it was popular to be for the surge) so I will give him credit for that, and hold my nose and vote for him come election time, should he be the nominee.

Our troops and their families have made so many sacrifices in this war, and all of it done in the name of keeping America safe and spreading democracy in a place where the iron fist of a dictator ruled for decades. I will never forget the first time I saw a purple finger, and read about the Iraqis who were defiantly going to the polls in spite of the possiblity that some Islamofascist thug or “insurgent” would try to make a martyr of himself at a polling station. I think about that, and then I read about people who have actually already decided to sit out an election here (or vote for a Dem candidate or write in another) in order to prove some type of point, and it saddens me a great deal, because the only point it will prove in the end is that the same America who said in 2004 that we shouldn’t rest until we’ve won in this war will sit back and allow someone into the WH who has no concept about what American honor is about, someone who will effectively make it so those same Iraqis won’t enjoy the right to go out and vote anymore because their country will be overrun by terrorists who want to make it a base for global jihad, someone whom our enemies will absolutely love.

The illegal immigration issue is an important one - I don’t deny that. And it will be an uphill climb on that issue should McCain be elected president. On Iraq, though, we’d have a strong ally in him. However, electing Obama or Clinton would be a lose/lose situation, because neither one of them give a rip about our border nor do they support the war in Iraq, and as a consequence everything our troops have sacrificed so much for will be in vain. I, for one, do not want that on my back. Hillary or Obama may win the election regardless, but it won’t be because I stayed at home, or wrote in another candidate’s name in protest. 

Related: The Anchoress urges us all to chill out a bit and take a deep breath.  (h/t: Instapundit)

Samantha Sault at The Weekly Standard blog has a link roundup of blogger reax to last night’s GOP debate, where there were some testy exchanges between the two frontrunners.

I personally think McCain came off as more arrogant than normal, not to mention blatantly dishonest - which I’ll address more in the post I’m writing about the Mc, Mitt, and the state of the Republican party. Mitt Romney needs to capitalize on this in the coming days leading up to Super Tuesdsay.

The rumors about the Romney campaign planning to not runany ads in advance of next Tuesday’s primaries were exaggerated, as the Romney campaign announced today that they are planning to run a “significant” number of ads prior to Tuesday.

If polls are any indication, it’s going to be an uphill battle for Romney in several Feb. 5 states, but one that hopefully he can overcome. That’s not an endorsement of him from me, BTW - it’s just me stating who’d I’d rather see win the Super Tuesday delegates. McCain is starting to feel a little too comfortable in the driver’s seat, and he needs to feel a little heat, because I think he’s taking being in the driver’s seat for granted, and acting like support from the base is “owed” to him rather than being earned. The senior Senator from AZ needs to understand that it doesn’t work that way.

Update: The Governator has officially endorsed the Mc.

Oh no, not that guy again:

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, said he is considering another bid for the White House because he believes the current contenders aren’t standing up enough to corporate interests.

“Look at the major areas of injustice, deprivation and solutions that are not being addressed by the major candidates,” Nader, 73, said in a telephone interview today. Among other issues, he cited the need for a “practical timed withdrawal” from Iraq, programs to crack down on corporate fraud and a rearrangement of the U.S. tax system.

Some Democrats blame Nader for spoiling former Vice President Al Gore’s bid for the presidency in 2000 by taking support away from him in Florida, the state that decided the election. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida; President George W. Bush ended up winning the state by just 537 votes over Gore.

Nader rejected that viewpoint today, saying his campaign helped push Gore to talk about issues that gained him more support. “Gore had to respond to our campaign in several states by going more populist,” Nader said. Besides, he said, “when they use the word spoiler, they’re basically saying that small candidates are second-class citizens.”

The campaign has set up an exploratory committee and is in the process of filing papers with the U.S. Federal Election Commission. The committee’s Web site says Nader is “committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.”

I don’t think there’s any question that Nader would just love to play “spoiler” in this election, like he did in 2000, but I think that one of the few lessons Democrats have learned over the last 7 years is that voting for a 3rd party candidate who has no chance of winning in the general election in order try and force the Democrats even further to the left will only leave them with a Republican president they absolutely despise. I don’t think they’ll make the same mistake this time around.

And speaking of liberal Democrats who want their party move even further left, I see the idiots on the Berkeley City Council are at it again:

Members of the Berkeley City Council showed their opposition to a Marine Corps recruiting office in Downtown Berkeley last night.

Council members supported the two resolutions-one supporting anti-war protests and the other criticizing military recruitment practices-citing opposition to the war in Iraq, deceptive recruitment practices and the right to protest.

“By taking a stand against recruitment we are protecting the health and safety of our youth,” said PhoeBe sorgen, a member of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. “I see the protest as taking a proud and courageous stand.”

Code Pink, a national anti-war grassroots organization, will be granted a parking spot for their regular Wednesday afternoon protests and will not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months, under one resolution.

The other resolution more directly criticizes the presence of the center in Berkeley. The city manager was directed to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps saying they are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in the city.

In addition, the city attorney has been directed to investigate whether the city’s anti-discrimination laws can be enforced at the center, based on the military’s consideration of sexual orientation in hiring.

B*stards.

Move America Forward has more details.

Dale Franks has a good suggestion:

OK. Then how about we cut off every penny of Federal funds that go into Berkeley? Including the University.

Furthermore, if WWIII starts on our own soil, can Berkeley be made exempt from being defended?

Yeah, I know - the freedom to dissent in this country is one of our greatest freedoms … but that doesn’t stop people from being outraged and disgusted with how uber-liberal towns and cities treat our men and women in uniform, who are charged with protecting the anti-war left’s right to denigrate their honorable service.

It starts in just a few minutes and will be airing on CNN. I’m in the middle of a few different things right now, so I won’t be liveblogging it, but I’ll catch the highlight reels later. Feel free to post your comments about the debate in this thread.

Update: As expected, fireworks erupted between Romney and McCain. The AP has the details here.

Thur AM Update: Here’s a transcript of last night’s debate.

In light of last night’s debate, and the reactions it provoked - as well as in response to some of other things I’ve seen written about McCain, Romney, and their supporters/detractors in recent days, I’m working on a post about McCain, Romney, and the state of the Republican party, but it’s going to take some time and may not be up for a couple of days. Suffice it to say that I’ve got a lot to write.

CNN reports:

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ended his GOP presidential race and endorsed rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday.

And sources say California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger might endorse McCain on Thursday.

“This is a man who is prepared to be president,” Giuliani said of his “old friend.”

Giuliani said McCain gives the Republican Party the best chance to hold onto the presidency.

“I am very proud to endorse my friend and fellow Republican — a hero — John McCain,” Giuliani said at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley California, two hours before the Republican presidential candidates were to face each other in their final debate before the Super Tuesday contests next week.

Meanwhile, two Republican sources told CNN that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is in discussions about endorsing McCain.

One of the sources said, “you can safely describe the conversations as progressing and productive.” The second source described the endorsement as “more than expected” and said the conversations were aimed at arranging a Thursday announcement.

I’m sure McCain will be asked about it at tonight’s presidential debate, which starts at 8pm ET and will be broadcast on CNN from the Reagan Library. John Hawkins will be liveblogging it. Not sure if I will or not - if I do, it’ll be a mini-liveblogging.

On a related note, Bill Kristol has some advice for Mitt Romney.

Bonus: Prospect of Obama Defeat Drives Matthews to Verge of Tears

Good news for Obama supporters? (h/t: ST reader Dana Pico):

DENVER (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters’ sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning—Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.

I question whether or not this is truly good news for Obama supporters because, for example, the entrance/exit polls that came out of Nevada showed that if Edwards dropped out of the race that 4 in 10 of his supporters would back Obama over Hillary. There are some contests that could be close enough to where Edwards support could put Obama over the top over Hillary. But it may not be as cut and dry as that, as we learn from The Fix blog (emphasis added):

Edwards’ departure also throws open the debate over whether his supporters will flock to Obama or Clinton.

Opinions differed in the moments after the decision became public.

Charlie Cook, a political analyst and publisher of the Cook Political Report, said that the racial divisions apparent in early votes could impact where Edwards’ supporters ultimately wind up.

“While one can plausibly argue that Edwards withdrawal may unite the anti-Clinton vote, one can also argue that Edwards overwhelmingly white block of supporters come loose and might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama,” Cook said. “I don’t know which of those arguments will prevail.”

Carter Eskew, a senior Democratic strategist unaffiliated in this contest, offered a contrary opinion. He argued that “on balance” Edwards’ departure will help Obama more than Clinton. “The Edwards voter profile is closer to her voters, but if they weren’t for her before, not sure they will switch now,” he said.

Exit polling conducted yesterday in Florida suggests that Edwards supporters are equally inclined to back Obama and Clinton. Forty seven percent of Edwards backers in Florida said they would be “satisfied” with Clinton as the nominee with 13 percent saying they would be “very satisfied”. A similar 47 percent said they would be “satisfied” with Obama as the party’s standard bearer with 19 percent saying they would be “very satisfied”. Those trends were affirmed by exit poll data from South Carolina’s primary on Jan. 26 as more than six in 10 Edwards supporters said they would be satisfied with either Clinton or Obama as the nominee.

Edwards may be out of the race, but he may not be out of the running for something else - let’s not forget the rumor Robert Novak posted about Barack Obama considering asking Edwards to be his AG. I don’t even want to think about it, but I do believe it’s a real possibility.

One thing I’m looking forward to seeing in addition to tonight’s Republican debate at the Reagan Library, where sparks are sure to fly between McCain and Romney? Tomorrow night’s one on one debate between Barack and Hillary, which Jim Geraghty quips is “the Super Bowl for Democrats.”

Grab the popcorn!

Update: Ben Smith reports that the Obama and Clinton camps have been actively seeking Edwards’ endorsement today.

Questions are surfacing in the blogosphere about whether or not Florida’s primary was a truly “closed” primary since John McCain rec’d 17% of votes from people identifying themselves as Independents (and 3% as Dems). Captain Ed explains here that what happened in Florida was perfectly normal under closed primary rules:

Closed-primary states typically prepare three ballots for their primary elections: Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan. When a voter comes to the polling center, their listing carries their registration, and they receive the applicable ballot. That way, the state and the political parties can assure themselves that only registered Republicans even see the Republican candidates on the ballot, Democrats likewise, and independents and minor-party candidates only see the non-partisan races and initiatives.

This depends on registration, of course. Florida requires any registration changes to take place at least 29 days before an election. In my experience in California, independents would often re-register as either Democrats or Republicans in order to participate in primaries, and then re-register again as independents for the general election. It’s perfectly legal, and it is part of the normal primary process. Most of the time it makes no difference at all, because most primaries of late have not had the same wide-open quality of this one after the first three or four states.

In this case, exit polls show “party identification” statistics that put 20% of the voters outside of the Republican Party. That’s their stated personal identification, not their actual party registration for last night’s primaries. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and it’s unavoidable — unless major parties want to stop re-registering voters altogether.

He also adds this at the end:

Republicans need to look elsewhere for answers. No one robbed us of a closed primary in Florida. Even among self-identified Republicans in this exit poll split equally between McCain and Romney, so it isn’t as if Republicans didn’t significantly support the winner of this contest.

Yep, but as Gateway Pundit notes here, the conservative based lined up with Romney by close to 10% more than they did McCain.

So it’s not over. But with Rudy’s anticipated endorsement of McCain today, the Mc carries a wave of momentum going into Super Tuesday. Mitt Romney’s got a lot of work to do both tonight at the debate at the Reagan Library, and in the coming days, to try to halt McCain’s “inevitability.”

*This post has been bumped to the top, and will be updated frequently this evening. Any newer posts will appear below. **

The polls are now open in Florida. Here are the final polling numbers going into today’s Florida primary, showing a neck and neck race between Romney and McCain. As I noted yesterday, Rudy is dropping hints he may drop out if he doesn’t do well in FL.

While the Democrat primary in Florida is no more than a popularity contest since they were stripped of their delegates by the DNC after moving up their primary too early, there are 57 delegates at stake on the Republican side, which is half of the normal Florida delegate count (the GOP punished the Florida Republican party for the same reasons the DNC did Florida Democrats). Unlike the other states who proportioned their delegates out, Florida is a “winner take all” state, making it the biggest prize to date for Republicans seeking the nomination. Here’s the Republican delegate count as it stands at this point.

Early voting may play a key role in deciding today’s primary winner, as nearly one million early/absentee voters have already cast their ballots. A record turnout is anticipated.

My prediction? Romney over McCain by 3%. I think Rudy might surprise us with a strong 3rd place showing, considering the absentee ballots may favor him as he was once upon a time the frontrunner in the Florida polls. I’ll update this post throughout the day when I can on any interesting news I come across related to the primary.

Update 1 - 10:26 AM: Even though tonight’s results on the Dem side won’t officially count in the delegate totals, we all know how Hillary wants to make it so that they do. La Clinton has already planned her FL victory party and will be making a personal appearance - Marc Ambinder has the details.

Update 2 - 11:54 AM: The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that voting today so far has been mostly smooth.

Update 3 - 4:16 PM: Just read via NRO’s Campaign Spot that early exit poll results are expected to start rolling in around 5 pm.

Update 4 - 5:53 PM: Jim Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot reports on early exit polling results:

The first wave of exit poll numbers, including absentees: McCain 34.3 percent, Romney 32.6 percent, Giuliani 15.3 percent, Huckabee 12 percent.

UPDATE: Interestingly a second source — yes, guardians of the exit poll data, I have not one but two spies within your ranks! — tells me these are the “second wave” numbers. Also, this source heard these numbers DON’T include the absentee voters.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Adam notes, “I also noticed the political trading markets pop a bit toward Romney right after 5 o’clock. Romney had been trading in the high 30s and now he’s mid-40s.”

If the numbers don’t include absentee voters, that could mean Rudy’s numbers are much higher than what these early numbers suggest, but probably not enough to overcome the huge deficit between himself and the frontrunners.

It’s still early, tho, so don’t let the slight edge McCain has right now alarm you. The night is young …

Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reports that some area voters were experiencing issues at the polling places today, with one voter being told there was no Dem primary.

Update 5 - 6:41 PM: Here are some interesting exit poll results:

The number of conservatives voting in today’s Florida Republican primary ticked up again this election cycle and most of them showed up at the polls this year with the economy on their minds.

If these preliminary exit poll results hold, the GOP electorate will have moved further right since 1992, when about half described themselves as conservative. This year, conservatives accounted for six in 10 voters. Fewer than half of voters — about 4 in 10 — consider themselves evangelicals.

The economy is by far the top issue — just about half said so in these preliminary results. That’s double the next highest priorities terrorism and illegal immigration. Though more than six in 10 expressed positive feelings about President Bush about as many said the nation’s economy is not going well.

Slightly more Republicans were looking for a candidate who shared their values as opposed to one that has the right experience. But more than half said the candidates’ position on the issues was more important than their personal qualities.

GOP voters are overwhelmingly white — more than in 8 in 10 of them. More than half the voters were male, slightly higher than in the last two Florida primaries. Hispanics account for about one in 10 voters; just over half of them Cuban, about what they’ve been in the past.

More than half said illegal immigrants should be offered citizenship or given temporary worker status. Somewhat fewer, around four in 10, said they should be deported.
But this race may not be captivating seniors as much as in the past. They appear to be turning out in a slightly smaller proportion to the rest of the vote when compared with 2000, when they were about four in 10.

Just over a quarter of the voters were veterans.

The battle between Romney and McCain isn’t just taking place in Florida, but also at The Corner, where there’s a fiesty debate going on between Romney supporters and McCain supporters. Make sure to check it out (scroll down to VDH’s 3:47 post, and then scroll up to read the back and forth exchanges).

Update 6 - 7:05 PM: The polls are closed on the eastern time zone part of Florida, but remain open in the panhandle, where it’s central time.

Update 7 - 7:24 PM: Sorry for the error on my last update - Romney was NOT up slightly in those exits. Those were the same numbers I’d seen earlier at Campaign Spot.

Here are more issue-related exits, via Fox News/The Page blog:

Senior Citizens– McCain 40, Romney 31, Giuliani 18, Huckabee 7

Veterans– McCain 37, Romney 36, Giuliani 14, Huckabee 8

Hispanics– McCain 50, Giuliani 26, Romney 16, Huckabee 5

For voters whose top issue is:

Immigration
Romney 45, McCain 22, Giuliani 17, Huckabee 14

Economy
McCain 38, Romney 34, Huckabee 12, Giuliani 10

Update 8 - 7:30 PM: Results are starting to come in. Go here and keep refreshing for updates. If you’re interested in the Dem primary results, click here. Turnout percentages will be posted here, but don’t include a break down by party.

The Miami Herald (scroll) and Yuma Sun both have a results page that, unlike the Florida state elections page, tells you what percentage of precincts have reported. But the Florida elections page seems to be the most up to date on the actual vote counts (at this point, anyway). Refresh any of them frequently for updates.

Update 9 - 7:46 PM: It’s neck and neck with just slightly around 8% reporting - 1,000 votes separate McCain and Romney.

Update 10 - 8:06 PM: All Florida polls are now closed. The latest results with 20% reporting have McCain ahead by around 20K votes.

The Fix blog reported a couple of hours ago what counties to watch for:

The Fix asked several unaffiliated Republican strategists who know Florida well to offer up some key counties that will comprise the central battleground between Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Here’s the list of key counties:

* Orlando area: Orange, Seminole, Lake and Volusia

* Jacksonville area: DuVal, Clay and St. John’s

* Tampa/St. Petersburg area: Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco

* South Florida: Lee and Collier

Here’s the vote break down by county so far.

Update 11 - 8:16 PM: No surprises on the Dem side as the nets start to call Florida for Hillary. On the GOP side, Mitt Romney has narrowed McCain’s lead to 9,000 votes w/ 29% reporting.

Update 12 - 8:36 PM: McCain’s up 22K votes with 37% reporting.

Update 13 - 9:04 PM: With 47% reporting, McCain is leading Romney by 37k votes. Just heard on Fox News that a lot of the panhandle has yet to be counted (fully) and that is supposedly one of the areas Romney is pretty strong in.

Update 14 - 9:13 PM: Fox News is calling it for McCain, as is the AP. He’s up by 50k votes with 51% reporting.

Time’s The Page blog reports that “sources” are saying a Rudy endorsement of McCain could come as early as Wednesday.

CNN just called it for McCain, too.

Update 15 - 9:33 PM: Rudy’s speech sounded like one of someone who doesn’t intend on staying in the race. Romney’s making his now. Impressive. I could see myself supporting Romney just on the strength of that speech.

Update 16 - 9:47 PM: McCain’s making his victory speeches now, and notes that this was an all Republican primary and he still won.

Update 17 - 10:15 PM: Fox News is confirming that Rudy will endorse McCain tomorrow.

After news outlets all over the place were talking about it this morning, the O-man himself addressed the issue earlier today, saying his alleged snub of Her Royal Highness wasn’t a snub at all.

I know it’s protocol to be friendly and/or greet your fellow Congressperson during the SOTU, but frankly I wouldn’t blame Obama for snubbing Hillary, considering some of the stunts she and her hubby have pulled (like trying to disenfranchise voters in NV, and outright lying - not to mention being hypocritical - about Obama’s comments on Reagan).

To be sure, Obama hasn’t been perfect, but when it comes to the business of down and dirty campaigning, this year the Clintons have everyone beat.

Related: Bob Owens wonders why the media are trying to martyr Barack Obama by suggesting that he will be assassinated. Tom Maguire weighs in on the issue here.