First off i want Hillary to win. She is more experienced but it does get annoying when she says it all the time, and she seems like she can get this country fixed and alot better.

Now for obama, he seems really good too, but he scares me, i always have this feeling he's hiding something lol. Obama sound like a good leader but can he really act on that? im not to sure. I will admit he sound very convincing.

I dont want to sound rasict but i think i need to say it, it is VERY VERY akward for us to have a president by the name of "BARAK HUSSIEN OBAMA", its actually make me alittle nervous, i know he is half black and half white but still it freaks me out especially since i witnessed 9/11. Also there are pictures of him wearing traditional muslim clothing and a video of the president of islam saying hes proud of Obama.

I also think the media is really rooting for him rather than clinton, they dont seem neutral. They make it seem like he is this great almighty revolutionary person and make Hillary feel left out and not as good. And whats with all these celebrities all over TV telling us to vote for Obama and music videos saying to vote for him. AND most importantly OPRAH!

you better believe he is a smart man, he knows if he can get HUGE celebrities behind him then most likley their fans will follow. I have yet to see any big celebs for hillary.


WHAT do you THINK?

who's the president of islam?

I believe its a reference to militant US Islamic leader Louis Farrakhan who recently said he's backing Obama.

At this point in time, can't believe I'm saying it, but I do believe its all over for Hillary. Unless she gets some serious sweeps in the next few states, she cant pull it off, even by securing the super delegates. Unless she really goes low and persuades the other general delegates to break and vote for her, but that's low even for her.

So, because a candidate for president's middle name is identical to a tyrannical Mid-east dictator, and his last name sounds very similar to a Islamic Militant Leader, Obama is the wrong candidate for Pres, despite the fact that he is not a practicing Muslim (I'm quite certain he is Christian) and he is acceptable of other cultures that he will wear tradditional clothing when in Rome (or where ever that pic was taken)?

Oh yeah, that ain't racist.

I personally think that the Dems would be shooting themselves in the foot by running Clinton. They have an easy win over with the fence sitters with Obama that Hilary just cannot come close to. If Hilary is nominated (it's starting to look doubtful now, but Dewey didn't defeat Truman) the fence sitters that lean towards a more conservative agenda would vote for McCain over her (For me, a fence sitter, right now it is Obama over McCain over some third party candidate over Clinton). If Obama gets the nomination, that swing vote is more likely to vote for him. I know I'm just talking numbers, but if the Dems want the white house, they Obama is the less risky of the two at reaching towards the middle ground.

Yeah i think shes going to lose, i hope she doesnt though.

I didnt say it was wrong for him to be president because of his name, its just it make me feel awkward. I had to say it, even if it does sound racist to you, im not saying he wouldnt be a good president, im saying it would feel weird for our president to have that name.

i know he's accepting of other cultrues, if he wasnt he wouldnt be that very democratic. Maybe the media hype about his name and other stuff just makes me feel uncomfortable about him. It also is most likely exaggerated anyway, but i still want hillary to win.

Watch ESPN and you'll see what Barack Obama is hiding. He's trying to hide the fact he's living a double life. His other identity is "J.A. Adande of the L.A. Times" and seen with pretty decent regularity on Around The Horn. Call me wacky if you wish. But has anybody ever seen Obama and Adande in the same room at the same time? Until I do, I'm not taking anything Barack Obama says seriously because I'm not convinced the man actually exists.

As for Hilary, I hope it becomes possible for me to move to Canada if she gets elected president. She is the queen of division and I'm not sure I could take four to eight years of her after eight of Bill. Her kind of divide and conquer politics needs to wither up and blow away.

But you know, for the ugly shape the final race seems to be taking, i.e. John "That ship sailed eight years ago" McCain and one of these two, there's only one positive thing I can say about the coming race. At least we are getting the wide-open race this year we should have in 2000. In 2000, it was a choice of four between the two parties. This year it's been a pool of what? A good couple dozen between the parties. McCain and whichever of these two opposes him will have done more to earn their places on the tickets than W and Gore ever did in that campaign season.

I'd take Obama over Hilliary, but I'd rather not have either one. :D

lmao, that made me laugh , :D

Canada won't extradite you to a country that uses the death penalty, so as long as Texas is still part of the union, Hilary Hiders (the latest form of Draft Dodgers) are safe in Canada, eh.

I want. . . to not live in a theocracy anymore.

Okay...the man didn't name himself.

His mother was a white teenager from Kansas.
Stop acting like he's a sleeper cell or something...Jesus.


Obama, all the way.
Most people here seem to agree, according to the pole.

nice to meet you, wacky.

i'd be happy with either, although i'm leaning towards obama. as long as I don't have to endure another 4 years of dubya (R) politics i'm a happy camper.

As a conservative, I will be voting for John McCain...however, as much as I hate her, I think Hillary Clinton would have a better chance at being at least an average President than Obama. I think Obama has made some very critical mistakes on the campaign trail, that reveal his absolute ignorance in regards to foreign policy. It was a huge mistake to tell our enemies that as President, he would never consider the use of nuclear weapons (as seen in the Tom Tancredo wants to blow up Mecca thread from months ago), because it tells our enemies that there is a line that he refuses to cross. Even if you never plan on crossing that line, you NEVER, EVER say it in public. Hillary Clinton was right to criticize Obama for that comment. We have nuclear weapons, and if you plan on using them as a deterrent, you don't tell your enemies that you wouldn't ever use them.

I also balk at Obama's total lack of experience in Washington, and his hypocrisy regarding it all. The Senator from Illinois has spent his entire campaign claiming that he was against the war in Iraq from the very beginning...one problem with that. The war started in March of 2003. Obama got to Washington in January of 2005. Do the math. Then, I have a problem with a candidate who, as soon as he gets elected to national office, decides to run for a different office instead of doing his job. I can respect John McCain more, he has been a US Senator for over 30 years, not 3, with a year and half of it spent campaigning for President...McCain has been a public servant for most of his life.

The lack of experience in Washington itself is a reason to be afraid of Obama as President. Presidents cannot wave magic wands and get things done, it requires constant communication with Congress, cooperation. Obama has not been a US Senator long enough to have built what is called political capital. The Democrats in Congress do not owe Obama anything. Generally, you have Senators building up credit with other Senators, by playing the "you vote for my bill, I will support yours" game. That is just how Washington works...Obama has not been there long enough to build up the political capital. Hillary Clinton hasn't been a Senator for very long either, but, she can draw on some of her husband's political clout. She is already well known to global leaders that were in power during the 90s, she already has relationships with some pretty important people.

Then, there is the total lack of experience as an Executive. Granted, Hillary Clinton does not have any experience either, but her husband does, and her eight years in the White House had to have taught her something about how to do the job. It also means she has a former President in her back pocket, that she can seek advice from. Bill Clinton kind of makes up for Hillary's lack of executive experience, Obama has no such former President he can rely on.

Lastly, I find Obama's hypocrisy regarding what he calls the "politics of the 90s", a direct jab at Bill Clinton, a President as a democrat, I am quite certain Obama voted for, twice. He rails against Washington politics, yet, wants to become the head of it. He tells us that he is an outsider, that he wants nothing to do with the partisanship that defined the 90s...yet, he is actively trying to become the head of one of the two parties involved in that. He never stopped to consider that perhaps that partisanship was because the two major political parties had genuine differences in their beliefs, that neither side was doing it just to piss the other party off. He makes it seem as if Democrats and Republicans fight just for the sake of fighting, when in reality, it is because the two parties have fundamental differences in how they believe the country can best be run. Given that he is trying to become the top dog in our political system, his efforts to get us to believe he is against Washington politics come across as disingenuous.

FOX, with it's usual grace, and several other networks blew the story as some sort of Earth-shattering revelation several months ago, through it's cast of pundits. As is usually the case, even Conservative leaders acknowledged that FOX and the other networks were full of themselves.

And yes, Obama is a practicing Christian. He made a point of demonstrating this quite early on in the campaign trail, if memory serves.

'Hussein' is a very, very common surname. I know several people with that surname. Does that mean that they're related to the former Iraqi President, or are terrorists? According to Sean Hannity, perhaps, yes, but if we listen to rationality and reality, no.

As for the President....eeehm.....hard to say. John McCain seems to have "made a deal with the devil" so to speak in order to even get this far (something that is painfully apparent when liberals or conservatives bring up his positions in the past and he has no way to answer to them). Obama is very new to the game, more so than I'd like (though that didn't stop George W. Bush I suppose--as with Bush, Obama would likely surround himself with a veteran staff if he did win). And I have to admit, I object to Senator Clinton simply on the bases that I really don't like the idea of political dynasties (I voted against George W. Bush for the precise same reason--I actually don't dislike his father, but these political dynasties are becoming way too common.)

Ah, well, I doubt I'll vote anyway. I'm not in a swing state, so it hardly matters.

I'l love to see Ron Paul win. But as I don't think he has a chance in hell of making it, Obama would be a close second. "Hitlery" honestly scares me. I think having her as a president wouldn't be that different from Bush getting a sex change. She seems just as power hungry and full of herself as Bush and I don't like the way she was the first Democrat to start trying to smear others campaigns. Obama may not have been in politics as long as she has, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. As for his name, so what? Having the same name as someone doesn't mean your that person. All those things about his name and him being muslim are fear tactics from Clinton supporters. I'm sure she's got a fe skeletons in her closet...

I hear ya. I tend to be libertarian when I'm paying attention myself and the 2000 election was a real downer for me in general. Liberals and democrats like to grunt and groan about the ending and understandably so as hairy as it ended up. But I wasn't happy with that campaign season from the start. I can see why the Dems had an uninspiring slate that year. The table had been set for Gore by Bill's eight years.

But the Republican field really annoyed me. You had an open election and were the party trying to take the White House away. How is it the only people they could come up with was the blueblood pedigree candidate in Bush and the war veteran McCain? Always struck me that race needed a Mike Huckabee and a Ron Paul. Maybe even a Mitt Romney or two. But all they could bother with were a stupid frat boy who cribbed from the notes of better campaigners and a war veteran who'd come off crazy. Say what you want about any of the candidates this year but at least both sides have had proper contests. Will be absolutely thrilled to see the back of Bush. He's made this such a crappy decade for politics.

The problem with the Republican field in 2000 was that no one candidate had the total package. George Bush had the name, Steve Forbes had the flat tax idea, Alan Keyes was a BRILLIANT speaker, McCain was there preaching about campaign finance reform, we had Pat Buchanan on the Reform party ticket, even though he was clearly a Republican hiding in Reform clothing, and the candidate who would have made a great President, in my own opinion, Elizabeth Dole, never garnered much support. There were a lot of candidates that each had part of a great candidate within them, but none of the candidates in 2000 (Republican or Democrat) were entirely satisfying on their own.

I am not too fond of politics, and I could care less if I vote or not. I don't need to be lectured....
But my opinion is that I would not want either obama or hillary. Now I am not for McCain, just wish huckabee pulled it through to be the candidate. But if it were to be a democrat, I would rather see Obama there. I don't like Hillary, and would hate to see her in office...

That is my opinion though. We will have to wait and see who is the candidates... If Hillary is the primary, I am going republican....I just can't stand her...

Actually, I favor Obama BECAUSE he has little "political capital." The game playing and favor-currying in Washington is corruption, plain and simple. When politicians start making "deals" among themselves, the people that benefit are the politicians and special interests. The American people are left out of the equation.

This government needs drastic, drastic reform. Corruption is rife at every level of government. Money speaks louder than the good of the citizens in the form of lobbyists and special interests.

Preserving the status quo means preserving the momentum that propagates the corruption. So far, I think only Obama has come close to indicating a need for oversight and open totally visible government.

Yes, I tend mostly toward liberal ideals. And at the moment, I'm seeing a trend toward centralized power and fascism from conservatives that scares the hell out of me.

If Huckabee somehow became president. . . I think I'd just have to move. Eight years of fundamentalist Christian rule has been quite enough, thank you. I'm not a Christian and I'm just tired of seeing religious influence on our government when neutrality could work just as well and not leave non-Christian minorities feeling disenfranchised

I probably should have stuck to my first instinct and kept my opinions to myself and not commented at all in this thread. . . but I'm rather upset at the state of our government. I needed to vent.

If you don't wanna vote then please don't.

It'll just my my voice all the stronger. ; )

I'm honestly torn between Hilary and Obama. I'm not sure who I want to vote for. Normaly what I end up doing the day before I vote is I weigh what each person stands for. It's hard to listen to campaign promises considering most of them are just smoke being blown up our behinds, but it gives you a general idea who would be best for the job.
Personally, I think it would be amazing to have a woman president, but we need a woman pres. that stands for something, that can rule a country and can hold her own in a political world full of men. I'm not sure if Hilary can do that. I hope so.
Obama made that huge mistake with the nucleuar weapons comment, so I'm not pulling for him as much as I was before. That is a really dangerous statement to make in a time where we still have our soldiers fighting a 'war against terrrorisim' in another country. My husband just got back from Iraq. He is in the Army. Believe me when I say, I want this war over. I want to know that my husband isn't going to have to go back over there(even though he is scheduled to go back around may 2009).

I didnt make up my mind of who i wanted to win until recently, Before i really didnt care but i started thinking about what obama said about getting all the troops out in 6 months and as much as i know alot of people want that, whatever crappy government that is set up there will most likely collapse and probably be taken over by terrorist once the soldiers are out. I dont think massively pulling out is a good idea, i think it should happen a little slower

I don't know, but I can garuantee that they will not just pull all the troops out of there. It will end up just like WWII. We sent troops over there, and ended up setting bases all over Germany. That will happen in Iraq also, I predict. There will always be American soldiers there. I don't believe any canidate that says they will pull all the troops within 6 months. That's not possible.

While you're right in thinking this is a impossible outcome, it's still an interesting one. If Ron Paul did, indeed win, he'd be forced to make a tough decision: either betray the ideas he so boldly (and loudly) shouted (dismantling the IRS, the Department of Education, etc.) and alter his position into something more along the lines of the conservative political machine--the more likely outcome--or implement his, in many sense, very radical decisions.

If he did, it would quite likely change the world more drastically than McCain, Clinton, or Obama would. A strict libertarian like Paul, if he was actually able to implement his beliefs, would effectively mean the end of America's status as the world's premiere superpower. From my understanding of it, the cornerstone of libertarianism is a minimalistic central government--and no matter how you slice it, the Armed Forces are part of the government. And history has taught us that a weak if efficient central government is rarely able to maintain control over huge, established military--such a system inevitably gives way to a military dictatorship. This is what happened in one form or another in Argentina, South Vietnam, and Imperial Japan.

So, we would see a pull-out of American military might throughout the world--the sort of radical change along the lines of the dismantling of the Soviet Union into the CIS. It's difficult to imagine a world where America is just another state.

Now, I'm not denying that such a state would allow more personal freedom to its citizens--not in the least, I think Ron Paul is honestly genuine in his belief in personal freedom. Nor would it mean the United States would be totally unable to defend itself from foreign aggression. But that doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as a libertarian superpower--we would no longer have the same ability to exert influence worldwide as we do now.

It would be quite a different future. Almost all of us weren't alive when the United States wasn't a world superpower.

Though perhaps Paul is right. A future without American boomer submarines, ICBMs and nuclear bombers might be a brighter one for all. It's hard to say, but the world certainly doesn't need more nuclear weapons.