Who would you like to see as our next president?

[justageek]

Hm. Above all, I want a Democrat to win. The vast majority of Democrats will vote for either Clinton or Obama. There are three things in general that I would like to see in a candidate:

1) Able to make it to the White House
NYTimes report a new nationwide poll today that shows that a strong majority of Democrats think Clinton is the most electable. I''m inclined to agree with them. I cannot see a young, inexperienced (yes, I said it -- who has he met? What program has he started? What new ideas has he come up with and tried to fight for? Really, none.) man leading the country through this next recession, which promises to be a biggie, potential wars, foreign policy crises, healthcare problems, and immigration issues. I would LOVE to vote for him in 4-8 years. Just... not now. I vote for Hillary.

1) Unafraid to change their minds once proven that they are wrong.
People who say that they always stick to their guns scare me. You can run a country this way in a dictatorship, but you can''t successfully lead a multipartisan country without ever compromising.

2) Little to no infighting.
Obama has started running a really negative campaign against Hillary. And I, honestly, really don''t like it. This is another big reason why I can''t support him this year -- he''s showing his inexperience by making this a fight against fellow Democrats instead of making it a fight against Republicans. It starts a long chain of fighting and eventually leads to the issue other posters have raised about suddenly switching positions.

The biggest policy problem I think this next president will have to deal with is health care. Universal health care has to be mandated for it to work, and Obama''s not including that in his plan. He''s using traditionally conservative arguments (that happen to be mistaken) to argue against mandated universal healthcare, and he''s fighting both Clinton''s and Edward''s respective plans to make these false arguments. If he gets elected as the Democratic nominee, he''ll be tarred and feathered by the Republicans with those same arguments

. WHY couldn''t he just wait and learn a bit more >_< WHY?!?!?

 

[justageek]

surfgirl, I just wanted to say:

Decisiveness is not a virtue in and of itself. One of my dogs used to decide all day long to chase little lizards. He stuck to it, too. My other dog seemed to waffle all the time between barking and not barking... he always used to bark at people he didn''t know and not bark at people he did know. But sometimes he''d get a bit confused at the beginning and make the wrong decision.

How dare he not commit to his mistakes and keep trying to convince me that my mom post-tan indeed was a stranger!

 

[Eva17]

Still undecided.

Foreign policy
taxes
immigration
arel all important issues to me.


a strong decisive leader that can rebuild our international relationships.

i agree with storm on the irs. abolish them. you pay tax on your salary. you invest after paying bills, and you pay more tax on any money your investment makes. you pay tax on your home, when you sell it you pay tax again for selling it. you die. you pay tax yet AGAIN on all they money you have already paid tax on three times during your lifetime. That is WRONG..... as for sweden tax. in usa, the more you make, the higher your tax bracket(absurd formula). if it were a 30% tax across the board, then if you make 50K, you pay your 30%, if i make 100k then i pay my 30%. still works out fair that way. The higher income pays more tax. everyone should be happy. definately don''t agree with the 100k paying 50-60% more because they make more. At the same 30%, they will still pay more than you....

Illegals should get no free rides. if all the millions of illegals were paying their share of taxes, it would help to alleviate the tax burdens of citizens. man the borders, and keep track of the flow and the burden on the system.

I am a nationalized citizen of the usa, that pays my taxes and followed the rules of citizenship. I definately don''t want my hard earned tax dollars paying for prgrams that drain the system, because of illegal status. Illegal being the opperative work. Not immigrant.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 12/11/2007 1:13:08 AM
Author: justageek
Hm. Above all, I want a Democrat to win. The vast majority of Democrats will vote for either Clinton or Obama. There are three things in general that I would like to see in a candidate:


1) Able to make it to the White House

NYTimes report a new nationwide poll today that shows that a strong majority of Democrats think Clinton is the most electable. I'm inclined to agree with them. I cannot see a young, inexperienced (yes, I said it -- who has he met? What program has he started? What new ideas has he come up with and tried to fight for? Really, none.) man leading the country through this next recession, which promises to be a biggie, potential wars, foreign policy crises, healthcare problems, and immigration issues. I would LOVE to vote for him in 4-8 years. Just... not now. I vote for Hillary.


1) Unafraid to change their minds once proven that they are wrong.

People who say that they always stick to their guns scare me. You can run a country this way in a dictatorship, but you can't successfully lead a multipartisan country without ever compromising.


2) Little to no infighting.

Obama has started running a really negative campaign against Hillary. And I, honestly, really don't like it. This is another big reason why I can't support him this year -- he's showing his inexperience by making this a fight against fellow Democrats instead of making it a fight against Republicans. It starts a long chain of fighting and eventually leads to the issue other posters have raised about suddenly switching positions.


The biggest policy problem I think this next president will have to deal with is health care. Universal health care has to be mandated for it to work, and Obama's not including that in his plan. He's using traditionally conservative arguments (that happen to be mistaken) to argue against mandated universal healthcare, and he's fighting both Clinton's and Edward's respective plans to make these false arguments. If he gets elected as the Democratic nominee, he'll be tarred and feathered by the Republicans with those same arguments

. WHY couldn't he just wait and learn a bit more >_< WHY?!?!?

Errr...while I agree with much of what you said--Obama ain't the only negative campaginer. Hillary's campagin just insinuated that he was a DRUG DEALER (black man/drug dealer sterotype)--do ya really think it was just a "mistake" that they got one of their older skilled people to "accidentally" muse on how this info could effect the general election?

I like Obama in many ways, but for some of the reasons you state (experience, decisciveness) I'm not sure if I'm going to go with him or with Hillary. I like Biden, actually, but he doesnt have a prayer.

 

[partgypsy]

I did the test and 4 were tied at 48%; Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barak Obama. I guess I have to research in more detail to arrive at a decision. I may weigh econmic views more than social issues, and if so Joe Biden and Barak Obama are a better fit.

For some reason a certain percentage of people seem to hate Hillary Clinton; I mean not prefer her but just with a fervor I don''t really understand. Did she kill someone''s favorite pet or something? For example I have heard Barbara Bush was a terror, but she never got anywhere near the bad press that Hillary got. I guess she just rubs some people the wrong way....

 

[partgypsy]

Some people have said they were excited about Ron Paul. Whoa!
(From Wikipedia)

“Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens'' everyday lives.”
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[
He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court''s precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[145]

Wow he is really emasculating the federal government! While I do live in a particular state, I''d like to think I live in the US of A, and that certain rights of the people would be unalienable and upheld WHATEVER state I happened to be in. Does he not realize the consequence of his beliefs or is he being disingenuous? What did we have the civil war for, anyways?

 

[Rank Amateur]

He''s leaving the powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government to the States.

 

[firebirdgold]

Ok, I''d like a serious answer here:

Why does no one here support Richardson or McCain? What is wrong with them?

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 12/19/2007 1:54:49 PM
Author: IndieJones
Ok, I'd like a serious answer here:

Why does no one here support Richardson or McCain? What is wrong with them?

Okay so I AM a Democrat. But once upon a time I might have voted for McCain. Over the last 8 years however, I believe that he's sold out to the Ultra Right faction that has supported the Bush Administration. I think he's shown himself to be a man of conviction-- but only when it's politically convenient. He used to stand for something. Now... I think he'd stand for anything that would get him elected. It's sad.

At least, that's my opinion. I can't comment of Richardson.

 

[peridot83]

McCain''s campaign practically ran out of funds over the summer. It''s hard to inspire confidence in a candidate when that happens. I am a democrat, but I do like that he campaigns without being too dirty or incendiary and is moderate in his views on issues such as immigration.

 

[partgypsy]

McCain''s one of the few republicans I would consider voting for, which means he probably doesn''t have a chance in hell of winning the republic convention

Plus yes, there are many instances where he could have made a stand for his convictions, but when push comes to shove he ends up being Bush''s lapdog

 

[zoebartlett]

I think Romney will end up on the ticket. I''m not voting for him but I think he''ll end up doing well enough. If not Romney, I think first runner up will be Giuliani.

As for the Democrats, I think it will end up being Obama or Clinton. I like Edwards though, personally. I don''t dislike Obama or Clinton but I like Edwards more.

 

[pennquaker09]

After I read this thread, I was becoming sort of interested in Ron Paul, but since then, I''ve read some things about him and there is no way that I would vote for him.

I''m trying to keep an open mind. I wasn''t always into politics, but since I was going to school in New Orleans and I got a first hand look at how the government failed during Katrina, I become a lot more involved.

 

[KimberlyH]

Ron Paul is, for better or for worse, an Ayn Rand Libertarian. Just a general comment, be very leary of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information; anyone can alter its contents.

I haven''t decided who I''m voting for. I am not affiliated with any political party, so I can''t vote for people in the primaries. During the final election I vote based on who I think will do the best job leading our country through the course of the four years he/she will be in office based on the current state of national and international affairs. The next four years will have to be dedicating to resolving astronomical economic issues within this country as well as navigating very murky and dangerous international affairs issues. No candidate stands out for me yet and I find it rather disconcerting.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 12/19/2007 1:54:49 PM
Author: IndieJones
Ok, I''d like a serious answer here:

Why does no one here support Richardson or McCain? What is wrong with them?

Indie -

I did some reading up on the issues and found that the three candidates who share my views are Edwards, Richardson, and Gravel. I''d be willing to vote for any of the three, but will vote Edwards because he is much more likely to win.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 12/20/2007 5:03:13 PM
Author: part gypsy
McCain''s one of the few republicans I would consider voting for, which means he probably doesn''t have a chance in hell of winning the republic convention

Plus yes, there are many instances where he could have made a stand for his convictions, but when push comes to shove he ends up being Bush''s lapdog

It is intersting to me that liberals consider McCain a "Bush lap dog" and many conservatives consider him to be a traitor and sellout.

 

[E B]

Anyone watching the debates tonight? I''m heading toward the TV right now.

Watch, watch!

 

[zoebartlett]

I''m watching the debates. I wish Edwards (and Richardson) had more air time. At times I felt like it was the Barack and Hillary show and that kind of annoyed me. What was up with that likeability question by Scott Spradling? I''m from NH and I really, really like Scott but that was a strange question.

I''d be interested to learn how many people were able to make up their minds after the debates (I''m speaking of the Democrats, specifically).

 

[perry]

OK: To answer the question of who would I like to see as our next president?

Me. I''d be in total agreement with myself and the policies that I''d attempt to implement.

Unfortunately, I''m not running. So I have to start looking at my second choice... Opps... they are not running either; nor my third, forth, etc, etc...

So I am left with the canidates who are running.

Now how I look at canidates is a mix of what I would like to see - and how I think they would affect the country. I will accept a canidate who disagrees with my views on some things if I percieve that they will have the overall better positive impact on the country.

On the Republican side: I am undecided at this point who would be a reasonable president and do the most good for the country.

On the Democratic side: I belive that Obama would do the most good for the country. Note that I am not saying that he would be a great president: Just that he will cause changes that will be long term benificial to the country. For example: he has already started to pull into the political process a substaintial portion of a younger generation. Regardless of how these people currently vote and what they do. Their getting involved is a great positive. As these people age their participation will be needed; and I note that many people change viewpoints over the years (I know I did - on several subjects).

Regardless of how this election turns out... I wonder. Should I run for the next one?

Perry

 

[Odilia]

Someone sent me this today:

The Health Argument for Ron Paul

I realize that most people do not read this newsletter to find out what I think about politics. And it may anger some if I use this forum for that purpose. However, I have been asked by several people to write on behalf of Dr. Ron Paul, which I promised to do, and I feel impassioned to do everything I can to promote his candidacy. It is such a rare thing to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who is not beholden to the political establishment in this country, and there is no telling when we will have this opportunity again. I''ll consider it a personal favor if you will read this.

First, I want to be upfront with you: I would vote for Ron Paul just because of his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq. I am appalled and sickened by what happened in Iraq, especially by the catastrophic loss of human lives, and the perilous use of depleted uranium weapons, which will endanger health there for decades to come. And I am certain that Ron Paul would keep his word and end the war immediately- at least our involvement in it. But, I don''t know how you feel about that, so that''s all I''m going to say about it.

And I would vote for Ron Paul just because of his staunch opposition to the Federal Reserve. It''s true what he says, that it''s just a tricky way for the government to print money. They couldn''t possibly finance the wars, the bank-bailouts, the housing bubble, the global military bases, the prescription drug program, etc. from tax revenues and loans from the Far East. They have to print money to do it all. But since counterfeiting is frowned on, they do it in a roundabout way using the Federal Reserve. And, of course, the dollars lose value because of it. Why else would counterfeiting be illegal? No one in the government or the media likes to talk about it except in euphemisms- except for Ron Paul. And I''m sure he would put an end to it too, if elected.

But, I don''t know how you feel about that either, and I don''t presume to know how you feel about a great many other things. However, since you are a reader of my health newsletter, I presume that you share some of my views about health. And there are plenty of reasons to vote for Ron Paul based on health alone.

You believe in health freedom, right? You want to make your own decisions about what you put in your body, don''t you? You believe in individual responsibility, and you want the government to butt-out, correct? Well, you have no better friend in government than Dr. Ron Paul, because he believes in health freedom too, including your right to make your own decisions about dietary supplements. Here is what he says about it on his website:

"Millions of Americans take dietary supplements every day, and the numbers are growing as the Baby Boom generation ages. More and more Americans understandably are frustrated with our government-controlled health care system. They have concluded that vitamins, minerals, and other supplements might help them stay healthy and less dependent on the system. They use supplements because they can buy them freely at stores and research them freely on the internet, without government interference in the form of doctors, prescriptions, HMOs, and licenses. In other words, they use supplements because they are largely free to make their own choices, in stark contrast to the conventional medical system."

Ron Paul is a medical doctor, but how many doctors talk like that? And, more importantly, how many politicians talk like that? Ron Paul happens to be my Congressman, but one of my senators from Texas is John Cornyn, and he is leading the charge in the Senate to outlaw DHEA! What a contrast. But read more from Dr. Paul:

"The health nannies insist that many dietary supplements are untested and unproven, and therefore dangerous. But the track record for FDA-approved drugs hardly inspires confidence. In fact, far more Americans have died using approved pharmaceuticals than supplements. Not every dietary supplement performs as claimed, but neither does every FDA drug."

Baycol for high cholesterol, Fen-Phen for weight loss, Vioxx for osteoarthritis, Enbrel for rheumatoid arthritis, Zellnorm for constipation, and Avandia and Rezulin for diabetes are just a small sampling of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn in recent years after devastating and sometimes deadly consequences. Yet this arrogant agency wants to restrict your access to comparatively safe and natural dietary supplements. But it''s not just about safety. It''s about bypassing the medical establishment- which they don''t want you to do. Here is what Dr. Paul says about the FDA:

"The FDA gives people a false sense of security, while crowding out private watchdog groups that might provide truly unbiased consumer information. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility among people who assume that a government stamp of approval means a drug must be safe, and that they need not study a drug before taking it. The FDA, like all federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics, which is why the FDA should not be trusted with power over our intimate health care decisions. The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them."

Dr. Paul often warns about the coming threat of Codex regulation. Codex is a UN commission that is trying to standardize the rules and restrictions on dietary supplements worldwide. Under Codex, many basic vitamin and mineral supplements, which we take for granted, will become illegal without a prescription. Europe has already moved a long way towards adopting Codex, and it could happen here too- but not if Ron Paul is elected.

However, the biggest health issue in the campaign is national health insurance. The so-called "populist" candidates are promising medical insurance for all. Out of 300 million Americans, 45 million are currently uninsured. I am one of them. There are two main reasons why I go uninsured. The first is that there is very little in Modern Medicine that I would want even if I were sick. Yes, I realize that they perform some miracles and save some lives, particularly in the areas of trauma, birth defects, emergency care, and infections. And there are other great things that they do, such as cataract surgery. But all of that together comprises a relatively small part of medical practice. Medicine is mostly about trying to alter and manipulate the signs and symptoms of disease using dangerous and powerful drugs which have noxious and troubling effects, euphemistically called "side effects." And they keep trying to fix one abnormality by creating another abnormality. For instance, if you have acid reflux, which is an abnormality, they figure they can fix it by giving you achlorhydria, which is another abnormality. Of, if you have a failing heart, with resultant fluid retention, they figure they can fix it by giving you a powerful diuretic, which causes your kidneys to start failing. (That is correct. Even though a diuretic increases urinary output, which sounds good and superficially looks good, it does so by interfering with the normal functioning of the kidneys.) There are whole swaths of medical practice that I consider to be dangerous and detrimental- an extreme statement I realize, but nonetheless true. In Cardiology, for instance, I don''t like any of the drugs they use- not the statins, not the calcium channel blockers, not the beta blockers. I think the clotbusters are useful in extreme situations, but that''s about it. In Gastroenterology, I don''t like any of the drugs they use, not the proton pump inhibitors, not the H2 antagonists, and not the ever-popular Miralax, which is closely related to antifreeze. In Rheumatology, I don''t like any of the drugs they use, not the NSAIDs, not the Cox-2 inhibitors, not the muscle relaxants. I wouldn''t take any of the drugs they use for Type 2 diabetes except for Metformin, which is actually based on a natural herbal substance. And I don''t like any of the drugs they use for high blood pressure either.

Of course, I am only speaking for myself, and forgive me for getting off-point. But remember, I have rights as a consumer too, and I am telling you, honestly, that there are very few drugs in Medicine that I would be willing to take. Perhaps in the future, there will be great things being done in Medicine, with stem cells for instance, and I hope that is so. But as of now, I am mostly leery of Medicine, so it doesn''t bother me to live without medical insurance. And secondly, if I bought medical insurance, I would be helping to support the whole pharmico-medical complex in this country. By putting money in their coffers, I would be helping to make Medicine stronger- and believe me: I want Medicine to be weaker. Medicine is already too strong and influential: in government, in media, and in education. I don''t want to add to it. But I realize that I am the exception that way. Most people respect Medicine- a lot more than I do. And they value having medical insurance.

And then there is the whole humanitarian argument. Many anti-war activists, for instance, believe that instead of waging war, the government should use the money to provide universal health care. But I cringe when I hear it. They don''t see the contradiction in it. If government can''t be trusted to keep us out of unnecessary and disastrous wars, if it can''t be trusted to secure the levees over New Orleans to prevent a catastrophic flood or to effectively manage the relief effort afterwards, and if it can''t keep an obligatory retirement fund solvent even after confiscating a whopping 15 percent of all the earned income, and if it can''t regulate the banking system without causing first an S&L crisis and then a sub-prime mortgage crisis, and if it can''t issue money without causing it to lose over 95 percent of its value in less than a century, then why on earth would anyone think that entrusting government with health care is a good idea? But don''t all other civilized countries provide universal coverage to their citizens? Many do, but you already know about the problems in Canada, which lead some Canadians to come to the US for their health care. And the unvarnished truth is that across these countries, from East to West, there are two parallel health care systems: the government-run one and the private sector one. And I don''t have to tell you which one is better.

What does Dr. Paul offer as an alternative to more government in health care? He wants less government. He wants doctors to be able to negotiate with insurance companies to drive down costs. He wants to eliminate federal regulations that make it hard for small businesses to provide coverage. He wants to make all medical expenses tax-deductible. He wants to make Health Savings Accounts available to all. He wants to reform licensure requirements to increase free market competition. And in the long run, he''d like to reverse the whole trend towards third-party payers. He envisions a system in which people pay cash for ordinary medical services and carry insurance only for catastrophes. He says that it will cost less that way, as it did before the era of government-mandated HMOs. He points to courageous doctors who right now offer low-cost medical care without accepting insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, and they charge much less than other doctors- often not much more than the insurance co-pay that others charge. And by the way, he was one of those doctors himself, offering very low-cost, but high-quality, obstetrical care in a poor Houston neighborhood.

But ultimately, as important as costs are, it''s the quality of care that matters most. And from my perspective, the quality of care will suffer with more government involvement. Here''s an example of what I mean: Just yesterday, (January 9) the FDA flexed its muscle to deny women the right to take bio-identical estrogen, as prepared by compounding pharmacies. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the leading maker of horse estrogen (Premarin) petitioned the FDA to do it. But women were not buying the bio-identical estrogen directly from pharmacies-it was being prescribed to them by their doctors! So, the FDA was, in effect, overruling the doctors themselves, and many of them have filed complaints. How dare the FDA tell doctors how to think and practice! Of course, the FDA says that bio-identical estrogen is unapproved, unregulated, etc. The FDA even demands that pharmacies cease using the word "bio-identical" even though the term is accurate. This is just a blatant attempt to preserve market share for Wyeth in the face of increased competition from compounding pharmacies which offer a superior product. There is no reason to think that bio-identical estrogen is any less safe and standardized than bio-identical DHEA, or bio-identical melatonin, or bio-identical pregnenolone, all of which are readily available without a prescription and without FDA oversight. People have been taking these hormones for 14 years, and I have never heard of any quality-control problems. In fact, bio-identical estrogen is made from the same phyto-sterols in Mexican yam from which DHEA and pregnenolone are made. Of course, the FDA would love to restrict those hormones as well, and perhaps they will succeed, although I sure hope they don''t.

But what do you think would happen if we had government health care across the board? Don''t you think Big Pharma would step in to use the force of government to champion its interests? They will set protocols for everything and make it hard , or impossible, to get coverage for alternative treatments, natural treatments, nutritional treatments, etc. As Ron says, if Medicine is politicized, then freedom and choice go down the drain, and that would be the biggest casualty of all.

If you love freedom, particularly health freedom, then you should vote for Ron Paul. And don''t believe any of the smears spewing from the mainstream press, which are certain to increase if he continues to do well. I met him once. It was at a campaign stop in Cuero, Texas in 1988. And my friend, Dr. Ward Dean, knows him quite well, the two of them having discussed health and medical issues together, doctor to doctor. Ron Paul strikes me as being as kind and compassionate as any human being can be, and he lacks what other politicians have in great abundance: arrogance, hubris, and megalomania. He''s such a rare breed in politics that we can''t let him slip away. His ascendance would be our ascendance. Thank you for reading this.

 

[coatimundi_org]

KUCINICH ALL THE WAY!! why? voting record All the way!
but...he dropped out today.(keeping my bumper sticker ON)
(was not happy with the Obama endorsement-not to keen on his vague notions of "change"--among other things-like his flip-flopping on the Palestine/Israel conflict-)
Any of you folks listen to Democracy Now?

Okay,
so now...EDWARDS.
Coati

 

[coatimundi_org]

All this right wing illegal immigrant propaganda is just a guise, because the right lacks a platform to stand on in this election. As is the tax issue. Look, we''re going to pay taxes no matter what, why not get some healthcare and education out of it.

If the right has a problem with illegal immigrants, perhaps they should stop giving away the store. Isn''t offshoring just as bad as hiring "illegals?" Stop manufacturing in China. Create factories in the United States, and give jobs to Americans. Sure, we''ll have to pay 50cents more for a tube of toothpaste, but isn''t this country''s economy worth it?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/25/2008 9:20:10 PM
Author: coatimundi
KUCINICH ALL THE WAY!! why? voting record All the way!
but...he dropped out today.(keeping my bumper sticker ON)
(was not happy with the Obama endorsement-not to keen on his vague notions of 'change'--among other things-like his flip-flopping on the Palestine/Israel conflict-)
Any of you folks listen to Democracy Now?

Okay,
so now...EDWARDS.
Coati

+1

eta: most definitely listen to Democracy Now!

movie zombie

 

[FrekeChild]

Being that I never saw this thread when it was originally posted, I thought I''d chime in now since it''s getting closer to Super Tuesday.

I''m sticking with Obama. I don''t like the Clinton factory, and I really don''t like Hillary because she comes off as wishy-washy with her husband being her rock to lean on to get the votes. I love the idea of there being a woman president, I think it would do our country a lot of good, but not her. I wonder if she would have run if she had never been the First Lady. This isn''t her ambition, its Bill''s. And that bothers me.

I took the test and I was 68% to both Hillary and Obama.

I have to say that I like Ron Paul, even though I disagree with him on a lot of his issues. He tells it like it is, and I appreciate that in a presidential candidate because I haven''t seen that in my lifetime. (Not like I''ve been around for that long, but whatever!)

I am from New Mexico, but I really don''t like Bill Richardson. He once called me out for falling asleep during a speech he made during one of my classes. I should mention that he was 45 minutes late getting there.

However, I think he''d be just fine as a VP. Hillary''s VP. He''s been planning that the whole time from what I can tell. And I think she''d pick him.

I think that if Obama wins, he''ll pick Edwards to be his running mate.

Either way, I''m voting Democrat, as I have the past two presidential elections.

As for the Republican race, I think it''s a tossup between Romney and McCain, but I think that McCain will pull it out in the end. There is too much of a stigma with the American public and Mormons. I think that the Republicans know that he can''t be elected because of that reason. However, Republicans HATE McCain, but they may think that he has more of a chance to win than Romney. I think that all of the other candidates need to pull out of the race.

I think that Super Tuesday will decide both races and then we can really suffer through political commercials.

BTW, surfgirl, you''re my hero!

 

[widget]

I''ve been checking this forum daily to see if anyone is contributing. I''m totally absorbed by this election.

I PASSIONATELY want Obama to win...for so many reasons: I truly think there is something "transformative" and "healing" about him. (And I believe America desperately needs some transformation and healling after 8 years of GWB.

) I love his style, brains, and charisma, and his youth. (this coming from an ol'' lady

)

Tonight''s one-on-one debate should be interesting....

Off to watch the debate...would love to hear later what people think of it!!


widget

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/31/2008 8:01:48 PM
Author: widget

Off to watch the debate...would love to hear later what people think of it!!

I didn''t know that there was a debate tonight until I saw this posting. Since I saw this I managed to fumble around with the remote controls until I turned on the television; I went through all the channels until I found CNN; and I caught most of the debate! I had never seen Barack Obama speak before. I liked him. I had also just read about his alleged snub of Hillary Clinton as Edward Kennedy was greeting her a couple of nights ago and I was pleased to see that tonight Senator Obama had the grace to pull out her chair for her and to treat her warmly after the debate. He is right that he is the only one of them not to have been taken in on Iraq by George Bush.

Deborah

 

[FrekeChild]

You know what really bugs me? How Hillary always says that she has 35 years of experience. I know she was a lawyer from 1973, but I don''t count that as being political experience. Bill had her as First Lady of either Arkansas or the USA from 1979-1981, 1983-1992, and 1992-2000. She never held her first office until becoming a senator until 2000. I DON''T CARE how involved she was in organizations or in Bill''s business as governor and president-she wasn''t holding office! I could go around and say that I have 25 years of experience, without elaborating that it''s just LIVING, and it''d make just as much sense.

And this "two for the price of one" BS?! Uh no. She''d be the President and Bill would have to arrange state dinners. Which he''d probably be great at, but I have serious problems with him essentially having a second run at the presidency. Because that''s how it seems to me. People had problems with her being slightly involved when Bill was president, I can''t imagine that he''d sit idly by and plan those dinners.

I like Obama. He''s honest. I think he''s the first presidential nominee to admit openly that he''s tried drugs. To me, that''s huge. Politicians always try to blow those questions off.

And it seems to me that America has two royal families: the Bushes and the Clintons, and that disturbs me as well. After all, we aren''t a monarchy.

Bill was here in NM today and Obama will be here tomorrow. Obama ads are airing like mad, both on radio and and on TV, but I''ve only seen one for Billary.

I didn''t watch the debate but just saw the highlights with Hillary''s zinger, "It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush." That was pretty funny. What did you guys think of it? I''m reading on the internet news sites that they think Hillary really faltered on the subject of Iraq. Thoughts?

Wow. This wasn''t supposed to be so long.

 

[coatimundi_org]

"I like Obama. He's honest."

Sorry Freke, but none of them are "honest" that's what makes them politicians. Admitting you tried a drug doesn't make you a better candidate.

My problem with Obama is his VAGUENESS. I never get specifics from him, and I've paid close attention to his speeches.

I'm really bummed that Edwards is out. The California Democratic Primary is looming, and I know not what to do.

Edwards and Kucinich were the only ones actively attacking corporate greed and the global corporate snowball effect--which includes offshoring, tax shelters, etc.

Hillary is a corporate democrat.

Obama is very careful and unclear. Vague notions of change don't necessarily enact change.

I need specifics of what this change is really about. Switching from Bush to anyone on the planet is change. I need a bit more than that.

KUCINICH IS STILL THE MAN! in spirit of course

 

[widget]

Well, the debate last night certainly was a lovefest, wasn''t it?

I guess playing nice is better for both of them, but I do think verbal fisticuffs is more intertaining for the audience!

Hillary always has trouble with explaining (dissembling) about her Iraq vote. I wonder if she wouldn''t have been better off just admitting that she goofed....

The more I see and hear Obama the more I like him. There are lots of reasons he''s my fav...but the simplest one is that I think he could win the general election in November. Not sure at all that Billary could...

widget

 

[FrekeChild]

Rephrase: "I like Obama. He SEEMS honest." Which, lets face it, none of them are. He is vague. In a very stately manner.

Methinks that Hillary...sorry, Billary will pick Obama if she comes out on top. I think that if he wins, he might offer it to her, but that she would refuse. And he''d pick Edwards. My opinion only of course.

I''m better with love fests than low-blow brawls. Guess that proves that I''m a lover not a fighter.

I think that no matter who comes out on top, the Dems will win it in the end, unless something crazy happens, because McCain is not a favorite of the Repubs and Romney is too conservative. I don''t see any of the others making it past Tuesday. And again, the Republican party had a rough 2007, with all of the scandals and of course Bush and his DISMAL approval ratings. (Did anyone watch his State of the Union the other night?)
Article about Bush''s approval rating. From FOXNews.

I miss Edwards too. Although I got kind of tired of hearing about his former clients during the debates.