I, me, BaphometsAdvocate, can't think a of a single decent candidate to vote for in the upcoming Presidental Elections. I mean what a pack of losers. In my estimation the Republicans want to be out of power or they wouldn't have put up such a pathetic group of flawed candidates:

Huckabee - Religious wacko that won't sell to most of the Republican base
Romney - Cult member who won't sell to nearly anyone
Guiliani - Clearly not interested in the job and more Liberal than Conservative
McCain - RINO (Republican In Name Only) and one day closer to death
Paul - Just too weird, too scary and too weird

The Democrats seem to have joined some kind of death cult. While Clinton and Edwards would likely survive their only term they'd probably kill the economy completely with their unrealistic health care. After spending 2007 traveling across America I can assure that the USA is not in any way shape or form ready for a black President. Someone will kill this guy if he's elected. I don't want that to happen, I'm just telling you - I have spoken to America and someone will kill this guy within months of his Swearing In.

Clinton - Too many flaws to list not the least of which is do we really want to go Bush Clinton Bush Clinton?
Obama - Seems like a really nice guy but pay attention to his running mate because that's who'll be running the country when some racist nutjob turns his head into a red spray.
Edwards - This guy is such a loser he couldn't win dog catcher in his home town.

OK so, Questions for debate:

How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?

Who should I be looking at more closely?

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

I'm short on time, but I'll answer this one part. I may have more later.

I think the race to the bottom is between Romney and Huckabee. Romney is slick and seems to have as much trouble taking a position as a fly has finding a permanent place to light. Romney, in fact, reminds me of a housefly. He's pesky, hard to swat and won't go away. Huckabee needs to sit down and shut up, particularly with all the babble crafted to please the "God Club."

How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?

Um, not too far off, but not all that great either.

Huckabee - Religious wacko that won't sell to most of the Republican base Not too far off- but you mistake how big that "base" of hard right christians is- look at the student numbers at Bob Jones University- we have a very large Taliban-like base in this country.

Romney - Cult member who won't sell to nearly anyone- I don't think it is the "cult" issue at all- it is the fact that he sucks and is a politician through and through
Guiliani - Clearly not interested in the job and more Liberal than Conservative- "9/11" Rudy is a one trick pony, and stomped all over the constitution when it suited him. Don't need a dictator in the country either.

McCain - RINO (Republican In Name Only) and one day closer to death - "100 years" of Iraq. Way to hawkish for our country. We don't need a guy in there that invisions the world as "Pax-Americana" empire. Old dudes with legacies to leave scare me. I want them to have to live with thier legacy a while.

Paul - Just too weird, too scary and too weird- ya, freedom and liberty, those things are just too scary and wierd for Americans to live under. Takes personal responsibility and good choice making abilities and all that. Who has that these days?



Who should I be looking at more closely?

Ron Paul. Even if he won two full presidencies, it is silly to think he has any hope of a 100% success in implementing 100% of his party's platform, after all, the Democrats and Republicans haven't been able to make thier entire platorms' into law yet. What makes you think that the Libertarian party will get it's platform passed into the law and the constitution with just the head of the executive branch in power?

We would probably move towards many of the things you do agree with BA- closing entitlement programs, stopping pork spending, and a shakeup in the demipublican party. That would be a realistic outcome were Paul elected.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

Last election no doubt. Kerry and GW. Yuck. Edwards would have done better I believe. Though the Gore-GW election cycle was horrid too- if Gore would have had Clinton's electability and charisma, I believe we would be looking at the end of a second term of a man that would go down in history as a "great statemen" instead of the worst president in US history, universally disrespeted.

Well OK on paper he seems like _my_ candidate but I am having a hard time getting past his newsletters and the absolute psychopaths that are backing him. Plus, let's face it he's not going to win anything anytime soon. I always vote for the guy who comes in fourth... I want to at least come in second this time.

How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?

To you, not wrong at all. You just look at things differently from the way I do.

Who should I be looking at more closely?

I think you're probably going to end up holding your nose and voting for a Republican, whoever it is.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

To me, the GOP has the worse pack of candidates, but they are being whittled down as surely as the Democratic slate is being whittled down.

I would be happier with Senator Clinton if she sounded less like a Republican. I do not feel she is liberal by any stretch of the imagination, unless you include the social issues that Governor Huckabee likes to emphasize like abortion and gay marriage. She is essentially a hawk, and she also has the same list of affiliations (like the Council on Foreign Relations and possibly the Trilateral Commission) that most of our recent leaders have been a part of, so this tells me that what she will bring to the White House is more of the same thinking. More of the same thinking would suggest a continuation of the same problems, but she may surprise us. Maybe it's the "girl's" turn to mess things up for a change; the boys have done a royal job of it.

NAFTA and CAFTA both are harmful to our work force as long as corporate leaders are more concerned about immediate profits than the larger picture for working Americans. I would like to see protective tariffs and someone take a tougher stance with China and its practices.

Senator Barack Obama might be the target of some fanatic's hate-filled violence at some point, but history has also shown us that white men are also in the gunsights of these types. That's why there is a Secret Service. Can we honestly say that any of these candidates will be safe when s/he wins the election? I am equally certain that someone might take violent exception to having a woman at the helm. God forbid that anyone get harmed, regardless of their race/gender/politics.

Senator Edwards is a populist. Yes, it is possible that a good-looking, slick Southern lawyer with a humble background can actually be concerned with the plight of not-so-fortunate Americans and might actually do some good for said Americans.

It just seems to me that the distribution of our taxes is wrong. How long has our government been concentrating on weapons and defense contractors, rather than on keeping the work force employed and insured and ensuring a future for our kids?

If we're not waging war in so many places against an enemy that is good at hiding until they figure it's time to strike, we can use the funds to provide better monitoring of our seaports, and we can employ more guards at our borders. Sometimes I wonder how many of our retail store parking lots and public buildings will still have non-handicapped parking spaces after this misadventure in Iraq is over.

And what about the care of those veterans whose minds and bodies have been mutilated? It seems like we're so eager to get the troops out there with their guns and call them heroes, but then we seem to treat them like some kind of embarrassment if they come back injured instead of marching smartly off the planes/boats or quietly stowed away in flag-draped coffins.

From the get-go, the Republican slate looked like a bunch of job applicants for some Fortune 500 company, all white, all male, and wearing similar-looking "power" suits as per their media consultants prescribed. With the exception of Ron Paul, they all sounded pretty much the same with their mantra, W.W.R.R.D. (What would Ronald Reagan do?).

I would go for Ron Paul because he understands and wants to actually follow the Constitution; however, I've noticed that many of those who support him don't even recognize what dire consequences there would be should public education be eliminated (You think there is widespread ignorance now...).

What is wrong with the idea of the government actually serving the people and minding its own business when it comes to their personal lives and communications? Is it possible to follow the Constitution and still interpret it as a document designed to serve the people, not just provide a skeletal framework regarding defense and legal rights? I think so, and that is why I am voting Democratic.

P.S. The slate of candidates on both sides may appear to be bleak, but at least this time we have had a larger selection and (God knows) more of a chance to hear what they have to say. That's not all bad.

Look, I'm going to admit I've looked at barack the same way. And it's not because he's black. If Colin Powell, Dennise Majette, Harold Ford, or Carol Mosely Braun won the nomination, I think they'd be generally pretty safe.

But the reason I could see Barack being... -- god forbid, I won't use the verb -- is a mixture of his race and his utopianism.

To substantiate my point, here's something rock critic Robert Christgau wrote after the death of John Lennon.



Barack Obama faces the same work hazard that struck down Bobby Kennedy, MLK, John Lennon and John Kennedy, and let's not forget, Ronald Reagan. Each of those men trumpeted a utopian message of hope and reconciliation that hit a chord with american audiences and, in turn, made them far more powerful than a Hillary Clinton, or a Richard Nixon, or a Paul McCartney. When you bring hope and utopianism into the public sphere -- and not the schlock kind of hope that Neil Diamond or John Kerry talked about, but real visible hope such as Barack, arguably inspires, and Reagan inspired, and the Kennedy's inspired -- when you bring that kind of vision into the public sphere and rally mainstream america around it, your going to irritate a lot of people on the fringes who feel they've decisively lost the political battle of their lifetime... much the way John Wilkes Booth surely felt in the weeks after Lee's surrender. Like Lee, they will view you as a tyrant,
not so much because of your elected position, but because of your capacity to change, irrevocably the hopes, vision, and direction of American life.

That said I don't think any Californians in 1968 regretted their primary vote the day after Bob Kennedy got killed. I don't think anyone regrets voting his older into office because they helped push him into office/harm's way. In fact, post-assassination polling found that millions of Americans 'remembered' voting for John Kennedy or claimed to have voted for him that definitely didn't. If he could run against Richard Nixon again today, he'd win in a landslide of epic proportions.

Reagan could have easily died. He could have been the William McKinley of the 1980s, but would you have regretted voting for him? If that bullet struck his chest, not his arm, and then you woke up the next morning back in November, 1980 -- Reagan's "There you go, again" quip still being replayed across the TV as a fresh news story -- would you vote for Jimmy Carter?

No way is the threat of assassination enough to change my vote. Barack and his family have decided to put themselves in harms way, and I applaud them for it. They're doing what's best, and they have secret service to protect him.

This is one of Malcolm X's last and most memorable speeches. It was delivered seven days before his death, ominously, at a place called Ford's Theater in Detroit. His house had been bombed the night before. Whatever you think of Malcolm X, you have to applaud the sentiment of the following passage:



I'll comment on the rest of your candidates later.

1. As a Democrat, I can say your assessment of the Democratic candidates is totally off the mark. I would be very happy voting for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards in November. Obama is my first choice, but I could live with a President Edwards or President Clinton. It's the Republicans who seem to have issues with every one of their candidates. If I were a conservative and/or a Republican, I could find significant reasons not to vote for McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee or Paul. Happily, that isn't a dilemma I have to face.

2. Here's a Candidate Match Game by USA Today that may be of assistance. Of course, it includes candidates who have dropped out, but it may still give you some ideal of who deserves a better look. I ended up with Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama as my first, second and third choices so two out of three ain't bad.

3. Here's a more motley crew of candidates to choose from. In 1988 you had George H.W. Bush tee off against Michael Dukakis. God, that was painful! I knew Dukakis was roadkill from the jump and I had zero minus zero enthusiasm for the guy.

But check out some of these other choices:

DEMOCRATS: Douglas Applegate, Bruce Babbit, Joe Biden, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Patricia Schroeder, Paul Simon (the senator, not the singer).

REPUBLICANS: Bob Dole, Pierre (Pete) DuPont IV, Ben Fernandez, Al Haig, Jack Kemp, Paul Laxalt, Pat Robertson, Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Stassen

INDEPENDENTS: David Duke, Lenora Fulani, Ron Paul

In words of one syllable: Ugh.

I'd like to address one of your earlier remarks, BA.



Senator Barack Obama has been under Secret Service protection since last May. Usually, Secret Service protection is extended to the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees after the national conventions, but Obama was assigned a security detail earlier than any presidential contender ever has before. As a former First Lady, Senator Hillary Clinton already has a Secret Service detail. Following his win in Iowa, Obama's protection has been beefed up.

MANCHESTER, N.H.-- Secret Service presence has increased for Sen. Barack Obama since his dramatic win in Iowa, amid fears over the safety of the man seeking to become America's first black president.

The Illinois senator's security now rivals that of President Bush, with a dozen Secret Service agents wearing dark suits and earpieces leading bomb-sniffing dogs through event venues, sweeping all equipment brought by journalists and flanking the candidate as he plunges into crowds of supporters.

"For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed, and it is on people's minds," said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a Princeton University professor of political science and contemporary black culture.

"You can't make a prediction like this--like he has 'a 50 percent chance of getting shot.' But the greater his visibility and the greater his access to people, there is a danger," she said. link

I'm not blind to the fact that there are a lot of nuts out there who figure their ticket to notoriety would be to put a bullet in the first Black man with a realistic chance of becoming the President of the United States, but I'm damn sure Obama isn't either. What is he supposed to do? Drop out and slink back to the Senate and hope that makes him less of a target? Win the nomination, but decline it because he's afraid he's going to catch a slug?

Obama knows what has happened to Black people who have challenged the status quo and the conventional wisdom. He can either accept the risks or live in fear. All he has to do is say nothing, do nothing and be nothing. Maybe then the nuts will move on to some other target, but the chance anyone takes when they become a public figure is there will be those who go beyond mere dislike to a genuine threat. All that can be done is to take the necessary precautions and go on about the business of living as ordinary and normal a life as possible.

It's a pretty sad commentary if those of us who'd like to vote for Barack will have to do so with the knowledge that by voting our conscience we may be partially responsible if he gets his brains blown out.

I'd like to think that I can tell my kids they can look to a strong Black man or woman who tries to play by the rules and reach for goals that were previously only wild fantasies and not fear they're going to turn on a television and watch his head dissolve in "a red spray."

There's a certain amount of risk involved in just getting out of bed in the morning. It's a scary world out there some days and it's damned tempting to pull the covers over your head and say, "The world can get along fine today without my participation."

Problem is, SOMEBODY has to be responsible for making sure things get done. You can't blind yourself to the reality that if you take a stand somebody may take offense and try to shut you down, but damned if you can just sit back and hope things will just turn out fine as long as someone else steps up to the plate. What if you are that someone?

I'm afraid what could happen to Barack Obama if he wins. But not as afraid as I would be thrilled if he did.

Damnit... I got Ron Paul, Barack Obama and Rudy Guiliani.... how is that mix even possible?

1.) Your assessment of Romney is a bit off-the-mark but the arrow still goes true. He appealed to the people of Michigan.

2.) McCain. Perhaps the Republican Party needs someone with a different agenda than the rest of the policy-makers.

3.) I sincerely believe with every fiber of my sinful being that the answer is Mike Huckabee. While very calm and courteous about the fact that most of us shall be roasting for all eternity with the people that really make the world fun [if you think about it ], Huckabee has an agenda all-too-theocratic for me. While Mr. Bush has been rather public concerning his faith, I doubt he's ever believed he's in constant contact with the invisible creator in absentia from most people's internal monologue. People burned Joan of Arc for trying to do a supernatural being's will, and Huckabee is trying to do it legally.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed when someone like Huckabee can flout the separation of Church and State we enjoy in this country and tries to inject religious affiliation with his policies of a secular nation. Say what you want about the founding of America and the Christian policies of the Founding Fathers and I'll point you in the direction of Jefferson and Adams and Franklin, great men who all-in-all feared a government run or heavily influenced by a religious group.

I'm with you, that mix is mind boggling!

I am not surprised with my results: Paul, Thompson, The Glove. I would prefer The Glove were not included.

At this juncture, beating up on Giuliani feels like slapping a paralyzed horse on its way to the glue factory... but... well, it needs to be said.

The esteemed (?) newspaper from which my screen name derives decided to go against my interests and nominate Hillary over Barack (New York Times = comprehensive global coverage, but not known for its progressive vision. Arthur Salzberger has been a slow-motion disaster for the paper.) Buuuut...

They had this much dead-on, in my view:



*Very true. I wasn't here during Giuliani, but I've heard the details, the complaints, the grudges voiced, eight years later. I still see 'f*** whites' spray painted on bridges and scrawled with a pocket knife on thick plastic subway windows -- the tension is terrible, especially after an event like the Sean Bell killing (in which cops shot a would-be groom the night before his wedding.) I can imagine what it was like when those sorts of things occurred more commonly.

Now, of course, New York has been the main stage of America's racial and ethnic tension since the Irish forced the Italians to worship Mother Mary in the basement of their greenwhich village churches... or since Malcolm X set up a soap box on what is now Malcolm X blvd... or since Spike Lee shot "25th Hour." But Giuliani's tenure certainly didn't unify the city. Barack Obama he is not.

We should count our blessings. Look at what's happening in Kenya right now. The Italian government is on the brink of collapse (which effects the entire EU as a member state). Thailand is now under military dictatorship. Boring is good.

Let's see....
1)"Huckabee - Religious wacko that won't sell to most of the Republican base"
I'm not sure I'd call him a wacko, but I agree that his appeal is limited.

2)"Romney - Cult member who won't sell to nearly anyone"
Pretty much in agreement.

3)"Guiliani - Clearly not interested in the job and more Liberal than Conservative"
Probably true about the first. I don't think he's more liberal than conservative, though. We're almost all liberal in this forum if you're speaking of only social issues.

4)"McCain - RINO (Republican In Name Only) and one day closer to death"
Definitely disagree with the first, but I do agree he is old for the job. Senile dementia sets in at a certain age. He is a true Republican, though...he just doesn't tow the party line in all things, which is very good in many cases.

5) Per Paul, I don't think he stands a chance. I don't think he's crazy, though. I agree with a great deal of what he says.

6)"Clinton - Too many flaws to list not the least of which is do we really want to go Bush Clinton Bush Clinton?"

Exactly. She is also highly unlikeable. Even Robert Reich is fed up with the Clintons. Ouch. But I find myself in rare agreement with Reich.

7)"Obama - Seems like a really nice guy but pay attention to his running mate because that's who'll be running the country when some racist nutjob turns his head into a red spray."

Nah. I like him, and I don't believe he is in mortal peril. It's doubtful that anyone who would want to kill him simply because he is black would be smart enough to find a way to do it with security as tight as it is. Think of how many people hate Bush, yet there have been no successful attempts on taking his life. I really really doubt that it hasn't been tried.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

That's easy. Bush/Kerry GAH! That was a bad election year.

Interesting- I got Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinch, Ron Paul.

Makes me even more libertarian than I thought I guess

Ha ha. I got: McCain, Gravel, Huckabee. I guess I'd vote for McCain if he weren't running for a Republican party nomination, but Gravel & Huckabee? That makes no sense.

Read 'em and weep:

1. Dennis Kucinich (my local Rep!)
2. Duncan Hunter
3. Mike Gravel

Beat that hand.

1 - Giuliani
2 - Paul
3 - Romney

I'm not super-jazzed about anybody, but could live with Rudy or Mitt.
Figures. When I reset the sliders to emphasize topics (less war, same-sex marriage and global warming, more economy and immigration), they stayed in the same order.

Actually- Gravel is a libertarian- though left leaning. That four axis style quiz stuff.

Huckabee has some cross over issues, "populist" I think they are called.

How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?

I think you are way off but that may be the difference of our politics speaking. I think this is the best crop of candidates in my voting lifetime.

Who should I be looking at more closely?

You should be looking at the other groups of candidates for the job in different election years. Which of these would you prefer to be voting for this year?

Tsongas, Kerry, Gore, Carter, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Ferraro, Hart, Jackson, Mondale?
Dole, Buchanan, Quayle, Alexander, Graham, Baker, Connelly, Lugar, Spectre, Wilson?
Anderson, Perot, Forbes, Nader?

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, & 1976

I got Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Rudy Giuliani. My personal preferences prior to taking this quiz were Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards. When I adjust the importance of the issues I get Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. I am very satisfied with the results.

Ooh, yay - a chance to say something nasty about all the candidates! (w00t) But, yeah, it's a pretty dismal field. Then again, from my point of view, that is absolutely nothing new. I don't think I've voted for a presidential candidate in close to thirty years.

How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?

Not far off, though, as has been suggested, it reflects your prejudices rather than my own. My sentiments? With the possible exceptions of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, all of the candidates are way too right-wing - and, with the possible exceptions of Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, they're all too authoritarian. (See below.)

Who should I be looking at more closely?

If "scary and weird" is the best you can do, probably Ron Paul.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

This year is pretty bad (though there are one or two candidates that aren't entirely execrable), but there have been others as bad. Considering it was the US Bicentenniel, 1976 was pretty bad: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and George Wallace - and three of them actually served as president. :o Mind you, Jimmy Carter wasn't a terrible candidate through any major fault of his own. He was bad for the same reason that Barack Obama is bad: too much of an outsider, too much of an innocent; the candidate of ineffectual change. And, as nighttimer pointed out, 1988 wasn't all that auspicious, either. But to find worse than 2008, you'd probably have to go back to 1852. I mean, Franklin Pierce, Stephen Douglas, William Marcy, James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, Millard Filmore, and Winfield Scott? Come on.

As to Baphomet's assessment:

Huckabee - Religious wacko that won't sell to most of the Republican base Definitely a wacko, but he's a man who bastardizes religion to support his prejudices - not what I'd call "religious". More sacrilegious. Therefore, he could sell to a significant Republican constituency - those that hate everyone unlike themselves.
Romney - Cult member who won't sell to nearly anyone Mormonism is as valid and rational a religion as, say, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Scientology. I'm not sure where the line is drawn in identifying "cults". Nevertheless, he'll sell to those who want four more years of the Bush administration - especially now that Thompson is out of the race. Then again, who wants a clip-art president?
Guiliani - Clearly not interested in the job and more Liberal than Conservative Giuliani may not be interested in the job, but he's definitely interested in the power. To me, he's neither liberal nor conservative. He's authoritarian - and one of the worst of the breed this country has produced. The right-left policies of a Franco or a Stalin become irrelevant when you have a leader that dictatorial.
McCain - RINO (Republican In Name Only) and one day closer to death RINO? Really? Seriously: McCain is about as "moderate" as Bush was "compassionate". Just because a Republican occasionally eschews fascism, doesn't mean they're a Democrat. Still, if that characterization drives Republicans away from him, so much the better - he'd be almost as bad as Romney. Plus, yeah - he is a bit long in the tooth.
Paul - Just too weird, too scary and too weird By "scary and weird", I guess you mean "traditional conservative" - which is what actually appeals to me about Paul. But he's way too rational to be a serious contender.

Clinton - Too many flaws to list not the least of which is do we really want to go Bush Clinton Bush Clinton? There's certainly a lot of Clinton fatigue at this point (and I'm not sure we'd agree on her flaws - unless your list includes being a corporatist zionist,), but we shouldn't discount the popularity of the Clintons. Hillary may have high negatives, but she has solid, faithful positives - and a lot of people this year will be voting for any Democrat rather than a Republican.
Obama - Seems like a really nice guy but pay attention to his running mate because that's who'll be running the country when some racist nutjob turns his head into a red spray. Actually, I'd be more concerned about Candidate Clinton surviving - even through the election (not to mention McCain, but that's another story). As I've mentioned elsewhere, an Obama presidency would be about as effective as a Carter presidency. I don't know if he's destined for assassination - and certainly hope not - but his running mate, assuming whoever that is knows anything about Washington, would probably be running the country anyway. Or his cabinet would. Or Congress. Or the Governor's Association. Barack Obama would be the most patronized president in US history - and he'd be able to accomplish virtually nothing. If this were a Frank Capra movie, he might have a chance. But it's not. Nice guy? Sure, probably. They finish last.
Edwards - This guy is such a loser he couldn't win dog catcher in his home town. I don't know if he's a loser necessarily - in another election year, he'd probably have a lot of populist support. Running against Clinton and Obama, though, he just becomes "the white guy". Loser or not, he makes my skin crawl. I'd rather vote for my insurance broker on a ticket with a used car salesman. Candidates don't come much smarmier.


On the Candidate Match Game, I came up with Mike Gravel, Barack Obama, and Ron Paul. Hillary Clinton, in my rating, was tied with Rudy Giuliani. That, to me, says it all.



These are the options?? :o

My answers to the candidate matching game vary somewhat. Heck, I have no idea what to do about Iraq, or immigration, or health care, or taxes, or global warming, and I think the "what kind of experience should the candidate have" thing is silly. Anyway, fooling around with the weighing of the issues (with same-sex marriage always set to the highest possible, since it's the only issue listed for which I have zero doubt that I AM RIGHT), I get Dennis Kucinich (I always match up with that dude), then Mike Gravel (with whom I have to admit that I am not very familiar), and then Barack Obama. If I fool around some more just to see what happens, without selecting anything I truly don't believe, I sometimes replace one of those gentleman with the only lady in the race. Given that Kucinich and Gravel are as likely to become President of the United States as I am, I have to pull for Obama and/or Clinton, each of whom has a fighting chance.

Now if they would only kiss and make up and run together, we'd really have something.



How wrong is my assessment of the current crop of possible candidates?



Not a wacko at all, just a theocrat. He appeals to a very important part of the Republican base -- social conservatives -- as well as to populists. Don't count him out.



"Cult" is very unfair. The fact that he is a Latter-Day Saint is irrelevant to me, and to most people, I think. His campaign seems to consist entirely of "I ran a business" and he's as slippery as Tricky Dick or Slick Wlllie, but he has a moderate amount of appeal to business types.



Not so much "liberal" as just not particularly interested in social issues and quite authoritarian.



The fact that he has some small differences with the GOP mainstream hardly makes him a RINO. His age is of not much importance to me.



Nah. Out of the political mainstream, sure. But a guy who has a firm political philosophy and sticks to it.



Clinton fatigue is a factor, but I don't see "too many flaws to list;" just those of any typical politician. I have never been a Clintonista, but I won't be too upset if she wins.



I don't agree at all. Again, I won't be too upset if he wins.



Again, just a typical politican to me. Surely there are many more minor candidates (including those ultra-liberals whom I support) who are much more of "losers" than he is.

Who should I be looking at more closely?

Paul and Obama, one an outsider and one with a very good chance.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

To quote a wise man, "too many to list." Let's face it; nobody is qualified to be President of the United States.

Just a word of update.

Dennis Kucinich has dropped out. Attrition has set in So you are now down to Paul and Edwards, neither of whom has a chance.

Maybe I should go blow my brains out.

I thought the purpose of an election was to vote for the candidate who shares my opinion on issues that are important to me, not to vote for the winner. Is BoF becoming a conformist?

I don't believe he said anything like that bro- he is just reporting that Dennis Kucinich dropped out. Hell, I have Duncan, Kucinich and Paul on my list- I ain't scairt.

No, I think EVERYONE should vote the candidate that most aligns with them, instead of this foolish "well, I am voting for the lesser of 2 evils" or "Well, I want someone that can win"- that is what they call a "self fulfilling prophecy"- if no one votes for the candidate that the mainstream media dubs "front runner"- then we will continue with the republicrat party. Really, what is the difference between all the repubs except paul, and all the dems except obama (and I am not sure if he is all that different)

I think the only difference will be in domestic policy- Dems will inject some sanity, whoever is elected, while with repubs- except Paul, we will continue to make the same lousy mistakes that we have made for about 50 years now.

Barnaby and others that are not aligned with the front runners (as they are crowned by the media ) - I urge you to vote your choice, instead of your second best.

Who cares if that means Hillary over Romney or vice versa?

It could happen here. All of those countries are and/or were until very recently Constitutional representative republics. World politics are going to hell in lots of places these days...now there's blood in the streets in Kenya, western democratic governments toppling, military coups in Asia. "Dreary" is generally good, I says.

why is Italy on your list though? They do this practically every year! I mean, has a goverment lasted more than 1 year in Italy since WW2?

No, I'm not becoming a conformist. With Dennis Kucinich out of the race, your choices are narrowed to Paul or Edwards in the primaries.

In the general election, you will probably be limited to Clinton or Obama, or McCain. Perhaps there will be a third alterntive, perhaps not. Realistically, one of the three people I mentioned in the previous sentence will end up in the oval office. That's called reality. Being a non-conformist is often more important from within the system than from without. - just a thought.

My choice is Obama. If he doesn't get the nomination I will be somewhat less enthusiastic in my support of Clinton. How is supporting breaking historical molds that have kept Blacks and women out of our highest national office being a conformist?

True... I'm not certain if it has been quite this bad in some time though. Or use Belgium if you like. They have a interim government now. I'd rather have our situation of boring candidates to choose from than some crisis like that.

I'd agree if we were merely talking about dreariness or boring candidates. "Dreary" may be generally good, but I'm not convinced that's what we're facing. To me, a number of these yahoos are downright dangerous. We may not be on the brink of (another) electoral crisis, but we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis - several of them. Until fairly recently, Mrs. P, the United States was also a Constitutional representative republic. And with, say, a Rudy Giuliani in the White House, things would only get worse. Much, much worse.

You know- I don't think it is the dreariest election in some time- not by a long shot. I am not all that aligned ideologically with Obama, really, not all that close. But to be honest- I am actually starting to get pretty excited about Obama's bid. I think he will be the first president that the US can get excited about, no matter the ideology, since JFK. We have had 27 years of the same old crap. I only say since reagan- since he was the first president I was old enough to vote for or against. Really, JFK was the last president the nation could really rally behind, really love as a candidate for all of us, no matter our ideological differences.

As a friend of mine said last night "I am a life long republican, and we have been turning out _____ politicians for years now, and I am almost ashamed at who I have voted for in the last 20 years. I think this guy I can actually feel good about my vote. We really aren't getting the same old warmed over crap we have been getting since JFK died"

The more I think about - it isn't the dreeariest election in some time- unless you are Republican- - it may possibly be the most exciting for me in my adult life.

I really do see a new day dawning if the guy is elected. We will finally stop the GW clones and the Bill Clinton clone wash-rince-repeat cycle.

That alone makes me feel some hope- funny that is what his campaign slogan has been all along eh?

I just sat down and read everything I could find about Obama including his 50 page blue print and frankly he scares the feces out of me. This guy is literally talking about the weakening of America so that we look "fairer" and less "arrogant". He complains that the US doesn't talk to leaders it "doesn't like". He talks about a Palestinian "state" as if it is the key to solving terrorism. While he can truthfully claim he's unwavering on his opposition to US Foreign Policy but I can't help but think he's horribly horribly wrong.

I appreciate his anti-Lobby stance but I don't believe he can sustain it for more than 20 seconds.

His Domestic policy reads like DailyKOS wet-dream which is great if we can get another country of people to pay for it.

I suppose worst case is that he gets elected and is as effective as Carter.

Doesn't scare me a bit. We have been messing up in our foriegn policy since WW2. We are the world's bully. We have led to the killing of millions at this point- central American alone we are probably talking over 100k dead due to our interventionist policies and need to keep Chiquita banana's bottom line healthy.

That is the one area that could use an enema. He is not as radical as Ron Paul in his need to disengage as the world's bully- but he makes excellent headway.

Doesn't scare me one bit to see some common sense injected into our foriegn policy for a change.

His domestic positions I do have a problem with- but, they can't be worse than the last 30 years or so.

Also- I believe, instead of serving only his "base" like the current dude- I believe he will try to reach a reasonable consensus. Like I said with Ron Paul- a party platform doesn't realy translate into public policy in it's entirety.

I see a shift back to the center from the extremist place we are in now.

I think it's a little bit sad to make fun of the people running for President. It's this air of partisenship that's going to make the next person's job close to impossible. You never know, one of these people might surprise us (how's that for hope and utopianism).

Despite the lack of enthusiasm among Republicans... the field is much more ideologically diverse than of the Democrats. I know the Dems have a Woman, and African American, but I mean outside of identity politics. There are major difference between the candidates... Rudy is Pro-Choice, Paul wants out of Iraq, Romney is a Mormon.

Huckabee - The Republican John Edwards. He's a populist that has shifted his opinions on a daily basis. He's also engaging in push polling, which I find annoying.
Romney - This year's John Kerry? He's shifted a lot of his opinions but has remained consistent over the course of the campaign. He's one of the few clear Washington outsiders and I expect that to be his campaign theme going forward. He's also been successful as a CEO and as a guy cleaning up other people's messes.
Guiliani - A fantastic leader, no doubt about it. The transformation of NYC under is watch is amazing. However he's no friend of the opposition. He also has a lot of family baggage that would be a mess under the DC spotlight.
McCain - The very thing that makes McCain likable is the very reason he cannot be elected. His stubborn views on various issues has galvanized his opposition. McCain is also very dismissive of those who disagree with him.
Paul - Has a lot of great ideas about the government's role and the constitution. No chance at winning.

There aren't as many choices on the Democrat side.

Clinton - The status quo. She's not as liberal as many have made her out to be, and she will say or do anything to get elected.
Obama - This guy has a huge amount of potential. He's also woefully inexperience. He's been running for President since he was elected Senator. I feel like he needs to go back to Illinois to become the Governor. That aside, he still has a great shot of winning this thing. One Achilles heel he faces is the Hispanic vote. No one has mentioned this, but I'm not sure they're ready to vote for an African-American. This is just my opinion... nothing to back it up, just an observation.

Edwards - I don't get this guy. He used to be my Senator... He's basically a different person now. He might end up being Attorney General in an upcoming Democrat administration. That's kind of frightening.


Who should I be looking at more closely?

I think Romney is going to be the Republican candidate and Hillary is going to hold for the Democrat nomination.

Who do you think was a worse pack of candidates?

Iran

Oh, fer cryin' out loud; who woulda thunk this guy would come crawling out of the woodwork again?

Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who has been accused by Democrats of helping hand the White House to George W. Bush in 2000, has formed a committee to explore another presidential bid. Reuters

Jeezus pleezus, WHY???????

I wouldn't worry too much about Ralph Nader, my dear DG. Michael Bloomburg is a bigger threat to the Democrats than Nader is. Nader flourishes as a political gadfly only when he attracts the attention of a bored media and a few die-hard far leftists. His maximum impact was felt in 2000 when he helped drain votes away from Al Gore and push George W. Bush over the finish line. Since that time, most of the Left has seen him for what he is: a aging old activist/crank who runs only to feed his monstrous ego and exaggerated sense of importance.

Nader does best when Democrats are least enthusiastic about their candidates and there's a lot of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If he wants it carved on his tombstone, "I helped prevent the election of the nation's first female or Black president," so be it.

Where has Nader been for the past eight years? I'm trying to think of ONE fight he's led against George W. Bush's presidency and I can't think of a single thing. Apparently, he cares less about keeping conservatives out of The White House instead of liberals who don't meet his exacting standards.

How much clearer can it be that Ralph Nader runs for president not to make things better but only to get his name mentioned on the evening news? All he does anymore is waste our time and sue secretaries of states to get on the ballot.

Nader is now is just a bitter old man in a cheap suit. He's a spoiler. Nothing more.

I don't think tonight will be dreary at all. This will be a face to face debate between Obama and Clinton. I wonder if there will be no rules like last night in the McCain vs Romney with Huckabee and Paul watching.