Is Hilary finished?

[John]

Originally Posted by MickOpalak

I really liked him too until I discovered that he's anti-abortion and doesn't believe in evolution.

If you had read his quotes more carefully, you would know that he acknowledges his personal objections on abortion, however, he said that it is a women's right to choose, not the federal governments. As a statesman, RP believes that states have the authority only to make up that choice, not the federal government.

As for him speaking out against evolution, haven't heard that and honestly find it hard to believe that's the case. Again, if anything, likely words out of context.

Sadly, Ron Paul is the only candidate with an ounce of principle in this election. His poll numbers are always low, but that's because of the way the media and poll structure works.

[kwicker]

I don't think it has anything to do with being a woman - heck, I'm ready to vote for one, just not Hillary, the meanspirited wife of our ex-playboy President.

What I want most is a leader, you can learn the rest, and I'm sure I won't be 100% for what he or she believes in, but I think a President has to be a leader first. Then, I want to see someone who will guide the country to make smart decisions with our money, help those who truely need help, and don't waste it on pet programs or personal agendas (whether it be a war or national health care - I see both as a tremendous waste of our resources).

[Moto44]

We are at a point where cynicism and discontent runs deep. I think ragged1's attitude is quite common today. However, I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint and a ray of hope.

Some of you may recall reading how much flack Teddy Roosevelt took for inviting a black man to dine with him at the white house. One hundred years later, we almost unanimously consider it ridiculous and reprehensible to take such a view. Is America ready for a woman or a minority president? Yes, when the right one comes along. That candidate may well be one currently in the running.

I honestly believe that things are always progressively getting better. Although it is sometimes a matter of two steps forward and one step back, we continue to move ahead.

I have heard my whole life about how bad things have gotten since the 1950s. Hogwash! The 1950's were dandy if you were white, a man, a protestant, heterosexual, and a conformist. They weren't so wonderful otherwise.

It does matter who we elect as president. Change for the better is usually a slow and steady battle. Unfortunately, change for the worse can come swiftly and unexpectedly.

Politics is a process. And although politicians are lightning rods at which much of our discontent is aimed, rarely do those who complain the loudest actually present reasoned arguments in a tone that we would accept from a political candidate.

By and large, the system works.

[JimK]

I like Huckabee. Obama will be a major factor in this election. Clinton is way too polarizing and even if you like her politics (I definately don't) you have to admit she is not very likeable or charismatic. Both Huckabee and Obama are.

[Z-dculus]

She's awful

[John]

Originally Posted by Moto44

By and large, the system works.

The current system doesn't work with the way the GOP and DNC monopolize elections. I don't have the time to go into excruciating details, but with the way certain candidates are "excluded," how party's force issues, and ties to media bias - it's nearly impossible to have a fair and free election - especially in a society where Americans succomb to being told rather than being resilient. Sadly enough, the GOP and DNC know this and capitalize on it. Who was it that said that citizens are too intelligent to decide for issues themselves?

[Moto44]

Numerically, the two party system generally works best. Let's say that Wally, the Beav, and Eddie Haskell run for president. And although fully 66% of the population believes Eddie Haskell is the worst thing that could happen to the country, 34% of the population was charmed and Eddie wins. It is very difficult to be an effective leader if as much as 66% of the population is against you.

It is not uncommon to get multiple (3+) candidates in primary elections. And it is not uncommon to split votes in ways that give the win to an otherwise considered fringe candidate.

[Eye Candy]

Clinton will get even more negative as times get harder for her.

Interesting to note that Obama won in a 96% white state. That says a lot for him, and a lot for how America has changed.

Edwards, with all his money, hasn't had a pig pickin at his home to meet his (mostly poor) neighbors. In North Carolina that means you are a stuffed shirt, especially if you run around in blue jeans talking about how you are going to help the little guy get ahead.

I like the way Huckabee handles himself. He is witty and able to think on his feet. I don't think he seems to be trying to shove his religion down people's throats, but the media sure seems to be labeling him as a right wing evangelical. The right wing evangelicals are calling him "not conservative enough".

Better to stay out of politics. Maybe that is why we have such
a poor group to choose from. The best that America has to offer????

Obama keeps saying he wants change, but change to what?? Most people want things to stay the same, just get better. Ironic.

Romney: not sure why few are drawn to him, perhaps his Mormon faith is a bigger deal to most people than they want to admit.

McCain: a real live war hero, solid conservative, but a bit boring and old.

Here's a real problem, every professional and most working people I know have a hard time getting out of work to go vote. Election day should a national holiday.

[John]

On Hillary - I've said it in other threads - but having worked for Hillary, I see how she operates. She is a ruthless c*nt with the worst temper of any current politician. The Secret Service dreaded her tantrums (telling them to "get the f*ck out of my face"), she fires staff when she has a bad day (then calls them up to re-hire them), and is completely two-faced. Somebody with her knee-jerk reaction history is not the person we need in the White House. She feeds her political machine with a false ego, her husbands connections, and the feminist movement.

[John]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Edwards, with all his money, hasn't had a pig pickin at his home to meet his (mostly poor) neighbors. In North Carolina that means you are a stuffed shirt, especially if you run around in blue jeans talking about how you are going to help the little guy get ahead.

Edwards doesn't have a chance- there were some incidents during the last election where he burned many bridges with his core fundraisers. Anybody also remember the last vice-president's debate where he failed to even remotely answer any of the questions and just sat there batting his eyes with this fake grin on his face? I also think most of America realizes that we don't need a Communist in the White House (he's more pro-union than any candidate since the 1940s).

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by Moto44

I have heard my whole life about how bad things have gotten since the 1950s. Hogwash! The 1950's were dandy if you were white, a man, a protestant, heterosexual, and a conformist. They weren't so wonderful otherwise.

.

Great point Todd. It seems the more progressive this country becomes, the more alarmist the rhetoric becomes about how bad it is. For instance, were we even talking about gay marriage during Clinton's presidency? Of course not, America wasn't ready yet, but when it comes up now, those who opposed it are accused of trying to take us back to the stone age. We are in no danger of going backward on most social issues.

[John]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Great point Todd. It seems the more progressive this country becomes, the more alarmist the rhetoric becomes about how bad it is. For instance, were we even talking about gay marriage during Clinton's presidency? Of course not, America wasn't ready yet, but when it comes up now, those who opposed it are accused of trying to take us back to the stone age. We are in no danger of going backward on most social issues.

Which was my exact point about the DNC and GOP forcing issues. You cited the perfect example (and exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it), gay marraige. Regardless of whether I agree with it, it was was a complete non-issue before the last election. Out of all the other issues that needed to be address, where does gay marraige really rank and how does it materially affect your life (or more importantly, your pocket)?

[evomind]

Originally Posted by Moto44

We are at a point where cynicism and discontent runs deep. I think ragged1's attitude is quite common today. However, I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint and a ray of hope.

Some of you may recall reading how much flack Teddy Roosevelt took for inviting a black man to dine with him at the white house. One hundred years later, we almost unanimously consider it ridiculous and reprehensible to take such a view. Is America ready for a woman or a minority president? Yes, when the right one comes along. That candidate may well be one currently in the running.

I honestly believe that things are always progressively getting better. Although it is sometimes a matter of two steps forward and one step back, we continue to move ahead.

It does matter who we elect as president. Change for the better is usually a slow and steady battle. Unfortunately, change for the worse can come swiftly and unexpectedly.

Politics is a process. And although politicians are lightning rods at which much of our discontent is aimed, rarely do those who complain the loudest actually present reasoned arguments in a tone that we would accept from a political candidate.

By and large, the system works.

ok, this country was based on a majority rule. seems now special interests come b4 everything else.
anyway, not trying to steer us off topic.
on topic i must say i have never been so disappointed by the poor choices we have to choose from to lead our country.
i agree with previous posts that the political system we have built is just one great big machine....

[Conan]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Election day should be a national holiday.

+1.

[NMRJock]

Originally Posted by John

Which was my exact point about the DNC and GOP forcing issues. You cited the perfect example (and exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it), gay marraige. Regardless of whether I agree with it, it was was a complete non-issue before the last election. Out of all the other issues that needed to be address, where does gay marraige really rank and how does it materially affect your life (or more importantly, your pocket)?

It doesn't affect my life, but I'm not gay. If I were gay and wanted to be married, then it would be a very important issue to me. Being married is a big part of my life. Just because the gay population is in a minority and can't force the issue with politicians does not mean that they shouldn't be able to enjoy the same level of commitment in their relationships as I do in mine.

[VegasT]

Mitt has always been my guy.

I met him at my country club about a year ago. Even though he has a series of flip-flop issues, I find him to be the most genuine out of all of the candidates. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that you could sit down and enjoy a speech. Don't get me wrong... I bleed republican red but watching Bush give a speech, or even talk for that matter, is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

I'm just waiting for "Huck" to belt out "well gauuulllleeeee" any day now. I personally think that the media is the reason for his rise. The Dems would walk all over him and they know it.

Mr. New York, I mean Mr. 911 will end up splintering the party due to his social issues.

Obama has no experience and is simply the flavor of the season. It will be interesting to see what happens when he actually has to explain his ideas. Most polled stated that they liked his passion but had no idea about his platform.

Clinton would be the easiest to beat since she is so polarizing.

But if... only If... the bible pounders could just get over their contempt and bigotry of Romney, I believe he would have a very good shot at winning the White House.

Just my thoughts,

T

[John]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

It doesn't affect my life, but I'm not gay. If I were gay and wanted to be married, then it would be a very important issue to me. Being married is a big part of my life. Just because the gay population is in a minority and can't force the issue with politicians does not mean that they shouldn't be able to enjoy the same level of commitment in their relationships as I do in mine.

I had a decent number of gay friends when I lived in DC, and it was a complete non-issue to most of them. On the flip side, the GOP made it an issue out of the blue to rile up extreme conservatives and to divert attention away from other things that were going on. Pretty sad.

[Moto44]

Originally Posted by evomind

ok, this country was based on a majority rule. seems now special interests come b4 everything else.

There is an issue that has hijacked our political process. This single issue has no bearing on the economy, nor national security, nor crime, nor education, nor the environment - abortion.

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

It doesn't affect my life, but I'm not gay. If I were gay and wanted to be married, then it would be a very important issue to me. Being married is a big part of my life. Just because the gay population is in a minority and can't force the issue with politicians does not mean that they shouldn't be able to enjoy the same level of commitment in their relationships as I do in mine.

I agree with this, but, as I said, I don't think we are in any danger on going backward on these issues. The courts won't allow a national religion or turning back the clock on important civil rights issues, so most of those issues simply have no bearing on me for my vote. I'm socially liberal but don't fear the religious right's ability to destroy civil liberties at all. For that reason, I vote primarily on fiscal issues, which I generally believe Rep. have a better handle on.

[scottyb]

Personally I don't care if our next president is male, female, white, black, asian, Jew, Christian, or Moslem, etc. But I do not want a president that starts crying in public when times get tough. I want a strong individual who can make the hard decisions that need to be made. Not someone looking for sympathy or a shoulder to cry on.