Given the chance of yet another 4 years under a member of a previous administration I actually get nauseous at the thought of 4 more years of the same attack propaganda, and even worse the Drudging up of Bill's years as POTUS.
I have been voting either Libertarian or Democrat either because the GOP has turned me off for a long time now or just because I keep hoping in vain for a 3rd party to appear and shake things up.

I will try and add my vote for Ron Paul and even have registered as a Republican for the first time in over 8 years. Switching back to no party after the deed is done. The current crop of GOP is uninspiring but in all honesty if the choice is Hilary or....
I will definitely vote against her.
I will even vote GOP just to keep her out. Not that I think the GOP is a better choice but simply because I cannot stand anymore Clinton anything of any sort. Not news related, not blog related, not even comedy material. She wins and I am out of politics and throwing my computer and TV out the window. If I had the cash i would go live in the mountains hermit style.

Just no more. At least with new faces there is bound to be some change. No more Bush/Clinton.




So
Who Will you vote for? and who will you Not vote for?

I'm going to vote for Obama, if he's still in the running when things get to Ohio. So far, he hasn't said anything that I don't love. He's smart, courteous, and presidential without being aloof.

But if Hillary ended up as the Democratic candidate, I would have little problem voting for her - my biggest problem with Hillary is that for so many Republicans (and a few Democrats) she is absolute anathema, and I don't want another 4-8 years of a hated president. But I think she is an able politician. I would hate to feed the Rush Limbaugh fire, but I wouldn't let that change my vote.

After that, I'd take any Democrat - Edwards, Richardson, etc., etc., all the way down to Kucinich. If Gore were to enter the race, he moves immediately into second, close behind Obama.

For me, the least unpalatable Republican is probably Giuliani, because of his generally liberal positions. I think he has shown some real guts sticking by those positions under pressure, but his support of Bush is just indefensible to me. Same goes for McCain - I liked him right up until he endorsed Bush. That showed a true lack of strength.

Candidates I'd stay far away from? Anyone who makes religion part of their platform (that means you, Mike Huckabee). I want my president making his/her decisions based on logic and reason, not fear of God (or fear of the Religious Right). I also stay away from anyone who wants to make radical tax reforms (Paul). Those guys always have some good points, but take their tax fixes way too far - I'll bet that most of Paul's rabid supporters don't understand the implications of the changes he is trumpeting. Plus, those guys are usually one-trick ponies.

OK - let the Hillary-bashing begin!

I will definitely, absolutely, mos' definitely be voting for Ron Paul in the MA primary and in the general election [write-in]. I would sooner stick my hand in a garbage disposal than vote for well...anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I respect a few of the others running for President [Dennis Kucinich, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden], but to be perfectly honest, the thought of most of the other hopefuls being President is nauseating.

Mitt Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, I don't understand how anyone can possibly deny with a straight face his constant changing of positions when they are politically beneficial.

John McCain is a media whore who lives for the camera, he has a special contempt for the Constitution that few others possess.

Fred Thompson's campaign has been a joke since its inception, he will likely bow out after Iowa and go back to [over]-acting. Good riddance.

Rudy Giuliani would not be a viable Presidential candidate if he had not been mayor of NYC on September 11th. I don't care, New Yorkers, what he did for NYC prior to September 11th, yes, I know about his cleaning up Time Square and utilizing the "Broken Window Theory" of crime fighting. I know. What I also know is that most non-New Yorkers are not voting for Rudy Giuliani because he cleaned up Time Square.

John Edwards is my least favorite politician. He is a class-warrior who has run the least substantive campaign in recent history. He overwhelms some people with his emotional and colorful language and advertisements while buying others' votes by promising them 'benefits' and 'free' things.

Hillary Clinton is very left-leaning and has been running to the center for 3 years. She is running a fairly dirty campaign, using proxies to attack Barrack Obama.

Barrack Obama is a great person and I wouldn't be disgusted if he won the Presidency, I just think I would frequently disagree with his policies. He is my favorite viable Democrat.

Ron Paul is almost my ideal candidate. His appeal to Constitutional government is refreshing and I cannot say enough about him. He has gone from polling at 1% nationally to threatening to come in 3rd in Iowa. He has made cynics and pessimists [myself included] begin to notice and believe in him more and more.

CP

The candidates I would vote for are (in order): Obama, Edwards, Kucinich (yeah I know, never gonna happen), Biden, McCain. Obama is far and away my favorite candidate. Kucinich would be ideal were it at all feasible, but he does not seem "presidential" enough to earn my vote.

The candidates I would NOT vote for are: Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, & Clinton. I either hate their politics and/or their character. Character is very important to me, which is why I would vote for McCain over other Democrats.

If it came down to Clinton vs. any of the 3 above mentioned Republicans, I would vote third party on principle. I just can't stand Hillary (though I have no ill feelings toward Bill aside from his "extra curricular activities") and can't see myself ever voting for her (unless I absolutely HAD to pick between her and the other three I would not vote for).

Thankfully CNN just called Iowa for Obama...and hopefully Hillary will end up in 3rd behind Edwards as I have been suspecting would be the case for some time now. *fingers crossed*

I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary. Every other candidate for the Republican nomination is an empty suit who will give us four more years of the last eight. For the general election, I will probably vote for the Libertarian candidate, depending on who they run.

A candidate has to earn my vote, and neither Dem/Rep projected nominee has even come close.

I agree completely.

The rest all suck eggs.

**THIS IS A QUESTION FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST KMSOUTHERN**

What, specifically, is your beef with Clinton? (I'm not going to try to defend her here, I'm just curious.) Is it her political record, her vote on Iraq, the Clinton legacy in general, or simply the way she comes across? (If I get a good answer here, we may have to turn this into its own thread.)

Mostly, it's her character (or lack thereof) and the fact that she comes across extremely cold and uncaring. I have never been a big fan of hers, though she was much more tolerable when she wasn't running for any sort of political post and saying whatever she thought people wanted to hear. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see a female president and in that regard I wouldn't altogether mind Hillary setting that precedent because I think she's the most likely woman to break the glass ceiling, but I just simply do not like what I see with her. My dislike has absolutely nothing to do with her being a strong and outspoken woman (I give her props for that), nor does it have anything to do with how she handled her husband's extra marital affair. I just get a bad vibe from her (as I do a number of other candidates, though they are mostly Republicans/conservatives).

For me, character and that general feeling I have about the candidate is a huge factor in my decision whether or not to give him/her my vote. Obama isn't liberal enough for me on some issues (namely his stance on gay marriage vs. civil unions), but because I think he's a good person and truly wants to do what is best for the country and ALL of the people, he gets my support. Hillary has always rubbed me the wrong way and is too much of a typical pandering politician for my liking. It certainly doesn't help that she's "flip-flopped" (I supported Kerry in '04 only after Gen. Wesley Clark took himself out of the race because the thought of another 4 years of Bush made me ) on various issues and has seemed to do so depending on what she thought would be best for *her* at the time). But mostly it's not her politics that sours me so much as her as a person.

I would have been a die hard Republican if the party still had the Conservative values that Ron Paul has preached.

I'm down for Barack Obama. I'd like to see history being made and a break from the conventional wisdom that the White House is reserved only for White men.

Mike Huckabee has impressed me ever since I saw him at the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley. He could be the real deal "compassionate conservative" that George Bush wasn't.

Hillary Clinton just leaves me cold. It seems like she's selling herself as the third term of President Clinton and that doesn't excite me at all.

All the other Republicans are just more of the same: lumpy mashed potatoes and cold meatloaf. What an awesome assemblage of mediocrities, dimwits, half-wits and nitwits.

I plan on voting in this order and for these reasons:

1.)Obama; I read his book and was impressed with how his positions are very practical. He is one for merit pay in education and I think he would go for some of the other reforms that are necessary, but which are opposed by many in the education establishment. I also believe he has the right answer for health care. On a different note, he also has the ability to inspire through goose-bump creating speeches that remind me a lot of Reagan.

2.)Edwards; There is definitely "two Americas" and I want the other one to get socked.

3.)Bloomberg; If he runs, I would definitely vote for this guy. His economic positions are a bit too conservative for me, but I think a centrist effort would be something that would be good for the country. If he picks Nebraska's own Chuck Hagel, I would definitely be on board.

4.)Ron Paul-I love his position on the war and concern for privacy rights. He also has an appealing view on education and homeschooling which I like.
He is the lone republican who won't use the federal government to exclude others simply because his personal beliefs have a first century mindset about them.

I will never vote for:

1.)Huckabee-The federal marraige amendment idea is discrminatory. The president is the leader of all Americans, not just Christian ones.

2.)Romney-Ditto, plus his war message is just unrealistic, the guy doesn't understand nuance.

3.)Tancredo-Too much of a xenophobe. I'm glad he has no traction at all in his campaign.

4.)Hillary-Too much of a compromised corporate democrat. I don't believe she will work hard for healthcare, a living wage, or better trade agreements that incroporate environmental and labor concerns.

I have given this issue some thought. Like 'why do Australians love Elvis?' it is one of those questions that inspires a million contradictory, convoluted theories.

Here's my opinion on the girl. I differ from most people on Hillary. I am a firm Obama supporter, with an appreciation for Edwards. But I don't think it would be a bad thing at all if Hillary was elected, and I would say that even if I was a moderate republican. I think Hillary might be among the best, most feasible candidates for a lot of moderate, business-minded republicans -- she's going to stay in Iraq longer than Huckabee, I'll promise you now. And she'll pay a lot more attention to wall street. Hill has some character flaws that I'll get to later, but in general, I think she's a competent, business-minded politician with a true capacity for governance and diplomacy... I don't buy unto the femi-nazi characture of her, although her management of the 1992 health care dud certainly feeds that image. I bet 1-on-1, she's pretty personable.

But then you put her on the stump. Like John Kerry, or for that matter, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton's problem has to do with a farcical concept we call 'genuineness.' Or authenticity. She runs through talking points and easy applause lines with a flat most monotonous tone of voice. People applaud for what she says, not how she says it. She bites no lips, and she "feels" nobody's pain. She comes off as distant, and inauthentic.

As voters, we should be smarter.

Authenticy is a myth. It is a myth in rock music and it is a myth in politics. When Guns N Roses do a tour, and every night for three months in a row they close on "Knockin on Heaven's Door," do you really think Axyl Rose weeps every time? Of course not. It's performance. Artifice. Mic Jagger is probably 20 years into erectile disfunction, yet he still goes out every night and sings "Start me up," or "Brown Sugar." It's schlock, sweet wonderful schlock.

Likewise, when John Edwards hollers the same two americas speech practically every single day from 2003-2008 -- five years of telling the same folkspun stories -- do you think that genuine agitation manifests itself in his belly and billows out of his southern drawls?

Of course not. That's not to say that John Edwards isn't deeply disturbed by economic inequality in the USA... I'm sure he is.

But his two americas speech is schlock, sweet wonderful schlock. Anyone on this board who things that John Edwards is a phony trial lawyer who drums up tears to move an audience needs to go buy a prince record and compare.

Schlock has purposes. I don't knock schlock. Schlock moves audiences and can be deeply serious. It brought us a cornball like Ron Reagan and a stooooopid image like "Morning in America. That speech that put Obama on the political map was pure oozing butter, political showmanship. Any campaign that defends 'hope' as a central theme is running on smooth jazz from Iowa to the white house. Bill Clinton was a master of the genre. The other day I watched his inauguration in 1992, when he was sitting behind Maya Angelou as she read her poem. His smile was so insanely wide, stretching from cheek to cheek, that even for a guy who had just become the 42nd president of the united states it passed my mind that he might have taken anti-anxiety pills or something.

That phony crap takes people from Hope, AK to the spotlight, whether their last name is Clinton or Huckabee. Hillary Clinton's problem is she's no good at it. She's not comfortable with crowds or spontaneity. She doesn't have a quivering voice that signals empathy (like her husbands) or a cadence that inspires. Her speeches, debates, and commercials are waterered-down policy papers voiced at a louder decibel.

Hillary Clinton is comfortable with a table or a room full of advisers. That's where she has been for the past 35 years, and that's why she might make a decent, middle-of-the-road president. She thinks in nuance, and she micro-manages to a fault. Successful politicians sell broad ideas -- like "shining city on a hill," or the "man from/the audacity of Hope." She sells a scattered collection of "good ideas," like universal pre-k or mandatory health care.

You would think the first women president of the united states could weave a tale of personal triumph and shattered glass ceilings, but Hillary Clinton sells none of that. The only personal myth she walks around with is the myth that the Rush Limbaughs of the world give her... the myth of a heartless, ambitious career politician, a cruel, emasculating maternal figure. And it sticks.

Yet despite what the world's 'stop hillary' merchandise implies, I don't believe she is actually cold, or uncaring. I think she is, and always has been, awkwardly suited for the public spotlight, more comfortable behind closed doors than in the public view. And that trait, her pre-disposition for Nixonian secrecy, is where I think she could be dangerous and self-defeating.

So you're voting for him because he's black. Martin Luther King would be so proud of you.

What about this man, other than his skin color, gets you excited? His positions are no different than any other candidate, and his rhetoric is different only in the skill in which it is delivered. "Reaching across the aisle.." Is that George W. Bush or Barack Obama, or both? He's Bill Frist in a black man's body.

Just to be on topic, I'm voting for Ron Paul because I'm a lunatic who wants to keep the money he's earned. Get me a straightjacket.

Also Nighttimer, do you notice the difference between the debate on Paul and the debate on Obama? The debate on Paul is about tax policies and foreign policies and the feasibility of their success. The debate on Obama is about his skin color.

Who Will you vote for? and who will you Not vote for?

Like CP, i am writing in Ron Paul for the presidency. Why? Its the Constitution stupid! I do not agree with every aspect of his platform, but his respect for constitutional values and limited government is something I didnt think I would see again in politics. He won't win the nomination, but it is extremely important for his limited government message to get out and become a major platform for the GOP again. So after years of Dem dominance in the Congress and White House, perhaps the limited government ideas can reemerge.

I kind of have a soft spot for John McCain. He is the only establishment GOP candidate I can stomach. I like his fiscal conservatism although he is far too hawkish in his rhetoric. In reality, I do not believe he is as hawkish as he appears.

Obama is another candidate I do not quite mind. I like his foreign policy and I think he has that "Proud to be an American" quality that Reagan had. Paul is the only other candidate with that quality in this race. I object to him being the "candidate of change" because I do not see much change in his policies - same old statist domestic positions. But I could live his presidency I think.

All of the others I find downright awful. Edwards is the worst of the bunch. How this former one term senator became a serious presidential contender baffles me. Huckabee is also very dangerous to me. He is a religious populist that is not very conservative. His electability 'strengths' are in areas where the President has no power and his weaknesses are in the areas where the President does.

I would have agreed with you, until today. McCain spoke to reporters during a Q & A session on the 3rd I believe.

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " (cut off by McCain)

McCain: "Make it a hundred."

Q: "Is that ..." (cut off)

McCain: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."

Q: [tries to say something]

McCain: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
Link

No wonder Iraqi's want us to leave. Why don't we save the trouble, and if McCain gets elected, we just annex Iraq and make it the 51st state. What we don't need, is another imperialist president.

Given the results in Iowa [and it looking like Biden won't endure], I will be supporting Mitt Romney. His economics keep in line with the general direction I would like to see things go, and the other important factor in my decision-making process is the candidate's view on same-sex marriage. Romey, while having changed positions on the issuse, seems relatively pro-gay rights.

I cannot see myself supporting [I can't vote, I'm three weeks too young] Clinton or Obama. Edwards couild win my support if he outlines his health care plan in greater detail.

Ask and you shall receive -Edwards health care plan.

Edwards health plan page.

And now you have why I won't vote for a Republican, or a democrat, if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination. McCain has not earned my vote. and neither has Obama, or Edwards. I don't even mention the rest of the republican field, they are so FUBAR that the entire republican party needs an enema.

I will vote third party before I vote for anyone but Ron Paul. And really, Ron Paul will probably run on the Libertarian ticket anyway.

I'm not voting for Barack Obama because he's Black. What an insipid remark. Only a White man in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness would make such a statement. Do you vote for a candidate because they're White, barnaby2341?

I'm not going to vote against Barack Obama because he's Black either. A large portion of Americans---White, Black and otherwise---will because they're cynical, racist or just don't like the man. I feel no reluctance in supporting a candidate who would make history should he win. Would you say to a Hillary Clinton supporter they are voting for her just because she's a woman? How far off the deep end do your vastly erroneous assumptions go?

Yes, I would enjoy voting for someone that looks like me for once in my lifetime for President of the United States. I would be pleased if my two children could see that through hard work and paying your dues your color is not a barrier to your success. It would be a thrill to see America could transcend it's racist past and ascend to a colorblind future where the content of character trumps the color of the skin.

So, if you think that means I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's Black, you're wrong. I'm voting for Barack Obama because it's his time.



If you want to dub Obama as "Bill Frist in a Black man's body" you're welcome to your assessment. I don't know what it means, but it's your definition, not mine. Unlike Senator Clinton whose negatives are so high she could never attract significant independent or Republican voters. Barack Obama has reached out to the Republican aisle to work with such individuals as Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar. He is not a polarizing politician, nor does he believe in the "scorched earth" tactic of destroying your opponent on a personal and ethical level.

I'm excited about Barack Obama because it's been a long time since America has seen a presidential candidate who doesn't spend all his time talking about class warfare, fear-mongering, and trying to divide people. It is a breath of fresh air to see people feeling there are candidates who try to resonate and connect with them and their concerns. If anything, I'm far more liberal than Obama, but I recognize that you have to be practical in politics and Obama is extremely pragmatic.

The debate on Obama is about his skin color? Really? Maybe it is for someone like you who doesn't see anything else but skin color. That is convenient because it saves you the effort of looking beyond race.

To be fair, you didn't add much detail for why you were "down" for Barack Obama other than he was "a break from the conventional wisdom that the White House is reserved only for White men." I read it in the same superficial way that barnaby2341 did.

Edit: Deleted insult

Let's see if I can say it a little plainer: Unless there is a seismic shift in the polls or the late entry of an X-factor (Al Gore, your phone is ringing), the odds are excellent that come this summer the Democratic Party will make either a Black man or a White woman their standard-bearer for the Presidency in 2008.

By any standard that represents a radical departure from the same old song and dance offered up by the Republicans.

And it would be a break from the conventional wisdom that The White House is reserved only for White men. Se habla englais?

Well, I am actually sorry I missed the dem part of the debates tonight- wouldn't you know that is about the only time of day I CAN'T watch the TV?

So, I would say, after watching the republican debate, I would say Huckabee came out an even more basically decent of a guy, but he is repeating alot of the same thing that the GW administration has done. I get the distinct impression we are being sold another song and dance "aw shucks , at least I am not those doofuses" without really helping my feeling that we are getting a right wing religious extremist in office. Don't need that either!

But of the republicans, while the ideas of Ron Paul are by far the best and most consistant, I found that I liked Huckabee more, McCain alot less, Thompson is in the basement, and Guiliani is a corrupt, lying joke.

To be fair, until I get to watch the debate on Youtube- my feelings are of thus about them (dems) -

Clinton goes into the debate, IMHO, looking very much like Mitt Romney- who was so toast in the debate I didn't even put him in the comment on the republican debate - very weak management shill. In fact, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton should divorce their prospective spouses and shack up in hell. - okay, that quote right there is copyrighted by ME.

Obama is the kid to beat, and looks it 100%. He comes off as nearly regal compared to every candidate in the field. Seriously- he LOOKS like he has hope. Everybody loves a winner. Everybody hates a winner.
Unless anyone in the field steps it up, or he has a serious mis-step, I am pretty confident at this point he has the nomination. Probably the presidency, though too early to call, no nomination and all at this time.

Edwards is doing great, frankly, much better than I thought. The last go-round has put him in the hunt due to his knowledge of what he did wrong last time. Seriously- notice that Obama and Edwards have very similar themed campaigns, and now, everyone is changing thier campaign slogans and themes to match Obama's and Edwards. Seriously- Obama and Edwards both have this "hope" and "change" themes, so look at the buses for the repubs today after Iowa. Of course, Romney's copies it the closest, by actualy using nearly the same words and all. Like "change"

So, not discussing policies at all, just on impressions of thier candidacy and campaigns at this time, I think Ron Paul seemed too smart for America, seriously. No one likes to be told we been doing it wrong all the time, especially when he is smarter than you and you know it. Seriously smarter. "I told you so has a brother" - his name is "shut the hell up"

Ron Paul is now also a pop star. Like Britney, except we have a good reason to pay attention.

Huckabee got a boost from the debates, overall winner of tonight, and looks like a winner.

Thompson, Romney are complete toast. Totally toast

McCain didn't come off even likable. Like most poeple are saying in that quite inner voice "man, I couldn't stand having to hear that dude for the next 4-8 years. Too crotchety.

Guiliani came off as "9/11 Rudy"- only. One trick pony, big time. Doesn't even look remotely "presidential". He shoudl stick to mayor of NY. They seem to like him or something.

So on the overall question- I liked Huckabee more, I like Edwards and Obama so far, and of course, I will vote for Ron Paul. And the whole world can still kiss my

No need to get snarky. Your first post just struck me as unusually focused on race, which in turn I considered rather hollow and superficial enough to justify barnaby2341 criticism without making him "a white man in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness." I feel the need to defend him, because, feeling sort-of the same thing he did, you are, in a way, calling me an infinitely arrogant white man.

I feel its a fair interpretation. I will relink all that you originally wrote about Obama:

Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to get personal with you.

Anyway, on to the main subject of the thread.

Candidate I would definitely vote for

Barack Obama is a candidate with the enthusiasm and courage necessary for real change, not the political kind. When he speaks, it absolutely seems like he believes every word of what he's saying while saying it convincingly. His speeches have a kind of alacrity; a type of moral clarity pinched with a sense of urgency that demonstrate his immunity from business-as-usual Washington politics. His ability to prioritize, communicate and motivate are far beyond all the candidates I have seen, ever.

Obama, however, has something more important going for him: He is brimming with intellectual integrity. Economics, being the subject I'm most comfortable with, has kind of become my yard-stick for integrity. His health-care plan will not have mandates. In the debate tonight (1/5/07), he accurately refuted Bill Richardson about the burden of a carbon tax while emphasizing that US citizens would be asked to sacrifice. Additional, this "left of center" candidate is being advised by a rather colorful economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, that believes todays wage disparity is cause not by upper class exploitation, but by "radically increased returns to skill." He also does not believe in protectionism.

Thus, Obama, to me, is someone that see's the benefit of differing opinions. The logic and reason that follows has been demonstrated in the political debates.

You can probably tell Obama has impressed me the most.

I voted for John McCain in the polls and would seriously consider voting for him given his experience. His Maverick appeal has certainly lost some color on the campaign trail, however, and I'm less than impressed with his war position (particularly considering his military experience).

I might be able to hold my nose and vote for Hilary Clinton because of her fierce intelligence, experience and ambition. In terms of integrity, however, she is the absolute opposite of Obama. Her rate-freeze pandering has really turned me off, and her positions are obviously nuanced to maximize political support, giving her entire campaign a very methodical feel.

Candidate I would never vote for

John Edwards is a class warrior. His plans show a complete ignorance of one side of the economy. God save us all if his foreign policy is just as naive.

Mitt Romney is perhaps the fakest candidate I have ever seen. I would elaborate, but I don't feel anyone here is foolish enough to defend him.

The rest, except for maybe Thompson, would make passable presidents.

I wanted to briefly lay down a thought on 'consistency' here, if any one is interested, since so much of the GOP debate last night orbited Mitt Romney's revolving record.

Regardless of who I am voting for, and who I agree with, I increasingly see two type of candidates in this race: the candidates whose presence I welcome, and those who I think are doing the political process a disservice. It boils down more or less like this:

Glad they're in the race

Ron Paul
John Edwards
Mike Huckabee
Barack Obama
John McCain
Bill Richardson
I guess, like Hunter
Dennis Kucinich

Ruining the process
Mitt Romney
Hillary Clinton
Rudy Giuliani


Here's my rational.

For a while, I've been thinking about why a consistency matters: I expect politicians to change their positions as they age into the political process. Faaar two many 20, 30, even 40 year olds think America is either a monolithic force for evil in this world... or on the other side, there are those 20, 30, 40 year olds who think America is the greatest, most innocent, freest nation on earth (but have yet to leave their own state's border). Anyone who, upon entering congress, does not refine and modify their viewpoints is to me, too dogmatic and too willfully ignorant to be a true leader. Adaptability is as important as conviction.

Last night Hillary attacked Barack for changing his position on a couple issues... good! He was a state senator when he came up with some of those positions. I would hope his time in the senate has informed his opinions.

But there is a different brand of inconsistency I have seen exhibited by the candidates in my "ruining the process" category. They are the candidates who, upon reading a fact sheet that "voters want change" suddenly change their tune, and insist that "change" is what they've been offering all along. If Iowans polled that they wanted above all else, a leader with some strawberry sherbet, Mitt Romney would be working in a Baskin Robbins tomorrow morning in front of a fawning media junket. He would be wearing a crisp, clean apron.

Take John Edwards, for example. Like most of us, I think that the classist prism through which he views economics would make him a radical, yet ultimately limited president. But -- and this is an important but -- class inequity is his issue. It's something he feels strongly about, knows about, and it's an issue that I don't think democrats would be discussing so much if it wasn't for his campaign. Economists can disagree about his premise, but he's putting it out there, and we can reasonably assume that part of his reason for running is that he would like to alleviate some of the homelessness, poverty, and inequity in this country. Fine and well.

Likewise Ron Paul. I think of Ron Paul as a kind of Karl Marx in the mirror: someone with a beautiful-sounding platform in which workers of all creeds will put aside their identity politics and take back their livelihoods from the elites who pick their pockets. A wonderful, self-actualizing manifesto that I believe would be disastrous if we ever tried to implement it. But that's my opinion, I could be wrong, and I'm very glad he is bringing those issues to the table for voters to consider. Like John Edwards, he presents ideas and realities that should be considered. Hooray!

With Hillary and Mitt, however, why are these people running? What are they adding other than their physical presence and a desire to modify their message in whatever way takes them into the oval office? I'm sorry, I'm sure Hillary deeply believes that she would be a great president, as does Mitt, and maybe they'd suffice. But when the rational for your presidency goes from having a "let's have a national conversation" to "ready to lead" to "the change we need" in one campaign cycle, what are you offering voters other than yourself?

Likewise, Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney was not at all about change: he even criticized Mike Huckabee for criticizing the exact commander-in-chief who everyone wants a "change" from. Then, suddenly, he and Mark Penn (Hillary's campaign chair) read the writing on the Iowan wall... next day, he barrels into the debate claiming he can "change america because he's changed many corporations."

My brother.

I don't mind inconsistency... I love it. I'm glad John Kerry voted for that body armor, but then voted against it for the complex senatorial reasons that senators handle legislation. Senators often trap other senators between Iraq and a hard place.

But when you change the rational of your presidency purely out of a desire to stomp Barack out of New Hampshire you add nothing to the process. You sully it up. Campaigns should be about ideas, things this country needs, directions we need to go. It's a perfectly logical argument that we should go back to the 1990s, but that argument gets lost in the din of desperation when your message revolves around the expediency of the moment.

Finally, take Barack... Barack, unlike Ron Paul or Rudy or Edwards doesn't really have a signature issue. He has a theme, and a series of variating policies (like supporting nuclear power and conducting diplomacy with rogue nations), but for the most part he is presenting himself as someone whose leadership style most qualifies him for the presidency. Great and valid point-- Bill Richardson makes a similar argument.

But I suspect, that tomorrow, if voters said they wanted their leaders more 'cynical' or more bitter, Barack wouldn't drop the hope thing and co-opt bits and pieces of his opponent's theme in a blind act of personal desperation/ambition. For example voters say his inexperience is a concern, and that Hillary's is her strength... he hasn't gone around insisting that he is "ready to lead," or citing some bogus experience that doesn't qualify.

He ended his victory speech Thursday talking about -- what else? -- hope:



That's what I'm looking for: adaptability, but essentially the "same message when we were up and when we were down." I want to know that if Barack changes his position it's not out of desperation or a desire to stomp out his opponents. I want to know that he has intellectual, personal, respectable reasons for taking his stance. I want to know that, if he was in congress in late 2002 when they voted on an "authorization to use military force against Iraq," he would have voted/not voted on it for as many non-political reasons as possible.

That motive makes all the difference.

I would vote for him even though I agree he does look a little “staged” – but no where near as much as Edwards who even tries to control and stage his facial expressions (and shows it) – he makes me ill listening to him.

Romney was an excellent governor of Mass and would have the job today if he stayed. IMO he would make a decent President and I prefer him to Giuliani.

I also like Huck who is so clearly honest and straightforward you know he cannot win in the world of nasty politics but…………….

I can't say that I'd count my chickens, or my chads, or whatever...
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html (this one is good... tons of polls)

It seems that across the polling data that there is some uncertainty. I think Mr. Obama (more and more) will have a good shot at the office, for a number of reasons. However, I don't know that it would be intelligent to make statements that solidify the race for a Democrat or Republican.

Anyway, I really can't get on board with anyone. If I have to choose my "lesser of evils", I"m going with Huckabee.

The problem I have with his policy revolves around the notion of Gay Marriage. More and More I could care less. I also HATE that he's a "build a fence" Republican. Do people really think that Mexicans don't have shovels?
Ayudame Jose? Donde esta las palas?... lol

Anyway. Huckabee does support the fair tax. He also is anti-abortion. He also is on-top of supporting Israel, and doesn't believe in gun control.

The issue is that nowadays, I think the waters are pretty muddy as to what actually will turn into policy when a President is in the oval office.

If a President ran on a ticket that made me feel like they'd ACTUALLY shore up the taxation gap (and mess), I'd vote for them regardless of whatever other issues there were. For me, I doubt Roe vs Wade will be overturned, I sincerely doubt that a President alone will change immigration policy and I don't know that I care, the war in Iraq won't go anywhere without congress and the Pres on the same page, and health care won't change drastically unless Nazi Clinton is elected.

Let's all pray that Romney isn't elected... except that he stays in the race for a little while (for business purposes exclusively).

As if Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bushes of all kinds weren't "staged."

First off this is politics in the age of mass media: every single thing is "staged." Anyone who is looking for a politician who doesn't seem "staged" is asking to be lied to, gently.

Secondly, you can say whatever you want about John Edwards -- I agree that the class prism through which he interprets every issue makes him a limited, even irksome candidate.

But if tomorrow, voters in New Hampshire said that the number one issue was terrorism, or gun control, or abortion, Edwards would still mainly harp on economics, still offer the same fundamental basis for his candidacy. He would still bring the same issues to light and emphasize the same solutions.

Mitt Romney on the other hand, is a do/say-anything-it-takes-to-get-elected politician in the same league as Hillary Clinton. If tomorrow, New Hampshire exit polls suggested that voters are seeking a president who plays the tuba, he and Hillary would sign up for lessons. They would march with Florida A&M.

So which bothers me more-- a candidate whose message I simply disagree with, and who seems "staged"? Or another "staged" candidate who adds nothing to the race except his own malleable ambition?

I wish republicans and democrats would both kindly nudge these sort of candidates out of the race. They are the candidates who grow up to be Richard Nixons. Their blatant pandering barely conceals their contempt for the American electorate, and that's a dangerous trait to have as a president.



I think that is one of the most beautifully phrased American arguments against a Hillary Clinton presidency I have ever heard. You just channeled Rush Limbaugh, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Elvis-circa-the-time-he-shot-the-televsion, all into one perfect rant against not just Hillary Clinton, but the incessant babbling heads that keep a media creature like her on life support. I've said before that I think Hillary would be an essentially effective, if dangerously secretive president, and I stand by that. However, no way on God's great earth do I want to watch 4, 8 or even 2 more years of her on television. I'm kind of hoping she loses conclusively on February 5th, gives a short concession speech then gives us a long break from all of it.

I will probably be voting for Huckabee, because in my opinion he is a very substantial candidate. I could go on, but I choose not. Overall though, I'll gladly take anyone BUT Hilary.

Obama is my current choice, and hopefully(pun intended) I won't have to revisit that. However, if I must, I can reveal the remainder of my current status.

I really hope the Democratic candidate isn't Hillary, but I'm reaching the point of acceptance that if Obama isn't the nominee, Hillary will be. My angst regarding her candidacy is conflicted, but fairly passionate. I'd love to see a woman in the oval office just as much as I'd like to see anyone other than a white male for a change. However that desire is trumped by the substance of the candidate, and Hillary proves this to a T, as in triangulation. She strikes me as the classic politician, similar to her husband, that allows her positions to be dictated by the polls rather than backed by conviction and substance. While that certainly isn't unique to most presidential candidates, it seems to present itself in a particularly acute fashion with Clinton.

Second, I'm just tired of the dynastic nature of presidential politics of late. I don't want a Bush, a Clinton, a Kennedy or any other family ascending to the most powerful position in the world. I'm hungry for change, and Obama seems to represent the greatest chance of that actually taking place.

On the Republican side, none of them really appeal to me. McCain did in 2000 and prior, but he seems to have sold his soul for the presidency. Huckabee scares the heck of out me, given some of his antiquated views of evolution and science. Giuliani scares me even more, because I think he would actually be more of a power grabber than Bush/Cheney. And Romney, well, ...its just not worth going there. I like Paul's libertarian leanings in some affairs, but some of his other policy positions scare the bejeebus out of me.

If its Obama vs. anyone, I'm going Obama. If its Clinton vs. McCain, I'll have some soul searching to do. Clinton vs. everyone else, I'll hold my nose and choose her.

I decided I'm voting against Republican: corruption, illegal wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, rendition, torture, the war and finally reneging on the principals which made Republicans an honorable party (states' rights, limited government and controlling spending). Republicans need to clean house and only a massive electoral loss will achieve this. I wouldn't mind a McCain win (but he's the only one). Ron Paul stands no chance.

Thus, if I don't vote Libertarian (which I probably will), I'll probably vote Democrat. I'd probably vote Libertarian if Clinton gets the nod: Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton...ugh.

Ya but Edwards is so obviously phony that it is sickening – imo. And Hillary has had some of the same problems. She seemed to say what each the audience wanted to hear and as it became obvious the trust in her dropped. Now they are saying her teary eyed appeal may have made the difference in NH.

Obama is so obviously saying what he feels that it is refreshing. The fact that he actually says little of substance is not, apparently, as important to many as how he says it. Huck is the same except imo his positions are more clear.

My last answer was Paul in the primary and that remains the same, and probably the Libertarian candidate in the general. But with the announcement of a possible Bloomberg (I) run, I'll take a look at his platform before making up my mind for November. Heck, the LP hasn't decided on their candidate yet either, so I'll be in the wait and see mode.

I will not vote for any of the slate of frontrunning candidates from the left or the right. I will not vote for partisan slapfights, I will not vote for business as usual. I will not vote for arrogant imperialism, and I will not vote for any candidate that wishes to keep stealing my income in the form of taxes; from federal down to inane permit fees. I will not vote for any candidate who doesn't want me to view pornography, perform certain activities in my bedroom, or buy beer on Sunday. I will not vote for a candidate who believes that we need more Seawolf Submarines and microwave crowd dispersal systems when the standard issue M4 Assault Rifle has a far higher jam and malfunction rate than any other comparable rifle.

nighttimer



Sorry I had to but in when I heard this one.

White doesn't = racist, or arrogant. While black doesn't necessarily = not arrogant, or not racist. To say that only a white man in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness would make such a comment, is an obvious indicator that you view the white man as arrogant and clueless. That in itself is an arrogant and racist thing to say, I don't care what you were told. You having made that comment I'm assuming you will naturally deny its arrogance or prejudice, but people will remember such comments the next time you go to talk about race issues, which you seem to do a great deal.

net2007, you have established that you can't spell very well, but can you read?

I never said being White equates being racist or arrogant. What I said was directed toward ONE. SPECIFIC. WHITE. MAN. named barnaby2341.

I do not view the White man as arrogant and clueless. I do view some specific White men as arrogant and clueless. When someone is so arrogant and clueless as to say something as insultingly insipid as, "So you're voting for him because he's black", I don't assess that as mere political discourse. A remark like that strikes me as arrogant and clueless and I'm not going to describe it as anything else. If you want someone to tell you chicken manure is really chicken salad, look elsewhere because I am not the one to tell you.

So you're voting for him because he's black.


A remark like that is condescending, sneering and patronizing. It's a put-down. Nobody patronizes me. Not barnaby2341, not you, not anyone. It gets on my nerves when anyone suggests Black people don't use the same process of deliberation, comparison, analysis, study, reasoning and judgment in arriving at a decision as White people do. It's racist crap and I'm not about to permit such a malicious slur to go unchallenged and unanswered. If that ruffles your sensibilities, net2007, that's your problem.

Let me clear up something for you, net2007. I don't come to America's Debate because I'm lonely and looking for buddies. There are friendlier places to hang out. I'm not interested if what I write makes you smile with joy or scream in anger. I'm not concerned if you like me or despise me. I don't need your permission and don't want your acceptance. I say what I think and don't care what you think. If that means I offend 99 people and delight one, that's an acceptable ratio for me.

I talk about race issues a great deal because a lot of supposedly smart people on this board can say some really silly, stupid and downright racist things about race. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there aren't a lot of Black posters on . Some leave rather quickly because they can't stomach the imbecilic and cretinous attitudes about Blacks occasionally casually expressed here. Is the problem that you're accustomed to Black people who tell you what you want to hear instead of what they think?

If it is, stick around. You'll get used to it.

Who Will you vote for? and who will you Not vote for?

I'm still kind of making up my mind here on the Republican side. My heart is still with Fred Thompson (Hoisting another one for Fred), but my brain is seriously considering John McCain. Of all of the GOP candidates, no question McCain is the most qualified to be President. He might do some goofy things once in office, but not nearly as bad as any of the Democrat candidates would do. McCain has the best chance to keep a disaster like Obama, Clinton or Edwards out of the White House and that's a big deal.

I'd pretty much support any of the GOP candidates over the evil three Democrats, except for Ron Paul. The guy is a complete idiot and his mother dresses him funny. Hell, I'd vote for Hillary over him.


Aquilla

While it is exceptionally hard to argue with something that substantive, Aquilla, may I ask why you would vote for Hillary Clinton over Dr. Paul?

CP

While I would not vote for Hillary over Ron Paul, I'd probably vote for Obama over him. Ron Paul is way too much of a pacifist and isolationist for the current political (and economic!) climate.

Last night's debate solidified that for me. His reference to what happened in the Straights of Hormuz the other day with the Gulf of Tonkin was tin foil hat time. His constant insistence that the US is bankrupt shows a fundamental misunderstanding of real world economics (is every homeowner "bankrupt" because they owe money on their home, even if they have negative equity?).

I've been through some of the reasons I dislike Paul as a candidate in other forums here and I won't bore anyone by repeating them. But, basically, Ron Paul's "message" if you can call it that is to turn US policy back in time to the late 19th-early 20th century. He thinks we're some sort of an island that can just ignore the rest of the world and they'll leave us alone. His response last night to a Middle East question concerning the talks President Bush is having there right now was ludicrous. He said if the US would just stay out of the peace process, Israel and the Arabs would work things out themselves. Do you believe, that CP? He claims to be a strict Constitutionalist, yet as a part of his Immigration policy, he wants to violate the 14th Amendment. That tells me Paul's version of the Constitution is what Paul thinks it is. He claims to be a strong fiscal conservative and to look at his voting record a case could be made for that, except for one thing. He's a sneaky politician. He inserts earmarks in spending bills, 56 of them to the tune of $400 MILLION last year alone for his district, then he turns around and votes against the overall bill, knowing full well it will pass. Best of both worlds isn't it? Talk about having your pork and eating it too.......

Now, about Hillary. Of the 3 remaining candidates, she's by far the most conservative which tells you just how far left the Democratic Party has moved. I would have liked to see Bill Richardson remain in the race because he would have made things very interesting in a general election against some of the GOP candidates. I would have strongly considered him over Rudy or Romney I think. But, all we're left with is Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Of the three, Hillary is the known commodity. Edwards is a whacklib snake oil salesman and Obama is largely an unknown quantity. I've read through his platform, short on specifics, high on platitudes. Near as I can tell, he's just another liberal that wants to grab my wallet and tell me what to do. No thanks. Hillary isn't much different, but at least we know how to tell her, "No". We've done it before, we can do it again.


Aquilla

Well, I would have to support and vote for Huckabee. He was the governor of my state for about 10 years... got into office first by throwing his predecessor out because of being convected felon. He has a record on health care... supporting the ARKids First program (insurance for kids who are members of near of below poverty level family). He supported repairing I-40 in Arkansas... one of the worst section of interstate. When Katrena hit, he sent buses down there to help people... and some people commented if the Feds are going to fit the bill... He commented that that doesn't matter what matters is that people are hurting and need of help down there... and he sent some National Guard troops down there to help deal with the mess.

One thing I do have some questions about is that he supported tuition for children of illegals... but his reasoning for it I believe is sound... their children shouldn't be forced to pay for their parents mistakes. I remember that the founding fathers said something like that and it is hinted in the Constitution.



From what I can tell he is a right leaning moderate and overall a very good executive.

More importantly, he wants to put the Federal Government back in it's place. His message, if you listen closely enough is that all of the wasteful programs and agencies can be done at the State level. It is not necessary, or granted by the Constitution, to be operated at the Federal level.


That is a strong opinion.


How much help have we been?


Actually, it would be a Constitutional Amendment that would be needed to enact his immigration policy. Nothing unconstitutional about that, is there? I don't remember him saying that the U.S. Constitution can't be amended, but if you have please share that with us.

I don't think the 56 earmarks are common knowledge, so please provide a link.

In response, though, his constituents have the right to request the pork, and he is honoring their requests instead of ignoring them. That is his job as he works for them. Just because he puts the pork in, doesn't mean that he has to support it. He was elected based on his political philosophy, and in that philosophy, he decides not to vote to support the bill. I see nothing wrong with it. But you can spin it however you want.

It is true that Ron Paul's stated immigration policy would require a repeal of the 14th Amendment - a process in which the President has no role. As it stands right now, his immigration policy is unconstitutional. He has introduced a bill to repeal the 16th amendment (income tax) as a member of Congress. HR.46 But, nothing to repeal the 14th. Thus, it would seem to me that his stated immigration policy kinda puts the cart ahead of the horse and his personal interpretation of the Constitution different than what it says. Bad form for a "strict Constitutionalist".




Actually, it was 65 earmarks (little dyslexia here I guess). And you want a link? You got one.



I can spin it? Seems to me the one twisting around here is you. We hear all these platitudes about the honorable Dr. Paul, a man of principle and yada yada yada, then when it comes time for him to feed at the public trough, he's right up there at the head of the line.

"Just because he puts pork in doesn't mean he has t support it" What in the hell does that mean? Is that like voting for something before voting against it? And you think I'm spinning here?

Aquilla

Aquilla, that link is just an opinion piece on WSJ with no sourcing. However, I found a better link: Ron Paul Earmarks (sorry, it's a pdf).


It's important to contextualize Ron Paul's stance on earmarks: In defense of Ron Paul's earmarks. Here he argues:
which is an interesting argument. Basically, he's saying it's better for Congress to direct the funds rather than the Executive Branch.

So, in effect, he's hedging his bets. If he the bill goes down (because he voted against it), then he wins. If the bill succeeds (despite his vote), then he wins. Whether or not this is a principled stance, I'll leave for the supporters/detractors to decide.

I didn't cite the opinion portion of that article, just the factual basis of Ron Paul's earmarks record.




I strongly disagree with the contention that cutting back on earmarks does not cut spending. Congress controls the purse strings, not the executive branch. If Ron Paul's $400 MILLION request in spending for his district is refused by Congress, that doesn't mean it will have to get spent somewhere else. Just reduce the appropriation by $400 MILLION. Nice chunk of change, even by today's standards.






Hedging his bets...... Ok, call it what you want.

Aquilla

The President can't introduce legislation into Congress? I didn't know that. Just because he wouldn't have a vote, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have any influence. How do you think any of the canddiates will get any of their proposed platforms into law? Are you saying that the President can change immigration laws? Are you saying that the President can enact single payer, socialized, or any other form of government funded healthcare? Any of the candidates that are proposing those changes have no role in the actual legislation process either. What difference does it make what issue is being discussed, besides the fact that you will argue against anything related to Ron Paul?


By the argument provided above, unless the bill is specifically appropriating the money, not directing the money, of course cutting back earmarks does not cut spending. In other words, unless the appropriation bill is specifically distributing the money, putting earmarks into a bill is not expanding the spending, just directing it. If the bill is establishing the budget, and the budget expands due to earmarks, then the spending expands. If the bill is not establishing a budget, but is completely unrelated (see any war spending bill from last year) then the earmarks are simply directing where the already established budget gets spent. I think I would rather have my representatives direct the spending than either the President or some appointed bureaucrat. Needless to say, I don't think it has to be said that I think pretty much any federal budget can use some cutting.

There is a considerable difference between enacting legislation in the form of Immigration reform like a guest worker program, etc. and enacting a Constitutional Amendment that repeals at least in part the 14th Amendment. How long would that take to happen assuming it would happen at all, and what would President Paul do in the meantime? Repealing the 16th Amendment to eliminate the income tax - same thing. What would President Paul do in the meantime in the area of tax reform? I've posted at length here on AD about my objections to Ron Paul's 'pie in the sky" grand ideas and about how unrealistic they truly are in the context of what he could truly accomplish as President. Support Ron Paul, ok by me although you could just as well support Don Quixote as a write-in for all the good it will do.

So many people here seem to think that Ron Paul is some sort of a "revolutionary" with all brand new great ideas. Well, he's not and his ideas have been around since the founding of the Libertarian Party back in 1971. Show of hands, how many of you have ever attended a Libertarian Party National Convention? <= waving my hand I have and Ron Paul has the same problems that the Libertarians have always had. They are more attached to dogma than they are to pragmatism. They tell you where they want to go, but not how they propose to get there. I'm not about to support putting someone in the White House who can't even find the road they want to take.


Aquilla