Who do you like?

[path_of_one]

It's interesting, in its own way. You have Clinton and Obama for the Dems and McCain and Romney for the Republicans. None of those are the usual type of candidate- they're all new in some way. Unfortunately, none of them is new in the way I would hope, but then I never really expect that. I keep wondering who the Evangelicals will back once Huckabee is out of the picture, since McCain is farther left than they'd want and Romney is Mormon.

Nader looks like he may jump into the fray eventually once more, if he can raise enough interest and money. I wish Kucinich would somehow run on his own. It'd be kind of interesting if Ron Paul did, too. I'd love to break free from the 2-party system and have more options.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It's interesting, in its own way. You have Clinton and Obama for the Dems and McCain and Romney for the Republicans. None of those are the usual type of candidate- they're all new in some way. Unfortunately, none of them is new in the way I would hope, but then I never really expect that. I keep wondering who the Evangelicals will back once Huckabee is out of the picture, since McCain is farther left than they'd want and Romney is Mormon.

Nader looks like he may jump into the fray eventually once more, if he can raise enough interest and money. I wish Kucinich would somehow run on his own. It'd be kind of interesting if Ron Paul did, too. I'd love to break free from the 2-party system and have more options.

Ron Paul is in Seattle today. He said he won't be running as a third party candidate. (Although the Constitution Party is falling all over themselves to try to draft him in as their candidate.)

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Ron Paul is in Seattle today. He said he won't be running as a third party candidate. (Although the Constitution Party is falling all over themselves to try to draft him in as their candidate.)

Oh, rats. I keep hoping for four or five candidates one of these times. I haven't heard a ton from Ron Paul, but I did catch parts of a few debates and I liked a lot of what he had to say (the parts I heard dealt with getting out of Iraq).

[wil]

I think Edwards made a mistake. His speech should have been.

"I won't enter the mudslinging between my two collegues. I am here to bring my party and country together and not further the rift. I'm staying in the election but am going to back down on television ads and campaign costs and go back to Washington and do my job. Please continue to vote for me."

The deck is still stacked against third party candidates, it is near impossible to get on the ballots in all fifty states.

Would be quite interesting to walk in the polls though and see Ron Paul for president on five or six different parties...Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Reform....

My state gets to vote after Super Tuesday.

McCaine took Florida without independent or dem votes...that was significant going into Super Tuesday.

Yes he is the only one that will give Obama or Clinton a run for their money, Romney or Huckabee would have been political fodder for their campaigns.

How about running mates??

McCaine/Rice? Hunter? Lieberman? (first or last one would be landslides)

Paul/Nader?

Clinton/Clinton?

Obama/Omalley/Oeight?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It's interesting, in its own way. You have Clinton and Obama for the Dems and McCain and Romney for the Republicans. None of those are the usual type of candidate- they're all new in some way.

While I agree that the differences in candidates is exciting, especially on the Democratic side, I think it's a mistake to be overly excited or optimistic about a change in America because the president has black skin or ovaries. Besides these tokenish symbolisms to multiculturalism and feminism, what do the candidates actually represent? My sense is that Clinton is too entrenched in the politics-as-usual scene to create the dramatic change needed to turn the country around. As for Obama, I agree with China Cat in a way: Obama seems nebulous on many issues and non-commital.

Perhaps what creating change in the country comes down to is not so much who we elect into office by pushing a button or checking a box, but what we do in our daily lives and how committed we are to movements for social change.

Originally Posted by Bill Fletcher, Jr in Black Commentator

On or around the January 21st celebration of the life and work of Dr. King, Senator Obama was asked the question of who did he think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported for President. Senator Obama offered a very profound answer: He said, to the effect, that Dr. King would probably have not supported anyone but would have been pressuring everyone on behalf of social justice.

...

It is easy to get swept up in the whirlwind. A serious African American candidate and a serious female candidate running in the same election is historic. A friend of mine (and fellow activist), commenting on the race said that while he agreed with former Senator John Edwards on the issues, he felt that the world did not want another white man in the office of the President of the United States. I remained silent for a minute in hearing this and then, after agreeing on the significant symbolic value of a woman or black man as President, asked my friend “…but what about the issues? What about what they would ACTUALLY do?” Sadly, my friend had no answer other than to repeat his point about the symbol of a different face in a high place.

The Black Commentator - January 31, 2008 - Issue 262

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Pathless

While I agree that the differences in candidates is exciting, especially on the Democratic side, I think it's a mistake to be overly excited or optimistic about a change in America because the president has black skin or ovaries. Besides these tokenish symbolisms to multiculturalism and feminism, what do the candidates actually represent?

I agree. That's what I was trying to say- all four of them aren't your typical candidate (woman, ethnic minority, Mormon, and a Republican that doesn't have entirely Republican mainline views). But none of them seems passionately committed to issues I care most about. Clinton comes closest, but I do wonder about how much of it is politics. I have a feeling, though, that people don't give her as much credit as she is due about her spirituality, her commitment to supporting families and children, and her concern about economic inequality. Obama is someone I just can't figure out completely. I feel like he isn't tremendously passionate, or perhaps he just is careful so as to remain in the game. Romney and McCain are far, far away from my own views.

I think by the time people get to this level of politics, they've had to more or less either sell out or act like they have. Otherwise, they never make it. It's just how it is. If someone is too passionately committed to certain things, they lose all the voters that aren't, and there are too many issues at stake to get any sort of unity.

Without meeting candidates in person, I can't feel like I really know them anyway. For example, I've heard lots of people say Hillary Clinton was shrewd to stay with Bill after an affair, that she did this for political and economic reasons. The Christian Coalition rates her as 0% for a pro-family voting record. But she maintains that she stayed with Bill because she loves him, they sought counseling, and she made it through all that due to her faith (and reading Psalms). She is for family leave and real, material support from government to parents to enable them to raise their kids and still make it economically. So who is right? Who am I to say she isn't a spiritual person who stayed with her husband because she loves him? And yet I know she also needs to appeal in some way to moderate Christian Democrats, so maybe she's just good at playing politics. There is no way to know what is part of the game and what is real, and I'm very skeptical that anyone makes it so far as to be a party candidate without sacrificing some part of who they really are. And perhaps this is as it must be, because they are trying to appeal to millions of different people.

As an aside, I find it disturbing what "pro-family voting" seems to mean. If all this means is that you are pro-life, it seems singularly inept. How pro-family is anyone who ignores that most families in the US are struggling with basic issues of elder care, child care, a decent income, buying a home, and health care? How can a candidate be considered pro-family and yet not give any appreciable support to families? It boggles my mind, and I don't get it whatsoever.

Perhaps what creating change in the country comes down to is not so much who we elect into office by pushing a button or checking a box, but what we do in our daily lives and how committed we are to movements for social change.

That is certainly the case, in my opinion.

[wil]

I know folks who were in the Clinton whitehouse and they wouldn't vote for either of them for any office. These are died in the wool democrats who when confronted with the two of them on a daily basis learned more of their nature than they wanted to.

Obama is currently a flash in the pan, big smiles, says the right things to the right people, he is a minority/civil rights saviour, but not currently presidential material.

And you are all correct this country needs change and none is showing up yet.

But that is where status quo tends to continue to work, the forces of change need to be riled, and as long as we have bread and circus or beer and baseball, we'll go on. Anyone remember when the sound of music cut into the Superbowl...now that got America excited!! Just cut off our entertainment and we'll stand up and complain, but all the rest, be the butt of every joke, go to war willy nilly, produce drugs to addict our children and elderly, ignore health and poverty concerns no problem. Just think if the debates were on all 700 satelite and cable channels boy would the US be screaming then. If we all were forced to listen to our lame duck state of the union myths we'd be in an uproar right now.

But instead we only have a federal gov't that prints money based on some imaginary economic principles that say if China only has greenbacks then we the deficit and debt don't matter, and who cares if all our taxes go to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve (which has no reserve and isn't federal).

You may not agree with his politics, but if you want to shake this country and the two party system up at its roots.

vote Ron Paul

[Azure24]

I don't want to offend anyone. But I remember reading someone's graffiti on the wall one day. Which read:

"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal"

Quite funny actually, but anyway on a serious note (or less cynical one) I'm not American but whoever wins needs to remove those troops...

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Azure24

I don't want to offend anyone. But I remember reading someone's graffiti on the wall one day. Which read:

"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal"

Quite funny actually, but anyway on a serious note (or less cynical one) I'm not American but whoever wins needs to remove those troops...

No offense taken. A lot of other Americans and I would agree with you. The majority of us have wanted our troops out of Iraq for a long time, too. Unfortunately, we don't really get a say in that.

[wil]

I feel for the democratic party right now...I anticipate we are going to see quite the row. If Obama keeps moving it appears he might get the majority of the delegates by the end, but Hillary is destined to have the majority of the super delegates, meaning when they hit the convention floor she with the lesser popular vote and the lesser delegates will take the nomination.

It will all then hit the fan. No Bush or Republicans stole the election this time, but the good old boy system war machine within the DNC will be at odds with their constituents. Change will be in the streets.

McCain is doing a heck of a job playing politcs, the coup in WV was well orchestrated....Ron Paul voters are dropping away as they are concerned about the close races, they can't pull the RP lever when they think their vote will make a difference someplace else.

Look at the money spent this year on the nominations, more than the past presidential runs, its scary.

Still wondering what we'll see for veeps, I think those selections will have a huge influence on the eventual Hill vs. J Mc show....

[flowperson]

Yeah, it's all about the money and it's pretty obscene. Last I heard it cost Rudy $50 million to get 1 delegate before he did his bellyflop. Anyone aware of what billionaire Mitt has spent until now ? Terminal corruption of the election process IMHO.

flow....

[greymare]

I havent been taking much notice but last night watching tv i realized that all this hoopla is just for working out who you are going to vote for?????. Over here we just have the political parties and their leaders and basically its a choice between the two. But you guys have a huge affair just working out who is running. I know its more complicated than that, but you get my drift. We certainly dont have anyone as dynamic as any of your candidates but I honestly thought the vote you guys recently had was for the actual presidency and between hillary and obama. that was it. just those two. Im not saying our way is better, because its not. Im just merely pointing out my own ignorance.. Our lot go into a room, decide who is leader then come out and all say that they are 100% behind their new leader(rubbish) and then we vote on this leader of part A or this leader of party B etc. pretty boring really, you guys put on a show.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't think that Howard Dean and the DNC want the perception that the nominee has been decided by the super delegates. And remember now, if, after two ballots, a clear winner doesn't emerge the regular delegates are released from their pledge. Technically, at that point, anyone could become the nominee.

For my money McCain has wrapped it up for the GOP. I'm surprised that Romney hasn't conceded at this point. He's spent something like 35 million of his own money to date, and if he's any kind of business man he surely has done the numbers by now.

Chris

[wil]

Originally Posted by greymare

Our lot go into a room, decide who is leader then come out and all say that they are 100% behind their new leader(rubbish) and then we vote on this leader of part A or this leader of party B etc. pretty boring really, you guys put on a show.

Yes this was the old way here, decisions as to who the party was to put up were contemplated in the classic smoke filled room.

Anyone who wants to see the lowdown on money spent, money raised, how much they've put into their campaigns (listed as debt on the right) check out open secrets, they do a great job.

[Pathless]

Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all unlikely to deflate military spending.

Rock the Vote.

AlterNet: War on Iraq: Will Clinton and Obama Continue Bush's High-Priced Militarism?

Originally Posted by Alternet

Curb your enthusiasm. Even if your favored candidate did well on Super Tuesday, ask yourself if he or she will seriously challenge the bloated military budget that President Bush has proposed for 2009. If not, military spending will rise to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about.

You cannot spend well over $700 billion on "national security," running what the White House predicts will be more than $400 billion in annual deficits for the next two years, and yet find the money to improve the quality of life on the home front.

...

John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till "victory," even if it should take a century. It is simply illogical to call for fiscal restraint while committing to an open-ended war in Iraq that has already cost upward of $700 billion.