Maybe a little early for this, but from what I can see, these will be the choices were going to be given in 08. I put the top two for each party as it stands now. So whos got your nomination+vote in 08?

Right now, Obama.

Guiliani gets my vote. There are issues I disagree with, gun control being number one. However, that man did turn New York City around from a bankcrupt, crime infested place to the glittering metropolis it is now. I've been to NYC several times and can attest to it, dammit. Also, Guiliani did show REMARKABLE, calm and fortitude during the 9/11 crisis. The man is strong, tough, stable, clear headed and is the best choice we've got considering all the tensions that are arising worldwide, dammit.

The topic of experience inevitably comes up when talking about Obama. But what Guiliani? He has no political experience above the city level, and no experience in foreign affairs. His reputation after 9/11 is the one and only reason he's a frontrunner right now.

Out of the gate - it's Obama. I like Edwards - but I gotta vote for whoever has the best chance of winning in November. Though if it comes down to Clinton vs. Rudy - I'd be up in the air.

Most likely gonna go with Guiliani, but like you said, still too early.

Who voted for Clinton?

The topic of experience inevitably comes up when talking about Obama. But what Guiliani? He has no political experience above the city level, and no experience in foreign affairs. His reputation after 9/11 is the one and only reason he's a frontrunner right now.


Did Bill Clinton have an "political experience" above state level before becoming President? Hell, what kind of "political experience" does Obama have? He's a noob congressman. What kind of "political experience" did Reagan have? He seemed to have made a lot of right decisions, especially in the realm of foreign policy.

Guiliani had very real problems in NYC and he went against conventional wisdom to clean up the city. THEN he got handed 9/11, which he responded to very, very well. Guiliani has shown that he can lead, in both everyday domestic issues like economy and crime as well as the fact that he doesn't fall apart when something BIG happens like 9/11. Guiliani is a good man, dammit.

Did Bill Clinton have an "political experience" above state level before becoming President? Hell, what kind of "political experience" does Obama have? He's a noob congressman. What kind of "political experience" did Reagan have? He seemed to have made a lot of right decisions, especially in the realm of foreign policy.

Guiliani had very real problems in NYC and he went against conventional wisdom to clean up the city. THEN he got handed 9/11, which he responded to very, very well. Guiliani has shown that he can lead, in both everyday domestic issues like economy and crime as well as the fact that he doesn't fall apart when something BIG happens like 9/11. Guiliani is a good man, dammit.
Obama was a state senator for 8 years and will have been a senator in Washington for 4 years by the time 2008 rolls around. That's a little more then Guiliani.

Plus, no one is talking about "experience" but the Republicans. All Republicans say is how in-experienced Obama is, when they really have a double standard when looking at Guiliani and even good ol' George Bush before he was elected in 2000.

Did Bill Clinton have an "political experience" above state level before becoming President? Hell, what kind of "political experience" does Obama have? He's a noob congressman. What kind of "political experience" did Reagan have? He seemed to have made a lot of right decisions, especially in the realm of foreign policy.

Clinton was govenor of Arkansas, Reagan was a govenor of California. Rudy has only been a mayor of a city. He pointed out that he had only had expierence on the city level.

Guiliani had very real problems in NYC and he went against conventional wisdom to clean up the city. THEN he got handed 9/11, which he responded to very, very well. Guiliani has shown that he can lead, in both everyday domestic issues like economy and crime as well as the fact that he doesn't fall apart when something BIG happens like 9/11. Guiliani is a good man, dammit.

There is no doubt that Mayor Giuliani met the crisis in NYC on 9/11/01 with diligence and care. Though there has been much criticism in the lack of preparedness for the attack. There was numerous communication failures, and there has been criticism that he focused more on personal projects than preparing a major terrorist target city for a possible attack after the first bombing at WTC happened shortly before he first took office.

I don't doubt for a second, Darth, that Mayoy Giuliani is a good man - but does that qualify him as a presidential canidate?

Honestly, at this point I wouldn't vote for anyone. Don't like anyone enough.

I'm going to wait to see who Freethinker votes for. That way I can cancel his vote out.:D

Don't mind me...I'm just an asshole!

Plus, no one is talking about "experience" but the Republicans. All Republicans say is how in-experienced Obama is, when they really have a double standard when looking at Guiliani and even good ol' George Bush before he was elected in 2000.

Well gee, Jester brought it up and he's not a republican. The mainstream media did bring it up as well. Dammit.


Rudy has only been a mayor of a city. He pointed out that he had only had expierence on the city level.


Your argument would've carried more weight and have been more of a concern with me had 9/11 not demonstrating that Rudy could handle a major totally unexpected terrorist attack with an extraordinary amount of poise and clearheadedness, dammit.

Though there has been much criticism in the lack of preparedness for the attack. There was numerous communication failures, and there has been criticism that he focused more on personal projects than preparing a major terrorist target city for a possible attack after the first bombing at WTC happened shortly before he first took office.

How many times, in the past, have terrorsts went and used airliners as missiles against skyscrapers? People who have 24/7 to figure out how to cause mayhem are going to be able to pull off a stunt like 9/11, no matter how "prepared" a city actually is. THAT caught everyone by surprise, dammit. I'm not going to fault Guiliani for lack of "preparedness" on 9/11, nor am I going to nit pick over communications break down, we're talking about a terrorist attack on a scale completely unkown in the U.S. and probably the world, things WILL go wrong when a major attack happens. What I'm interested in is how Guiliani picked up the pieces, dammit.

I don't doubt for a second, Darth, that Mayoy Giuliani is a good man - but does that qualify him as a presidential canidate?


I find Guiliani a far more qualified man than Forrest Gore, or Hillary or Obama, and don't get me started on why I don't like those guys, I mean it, dammit.

Honestly, at this point I wouldn't vote for anyone. Don't like anyone enough.
http://images.inmagine.com/168nwm/stockdisc/sd173/256723sdc.jpg


I'm going to wait to see who Freethinker votes for. That way I can cancel his vote out. I'll drink to that :drinktoth



Your argument would've carried more weight and have been more of a concern with me had 9/11 not demonstrating that Rudy could handle a major totally unexpected terrorist attack with an extraordinary amount of poise and clearheadedness, dammit.

You're doing exactly what so many do when they see his name. You're associating his entire political legacy with the fact that he ran through a street with some security gaurds.

His approval rating was in the low 40's at the end of his mayoral term before 9/11...and we haven't gotten to see him since. I understand that it is not his fault that health concerns prevented him from running for senator - but regardless he has no expierence outside of running a city. Can you really translate his response to an attack on his hometown into what he could do internationally?



How many times, in the past, have terrorsts went and used airliners as missiles against skyscrapers? People who have 24/7 to figure out how to cause mayhem are going to be able to pull off a stunt like 9/11, no matter how "prepared" a city actually is. THAT caught everyone by surprise, dammit. I'm not going to fault Guiliani for lack of "preparedness" on 9/11, nor am I going to nit pick over communications break down, we're talking about a terrorist attack on a scale completely unkown in the U.S. and probably the world, things WILL go wrong when a major attack happens. What I'm interested in is how Guiliani picked up the pieces, dammit.
That's a really nonobjective way to look at things, Darth. You can't just look at a glass and always say well it's half full. Sometimes you gotta ask yourself, who the fuck took a drink of my juice?



I find Guiliani a far more qualified man than Forrest Gore, or Hillary or Obama, and don't get me started on why I don't like those guys, I mean it, dammit.

Dont get you started? What, you've got your ball and your running home? Fuck that. How could you possibly see a man who spent a few years as a mayor and hasnt held political office before or since more qualified than a man who has been bred his entire life to be president. A man who served 8 years as a Vice President and served in the United States congress and senate?

I am not a Hillary fan, and I'm not even completely sold on Obama - but they have both served as senators. They have made decisions that effected the international community. Mayor Giuliani has only made decisions that effected NYC.

Sorry Jere I haven't decided who I'm voting for 18 months before the election.

Sorry Jere I haven't decided who I'm voting for 18 months before the election.
That's not what you said. You said, at this point you wouldn't vote for anyone - that you didnt like any of them enough.

What if today were election day?

I'm going to wait to see who Freethinker votes for. That way I can cancel his vote out.:D


I will be voting for someone who will put the needs and priorities and freedoms of the American citizenry ahead of what the Corporatistas and the military/Industrial complex wants.

All you'll have to do to *cancel* that out is vote for anyone whose name is listed above; i.e., vote for any DemoPublican Corporate toady whose name appears on the ballot.

All you'll have to do to *cancel* that out is vote for anyone whose name is listed above; i.e., vote for any DemoPublican Corporate toady whose name appears on the ballot.
Done.

All you'll have to do to *cancel* that out is vote for anyone whose name is listed above; i.e., vote for any DemoPublican Corporate toady whose name appears on the ballot.
Something interesting to note:

"WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has returned more than $50,000 in political contributions after discovering the donors were lobbyists.

Obama, who has pledged to change the ways of Washington, has repeatedly said he will not accept money from lobbyists or from special interest political action committees."

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070413obama-lobbyists,1,108302.story

Not that you'll like Obama because of this, but I find what he did to be a good start. AND he was against the Iraq War from the start, even when all the other Democrats supported it. Just some things you may find interesting about him.

Something interesting to note:

"WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has returned more than $50,000 in political contributions after discovering the donors were lobbyists.

Obama, who has pledged to change the ways of Washington, has repeatedly said he will not accept money from lobbyists or from special interest political action committees."

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070413obama-lobbyists,1,108302.story

Not that you'll like Obama because of this, but I find what he did to be a good start. AND he was against the Iraq War from the start, even when all the other Democrats supported it. Just some things you may find interesting about him.
Haha. You're killin' me...discovering the donors were lobbyists! I just about spilled my beer when I read that I was laughing so hard! Ok. Let me spell this out for you. HE WAS CAUGHT.
You have a lot to learn young jedi.

Obama........has repeatedly said he will not accept money from lobbyists or from special interest political action committees.

Ok. Maybe he won't.

But IF Obama does not accept money ---very large sums of it-- from lobbyists and special interest political action committees, then Obama has ZERO chance of becoming president.

The way that the immense con game known as *America* is set up, any person who IS elected is already in the pockets of special interest groups, primarily those of the Corporate sector.

That's not what you said. You said, at this point you wouldn't vote for anyone - that you didnt like any of them enough.

What if today were election day?

Yeah, I wouldn't vote for anyone because I haven't decided who I want to vote for. It's not that hard of a concept.

Who I would vote for today would completely depend on who the two candidates are. Although I haven't decided who I will vote for, I know I won't vote for Hillary or any republican candidate not named Giuliani.

Ok. Maybe he won't.

But IF Obama does not accept money ---very large sums of it-- from lobbyists and special interest political action committees, then Obama has ZERO chance of becoming president.

The way that the immense con game known as *America* is set up, any person who IS elected is already in the pockets of special interest groups, primarily those of the Corporate sector.
Well, no, there is no maybe. He already sent the money back. Maybe he'll change in the future, but since this is already such a big deal, there is no way he'd be able to save face and start accepting the money from these groups.

Anyway, he has raised more money then any other canadiate thus far in the election. And most of his money is from your average Americans donating a few hundred dollars here and there. Which shows that he has a lot of support since he is getting small amounts, but from a TON of people. I mean, he has more money then Clinton or any of the Republicans, but he also has more donors and people behind him who are passionate about him.

I think he can win. He has the money and support. And he seems to really BE changing Washington since he sent back the money from lobbyists thus far.

I think he can win. He has the money and support. And he seems to really BE changing Washington since he sent back the money from lobbyists thus far.

Sadly, I don't think he has a prayer at becoming the next president because he isn't white. (Ok, not all white)

Well, no, there is no maybe. He already sent the money back. Maybe he'll change in the future, but since this is already such a big deal, there is no way he'd be able to save face and start accepting the money from these groups.
OD: "He already sent the money back", "Maybe he'll change in the future"! Congratulations...you made me pee my pants I was laughing so hard!
Oh my god, I can't wait to see if Freethinker can top this!

*Runs to change pants*

I'm still in tears..that was some funny shit...hey, wait a minute...is this James Delaphonse posing as overdose?

The choices in the US are about finding the lesser evil, when not blinded by the "religious bullshit"... or not vote at all...

Clinton was govenor of Arkansas, .... Rudy has only been a mayor of a city.

Yeah, but it was a city with almost four times the population of the entire state of Arkansas.


As of right now I would vote for Giuliani but that might change. If he falters and no one else enters the race it will be McCain with a lukewarm vote. I would prefer Mitt Romney or Thompson but don't think either can win.

Yeah, I wouldn't vote for anyone because I haven't decided who I want to vote for. It's not that hard of a concept.

Who I would vote for today would completely depend on who the two candidates are. Although I haven't decided who I will vote for, I know I won't vote for Hillary or any republican candidate not named Giuliani.


Agreed. Now see - wasn't that much easier?:thumbs:

Glad to see Clinton isnt winning.

Glad to see Clinton isnt winning.
Yeah. I'm not that surprised. She is more attractive to the democrats who congregate at the furthest left side of the spectrum. Obama and Edwards both represent, to me, the logical and rational concerns of Americans.

If the elections were held today, based on the available "representatives" I would have to vote for Obama.

I'd probably vote for Guiliani, but I wouldn't be revolted if Obama got the job. President Obama...for me, that just feels funny to say.

From what I hear, McCain is kinda crazy, but I don't blame him. If Clinton wins, I might have to go out and buy a rifle.

I'd probably vote for Guiliani, but I wouldn't be revolted if Obama got the job. President Obama...for me, that just feels funny to say.

From what I hear, McCain is kinda crazy, but I don't blame him. If Clinton wins, I might have to go out and buy a rifle.

Youd be a little crazy if you had a 4 year stay at Hanoi Hilton too lol.

And yes, I pray that Clinton does not win. Not like this poll is scientific, and the election is a year and a half away, but I think we have a pretty good cross-section of people here, im glad to see she isnt doing so hot.

Anyway, he has raised more money then any other canadiate thus far in the election. And most of his money is from your average Americans donating a few hundred dollars here and there. Which shows that he has a lot of support since he is getting small amounts, but from a TON of people.

He may acculate a great sum of money, but he won't have the backing and the imprimatur of the powers-that-be, and all they have to do is send out the attack dogs (in the form of their disinformation Ministry; the mainstream Media) and the People can easily be made to turn against Obama, or anyone else.

The powers-that-be are able to instruct the sheep what to think, and who to like.

A candidate could be a cross between Audie Murphy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Tom Selleck, but if the powers-that-be tell the complacent and gullible electorate he is "bad" for some reason or other, then the sheep will NOT cast their vote for him.

OTOH, you can have a candidate who is a gibbering simpleton barely able to put a sentence together, who was a horrendous failure at every business he was ever involved with, and a former cocaine user who was AWOL from the service but if the powers-that-be choose to portray him as being "an okay guy" and a man's man, then millions of the sheep will suddenly view him favorably and vote for him.

He may acculate a great sum of money, but he won't have the backing and the imprimatur of the powers-that-be, and all they have to do is send out the attack dogs (in the form of their disinformation Ministry; the mainstream Media) and the People can easily be made to turn against Obama, or anyone else.

The powers-that-be are able to instruct the sheep what to think, and who to like.

A candidate could be a cross between Audie Murphy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Tom Selleck, but if the powers-that-be tell the complacent and gullible electorate he is "bad" for some reason or other, then the sheep will NOT cast their vote for him.

OTOH, you can have a candidate who is a gibbering simpleton barely able to put a sentence together, who was a horrendous failure at every business he was ever involved with, and a former cocaine user who was AWOL from the service but if the powers-that-be choose to portray him as being "an okay guy" and a man's man, then millions of the sheep will suddenly view him favorably and vote for him.

Who's to say the powers-that-be won't be working for the Obama campaign, Free? He obviously has the money if he wished to go that route.

Who's to say the powers-that-be won't be working for the Obama campaign, Free?

The fact that he is orchestrating his campaign to appear as an *outsider*---i.e., as someone who does NOT eagely take the special interest money, pegs him as someone not fully committed to doing the bidding of the Corporate State apparatus.

And any candidate who refuses to make known his undying and unalloyed willingness to do the express bidding of the Corporatists is never going to be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office. Period.

This is a nation of the Corporation, by the Corporation and for the Corporation.

Those who are not willing Corporate toadies need not apply.

Giulianni and Clinton and McCain all have demonstrated --in spades-- the *sell-your-soul-to-the-Devil-to-get-in* whorishness that is a prerequisite to being handed the reins of power.

The fact that he is orchestrating his campaign to appear as an *outsider*---i.e., as someone who does NOT eagely take the special interest money, pegs him as someone not fully committed to doing the bidding of the Corporate State apparatus.

And any candidate who refuses to make known his undying and unalloyed willingness to do the express bidding of the Corporatists is never going to be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office. Period.

This is a nation of the Corporation, by the Corporation and for the Corporation.

Those who are not willing Corporate toadies need not apply.

Giulianni and Clinton and McCain all have demonstrated --in spades-- the *sell-your-soul-to-the-Devil-to-get-in* whorishness that is a prerequisite to being handed the reins of power.

I agree and I see your point, Free. I know that Obama is basing his campaign around being an outsider and a fair player in the game of politcs - but honestly? Who really believes that?

Usually the best hand is the one you conceal after a good bluff.

If the election were today, Obama would win. In fact, at this point, hes a shoe-in. He will more than likely win the nomination. People like him, he has a pretty good platform, and hes black, which I think will actually help him more than hurt. I think the people are ready for that, and will make it happen. Id be all about a woman president too, just not Hillary though. The other candidates besides Obama and Hillary are pretty much run of the mill.

well, im not legally able to vote, but if i did, i would probably chose clinton, or barak.

How many times, in the past, have terrorsts went and used airliners as missiles against skyscrapers? People who have 24/7 to figure out how to cause mayhem are going to be able to pull off a stunt like 9/11, no matter how "prepared" a city actually is. THAT caught everyone by surprise, dammit. I'm not going to fault Guiliani for lack of "preparedness" on 9/11

Guiliani wasn't caught by surprise. If anybody should have been ready for an attack on the WTC or anywhere else in NYC, it was Rudy.

I guess you forgot that the WTC was attacked eight years before 9/11, and during that intervening eight years, Giuliani did nothing to beef up his city's anti-terrorist plans.

:rolleyes:


And, oh yeah, I like Edwards.

Sadly, I don't think he has a prayer at becoming the next president because he isn't white. (Ok, not all white)

Sadly, I don't think he would have a chance at being president if he was white.

Haha. You're killin' me...discovering the donors were lobbyists! I just about spilled my beer when I read that I was laughing so hard! Ok. Let me spell this out for you. HE WAS CAUGHT.

It's not illegal to accept money from lobbyists.

He may acculate a great sum of money, but he won't have the backing and the imprimatur of the powers-that-be, and all they have to do is send out the attack dogs (in the form of their disinformation Ministry; the mainstream Media) and the People can easily be made to turn against Obama, or anyone else.
Why won't they back him? If he is pushing THEIR stance, they'll support him regardless of if he accepts their money or not.

Honestly, they will SUPPORT him because he is SUPPORTING their stance in Washington.

Sadly, I don't think he would have a chance at being president if was white.
Obama is an impressive figure, cool under pressure and eloquent and level headed. He has become prominent for these reasons, not because he is black (there are plenty of Afircan-American political figures who have not become prominent).

At the moment, among Democrats, he is far and away my favorite. I didn't like his pandering to the "anti-Walmart" idiots, but there is something about every politician not to like.

Let me put it this way--if Obama were the Democratic nominee, I would think long and hard about my vote: if it were Clinton, I vote Republican.

I would vote for McCain because of his moderate views and the fact that he is the only candidate with a record of doing more than talking about issues. His actions (I acknowledge that he is doing some lip service to fundamentalist right wingers, but it ends at nothing more than lip service) aren't based on party politics or trendy issues, he simply does what he thinks is right.

I will not say that I am committed to that vote however....my mind is still open.

I would vote for McCain because of his moderate views and the fact that he is the only candidate with a record of doing more than talking about issues. His actions (I acknowledge that he is doing some lip service to fundamentalist right wingers, but it ends at nothing more than lip service) aren't based on party politics or trendy issues, he simply does what he thinks is right.

I will not say that I am committed to that vote however....my mind is still open.
The thing "not to like" about McCain, to me, is his persistence with trying to limit campaign finance with all sorts of bureaucratic, legalistic rules (that the money boys always find some way around) rather than just opting for rigorous and immediate full disclosure.

I very much admire his steadfastness in standing for what is right regarding the Iraq invasion, in spite of the immense political damage this does him.

KUCINICH!!!!....
You love him because you cannot figure out how to pronounce his name....

Ten Key Issues
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

http://kucinich.us/issues

Ten Key Issues
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

http://kucinich.us/issues
Sounds like the typical tax-and-spend vote buying of the Democrats that would grind America into socialist poverty.

KUCINICH!!!!....
You love him because you cannot figure out how to pronounce his name....

KU-SIN-ITCH :thumbs:

I put other. If it were election day right now I would not vote for any of those candidates really... They're going to have to do more to convince me. Although I have to say if it comes down to Hilary and Rudy I will not vote at all. There would be no lesser of those two evils as far as I'm concerned.

I agree and I see your point, Free. I know that Obama is basing his campaign around being an outsider and a fair player in the game of politcs - but honestly? Who really believes that?

I see your point too.

I am enjoying discussing this with you........but I feel it is a moot point, since Barak Obama has about as much chance of being elected President of the U.S. as Marion Barry (former mayor of the District of Columbia) does.

Firstly, Obama is black, and the vast majority of men that I know personally would never vote for a Democrat whose skin is black, I don't care if that man is Jezus. Secondly, even though Obama is not a Muslim, it will be ridiculously easy --given the stupidity of the average American voter-- for his opponent to cast countless aspersions at him for his Muslim involvement. Thirdly, his middle name is Hussein; again, a fact that is absolutely meaningless in regards to his ability to perform as president.....but it will not be meaningless to the cretins in this country who can vote.

Firstly, Obama is black, and the vast majority of men that I know personally would never vote for a Democrat whose skin is black, I don't care if that man is Jezus. Secondly, even though Obama is not a Muslim, it will be ridiculously easy --given the stupidity of the average American voter-- for his opponent to cast countless aspersions at him for his Muslim involvement. Thirdly, his middle name is Hussein; again, a fact that is absolutely meaningless in regards to his ability to perform as president.....but it will not be meaningless to the cretins in this country who can vote.
I disagree with you 100%. I find your lack of hope in the American people to be sad and I think Barack Obama does have a shot at winning.

The reasons you gave are already old and have been said a million times. People aren't buying it. Barack is gaining ground among voters and keeps raising tons of money.

If those issues you talk about were actually holding weight, he wouldn't be gaining ground.

I put other. If it were election day right now I would not vote for any of those candidates really... They're going to have to do more to convince me. Although I have to say if it comes down to Hilary and Rudy I will not vote at all. There would be no lesser of those two evils as far as I'm concerned.
That is a "glass half empty" way to approach voting, since no candidate will ever take the positions you have on everything.

I disagree with you 100%. I find your lack of hope in the American people to be sad and I think Barack Obama does have a shot at winning.

The reasons you gave are already old and have been said a million times. People aren't buying it. Barack is gaining ground among voters and keeps raising tons of money.

If those issues you talk about were actually holding weight, he wouldn't be gaining ground.
At the moment I think he is running for Vice President, since if he does well Clinton will have to tag him for that--and it would be a formidable ticket.

He is a bit young and a bit green to become President this time around.

He is a bit young and a bit green to become President this time around.
America wants change.

We don't want the same old rich, white, men who are corrupted by companies.

Barack is a fresh voice.

I disagree with you 100%. I find your lack of hope in the American people to be sad and I think Barack Obama does have a shot at winning.

The reasons you gave are already old and have been said a million times. People aren't buying it. Barack is gaining ground among voters and keeps raising tons of money.

If those issues you talk about were actually holding weight, he wouldn't be gaining ground.

I don't know about Oregon, but here in Ohio I can definitely relate to what Freethinker is saying. There are some people in this country who will not vote for a black man. Period. The problem isn't really winning over democrats...I believe Obama has a real solid chance at getting the nomination. I just don't see him winning battlegrounds states such as Ohio or Florida, and therefore I don't think he can win.

That is a "glass half empty" way to approach voting, since no candidate will ever take the positions you have on everything.
Of course, but I'd like to have a candidate who has maybe 50% of my stances on issues (80% of important issues I hope) and who does NOT seem terribly corrupt. I just don't like Giuliani. And Clinton has views very far from mine.

I find your lack of hope in the American people to be sad .....

Kid, any fucking *hope* that I or anyone else may have ever possessed for the dimwitted America People died 7 years ago when over 55 million of them trudged down to the polls and cast a vote for a smirking, ignorant, dishonest, former cocaine using, AWOL from service, failed businessman who has trouble speaking English coherently.

Kid, any fucking *hope* that I or anyone else may have ever possessed for the dimwitted America People died 7 years ago when over 55 million of them trudged down to the polls and cast a vote for a smirking, ignorant, dishonest, former cocaine using, AWOL from service, failed businessman who has trouble speaking English coherently.
I disagree. 100%. But I don't think we'll ever change our opinions on this. So whatever.

I don't know about Oregon, but here in Ohio I can definitely relate to what Freethinker is saying. There are some people in this country who will not vote for a black man. Period. The problem isn't really winning over democrats...I believe Obama has a real solid chance at getting the nomination. I just don't see him winning battlegrounds states such as Ohio or Florida, and therefore I don't think he can win.
The people who won't vote for a black man are unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway. On the other hand, kick the African-American vote participation up toward 90%--which would happen if Obama were on the ticket--and the bigot vote that might be lost is way more than made up for.

America wants change.

We don't want the same old rich, white, men who are corrupted by companies.

Barack is a fresh voice.
"America wants change" is an old cliche. I agree that there is a cycle in politics--when one party is in power for awhile people start gravitating to the other (at least enough do to change the balance of power).

Of course, but I'd like to have a candidate who has maybe 50% of my stances on issues (80% of important issues I hope) and who does NOT seem terribly corrupt. I just don't like Giuliani. And Clinton has views very far from mine.
I worry about Clinton as President. She strikes me as more of a idealogue than her husband--both from her speeches and her votes and from her history.

Giuliani would make a great President--I agree with him about 99% of the time--a social moderate and economic conservative.

"America wants change" is an old cliche. I agree that there is a cycle in politics--when one party is in power for awhile people start gravitating to the other (at least enough do to change the balance of power).
Umm ok.

After the 1st WTC bombing, Guiliani did nothing to protect new yorkers from another bombing and sure as the suns rises in the east, it happened again and on his watch.

The man is pathetically weak on homeland secutity. The dems will make short work of him should he get the nomination.

Heck, the republicans will probably make short work of him. ROTF.

Obama

After the 1st WTC bombing, Guiliani did nothing to protect new yorkers from another bombing and sure as the suns rises in the east, it happened again and on his watch.

The man is pathetically weak on homeland secutity. The dems will make short work of him should he get the nomination.

Heck, the republicans will probably make short work of him. ROTF.
That is a broad accusation: do you have anything specific?

That is a broad accusation: do you have anything specific?

And this is a debate forum. If you disagree with me, then argue the point.

:)

The people who won't vote for a black man are unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway. On the other hand, kick the African-American vote participation up toward 90%--which would happen if Obama were on the ticket--and the bigot vote that might be lost is way more than made up for.

About 90% of blacks already vote democrat so there has to be a lot of people who usually don't vote turn out to make up the difference.

Also, if Giuliani wins the nomination, he could definitely pull some away votes from the democratic candidate because of his stances on social issues.

I'd take anybody except Hillary

I also hate Guliani - He simply milked the hell out 9-11 and came up smelling of roses

I used to like McCain because he was a straight talker & practical, but now i think he's off the rails.

Obama has no real experience, has yet to really define any real policies, but he's the front runner for me at the moment

About 90% of blacks already vote democrat so there has to be a lot of people who usually don't vote turn out to make up the difference.

Also, if Giuliani wins the nomination, he could definitely pull some away votes from the democratic candidate because of his stances on social issues.
Yes but on the average only about 50% actually vote.

And this is a debate forum. If you disagree with me, then argue the point.
You made a very broad accusation against Giulani that I think is wrong. I politely asked you to prove your point. It is easy to accuse people of practically anything. Now I say, either put up or shut up.

I'd take anybody except Hillary

I also hate Guliani - He simply milked the hell out 9-11 and came up smelling of roses

I used to like McCain because he was a straight talker & practical, but now i think he's off the rails.

Obama has no real experience, has yet to really define any real policies, but he's the front runner for me at the moment
Regardless of whoever becomes the next President, the Republic will survive and things will go on pretty much as they always have. Demonizing people is a useless and corruptive activity.

I frankly wonder at democracy anyway--how the public can be persuaded that their choice is anything other than just a big mass ego trip. How can we possibly get to know the candidates well enough to make such decisions based on the impressions we get of them?

It is all individual arrogance, and the candidates pander to it and flatter the people, all the while doing everything they can to present a face to the public they think the public will like. We never get access to what they really are.

The only thing in democracy's favor is that it is a better way to make the choice than anything else.