The New Hampshire Primary (post predictions) officially snazzy official thread

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Hmm I predicted Obama and Huckabee for Iowa... However New Hampshire I'm a bit perplexed on how that will go. I don't think Edwards will win. Unrelated he needs punched in the face then walked on by someone with a cane. Moving on, I'm thinking Clinton vs Obama and it will be close. Giving the edge to Obama as he picked up more momentum with recent win. Now that people think he can be a winner, he just may be.

Now, Huckabee in New Hampshire? Hmmm I think he will do better than predicted but ultimately Romney probably edges out Mccain as the kids say these days "FTW"

[Matt]

Sticky'ed :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Cool :up: Now your predictions please. I'm still back and forth on Mccain vs Romney.

[Matt]

New Hampshire will be interesting to see. Hilary has maintained a much higher lead there than Obama for awhile now. Hilary can easily revitalize her campaign by destroying Obama in New Hampshire. Edwards can revitalize his campaign by seeing a Hilary win with a BIG Obama loss. But he'd have to take second and pull off second or first in South Carolina. Obama can get an even bigger lead if he wins New Hampshire. An Obama win will pretty much end Edwards' campaign...but Hilary will still be a big threat. Should be interesting.

As for Republican. I don't see Huckabee standing much of a chance, as everyone says, New Hampshire Republicans are less religious and a whole different kind of Republican. It should be a two way race between Romney and McCain, though Huckabee has been gaining ground, so maybe we shouldn't count him out.

However, all of these early primaries may be moot for Republicans. Giuliani doesn't really enter the race until Florida's primary in late January. If he has a strong win in the Sunshine State (and he has been campaigning like hell down there) he could do some major damage come Super Tuesday and make himself the new front runner.

[Mee]

Sticky'ed :up:
Whyfor? :huh:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yeah a lot of people are giving it a lock for Clinton but who knows Obama might get more momentum out of this than people think.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Whyfor? :huh:

As it gets closer to avoid multiple threads I'm assuming.

[Matt]

Yeah a lot of people are giving it a lock for Clinton but who knows Obama might get more momentum out of this than people think.

New Hampshire will either make Obama stronger than ever...or show Hilary's campaign can lose a few battles but still ultimately win the war. I guess we're going to find out how important Iowa's momentum is.

[Matt]

Also, one thing to keep in mind, a lot of pundits and Obama supporters are so fond of saying how he attracts independants. That will be a nonfactor in New Hampshire as it is a closed primary.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Also, one thing to keep in mind, a lot of pundits and Obama supporters are so fond of saying how he attracts independants. That will be a nonfactor in New Hampshire as it is a closed primary.

Ah, good point. So basically he is relying on momentum and those that wanted to vote for him but didn't seem him as a viable candidate and moved onto Clinton. If he secures those type of votes this shall get interesting.

[Anguissette1979]

Voting for Hillary on Tuesday :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Voting for Hillary on Tuesday :up:

She does get the women's vote advantage that's for sure. It seemed she had the black vote over Obama as well for a while, but now that they think he can win that might change.

[Anguissette1979]

She does get the women's vote advantage that's for sure. It seemed she had the black vote over Obama as well for a while, but now that they think he can win that might change.

I think Obama got the boost he did in Iowa because of the wacky caucuses. Kucinich and Richardsom told their people to vote for Obama if they didn't mee the 15% viability threshold. He won't have that advantage going into the primary and I know quite a few people that will be voting for kucinich to make a statement... O won't get those votes in NH.

[Matt]

I used to be willing to vote Kucinich to make a statement. I have met Dennis Kucinich several times. I have given his campaigns money. Never again. I think all of his supporters have the right to know why he gave Barrack Obama, a vocal supporter of free trade, his votes. Kucinich has run for numerous offices as the champion of the middle class, working man and the enemy of free trade and yet by doing that he has essentially spit in the faces of everyone he has claimed to fight for.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think Obama got the boost he did in Iowa because of the wacky caucuses. Kucinich and Richardsom told their people to vote for Obama if they didn't mee the 15% viability threshold. He won't have that advantage going into the primary and I know quite a few people that will be voting for kucinich to make a statement... O won't get those votes in NH.

Well the front runners in media terms are Clinton vs Edwards and Mccain vs Romney... I do believe Huckabee won't get enough momentum but still think there is a possibility Obama opens up to a wider range of votes and his momentum carries more. Enough to win NH? Hmmmm...

[Sun_Down]

Also, one thing to keep in mind, a lot of pundits and Obama supporters are so fond of saying how he attracts independants. That will be a nonfactor in New Hampshire as it is a closed primary.

You have to be registered with the Dems or Republicans to caucus, but that didn't stop independents from registering at the door.

[Matt]

You have to be registered with the Dems or Republicans to caucus, but that didn't stop independents from registering at the door.

New Hampshire has a deadline (I believe it is six weeks from the primary, that you must register to be able to vote).

[ShadowBoxing]

Clinton and Romney would be my guess. Clinton has been running much stronger in NH and SC than Obama and Edwards. Romney would be my pick simply because of his New England roots, should be a stronger pull there.

[Matt]

On a side note...

Conan O'Brian has taken credit for Huckabee's Iowa win. Conan O'Brian's Walker Texas Ranger Lever brought Chuck Norris out of obscurity. Chuck Norris brought Mike Huckabee's campaign out of obscurity. Conclussion, Conan made Mike Huckabee the winner of Iowa :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Ha, no offense to Chuck but I don't think his endorsement added support ;) No more than Huckabee's bass playing anyways.

[Zen]

Also, one thing to keep in mind, a lot of pundits and Obama supporters are so fond of saying how he attracts independants. That will be a nonfactor in New Hampshire as it is a closed primary.

im confused...

everyone is saying independants will have a voice in the New Hampshire primaries...


heres and excerp of one link


"Independent Voters May `Crash' New Hampshire Democratic Primary

By Heidi Przybyla

May 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic presidential candidates may be about to welcome a host of party-crashers: New Hampshire's independents.

Eight years ago, the independents -- who are a plurality of the voters in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary -- chose in overwhelming numbers to vote in the Republican contest, fueling Arizona Senator John McCain's victory.

Next year, according to the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, more than two-thirds of independents plan to vote in the Democratic primary, driven by a desire for change and dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and President George W. Bush.

``They'll crash the party on the Democratic side and leave the Republicans pretty much alone,'' said Dante Scala, an assistant professor of politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester.

^^^^

That would shape both parties' races, Scala said: To win, Democratic candidates will need to court the independents, while Republicans may focus more on party stalwarts."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aUDjicMXLkBQ&refer=home



???? chalk me up as one of the confused, i dont know what difference between a caucus or a primary... whats closed whats not... gah!
anyone clear this up?

cause it looks like to me there will be independant voters in NH

??

[Matt]

You dare question Conan's power!?!? First he made the President of Finland and now he is going to make the next President of the United States! If you question him again he will crush you like the insect you are!:cmad: :cwink:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Conan for President :up:

:)

[Matt]

im confused...

everyone is saying independants will have a voice in the New Hampshire primaries...


heres and excerp of one link



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aUDjicMXLkBQ&refer=home



???? chalk me up as one of the confused, i dont know what is a caucus or what is a primary... whats closed whats not... gah!
anyone clear this up?

cause it looks like to me there will be independant voters in NH

??

A caucus is more of a meeting than a vote, which is why you can register at the door. A primary is an election in the traditional sense. New Hampshire is a closed state, which means you cannot vote unless you have registered. Unless independants have registered within a certain ammount of time, they will not be able to vote as they will not be in the system yet.

[Matt]

Conan for President :up:

:)


Nah, Conan is a behind the scenes man. So in that vein...

Colbert/O'Brian 2008!

[Sun_Down]

???? chalk me up as one of the confused, i dont know what difference between a caucus or a primary... whats closed whats not... gah!
anyone clear this up?

cause it looks like to me there will be independant voters in NH

??


I guess they have to register with one of the parties a certain amount of time before the Primary. I'm sure most independents who care enough will make sure they did so.

[Matt]

I guess they have to register with one of the parties a certain amount of time before the Primary. I'm sure most independents who care enough will make sure they did so.

Unless they don't want affiliated. There are plenty of independents who are not affiliated by choice. Independents definitely won't play as big of a role in NH as they did in Iowa.

[Excel]

clinton/mccain thogh for a barrack win.

[Zen]

is this information correct?

FREEDOM -- Success in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary may hinge on how well candidates win over the politically fickle as well as the party faithful.

New Hampshire's independent voters -- those unaffiliated with either political party -- have doubled in number since 1992. They make up 44 percent of registered voters, more than Republicans or Democrats, and can vote in either primary, making them a potentially powerful force in 2008.

In a recent poll, 68 percent of undeclared voters likely to vote in the presidential primaries said they plan to vote for a Democrat. That's a significant shift from 2000, the last election with contested races in both parties, when about 60 percent of the independents who turned out voted in the Republican primary.

Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll,


matt hook me up with the knowledge, how wont they be influential?

[Zen]

...Dr. Eneguess, from Peterborough, is an independent voter, allowed under New Hampshire election law to chose which primary she would like to vote in, a decision she does not have to make until she walks into the voting booth....


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02voters.html

????????????

[Matt]

Actually, this is my mistake Zen. I did some more research. New Hampshire is considered a closed primary because Democrats cannot vote on the Republican ballot and vice versa, but at the same time independents can vote. So it is some sort of freak hybrid.

[Zen]

Actually, this is my mistake Zen. I did some more research. New Hampshire is considered a closed primary because Democrats cannot vote on the Republican ballot and vice versa, but at the same time independents can vote. So it is some sort of freak hybrid.

ive only taken interest in these caucus and primary things this week, ive been scrambling to figure it all out...

im still confused as to why we dont just have them all on the same day... among many other confusing aspects

i cant make any predictions, everyone was talking about the inevitability of clinton, and she took 3rd in Iowa

these first 2 voting sessions seem so paramount for momentum...


is there a debate between each primary?


if so who do you guys think shines in the debates? cause debates might be the deciding factors.

[Spider-Bite]

McCain and Obama.

[StorminNorman]

Hopin' Romney and Clinton.

Predicting Clinton and McCain.

[The Senator]

I think it will be Obama and McCain.

[rdh007]

Clinton: 34% Obama: 30% Edwards: 25% Future VP Candidates: 11%

Romney: 29% McCain: 27% Huckabee: 24% Everyone Else: 20%

I'm predicting that Clinton wins then proclaims herself "The Comeback Kid Part II", even though she's been leading in the state forever.

[Anguissette1979]

New Hampshire has a deadline (I believe it is six weeks from the primary, that you must register to be able to vote).

It's 10 days (I know - I registered shortly before the deadline last week). If you miss the deadline you can register at the door so long as you bring valid identification and proof of town/city residence.

Romney would be my pick simply because of his New England roots, should be a stronger pull there.

Yeah, but we saw what he did with Mass AND he reminds me soooo much of another smarmy businessman politician: former NH governor Craig Benson. I think (hope) McCain will take NH again on the republican side. He scares me the least. :up:

Zen... as a NH resident, let me explain how things work up here ;)

**** NH residents have until 10 days before any election to register OR they may register at the door the day of the election.
**** You must register as either a member of a political party (primarily a choice between Democrats and Republicans) or register as an "Independent"
**** On the day of the election if you are a registered Democrat you MUST take a democratic ballot. If you are a registered Republican you MUST take a republican ballot. If you are a registered Independent you can CHOOSE which ballot you take.
**** Every person eligible to vote gets ONE vote that cannot be changed once they have voted (unlike a caucus where people who caucus (or "vote") have the option to change who they are caucusing for ("vote" for) is their candidate fails to meet a 15% viability threshold.

The reason that the independent voting bloc is such a major factor in NH is because most of the voters registered in the state are independents and could go either way. McCain tends to attract a lot of independents because he is (mostly) a moderate. Obama also claims to attract a lot of independents so there is quite the battle going on speculating who will gobble up most of the independent vote. :)
I guess they have to register with one of the parties a certain amount of time before the Primary. I'm sure most independents who care enough will make sure they did so.
See above. Independents only need to choose which party's ballot they will vote on the day of the election when they arrive at their place of voting. :up:

[Excel]

4% is good obama, but well see.

[Anguissette1979]

As someone else pointed out I think you'll see the majority of NH independents voting a Democratic ticket (regardless of who they end up voting for Obama, Clinton, etc...) because of the serious backlash on the republican party and I think this will follow through to the general election as well.

[Zen]

thanks Anguissette, thats cleared it up for me.

the political climate in your town right now of Nashua must be exciting, people here barely know the primaries are taking place, aside from watching the news.



after scouring polls and watching news networks i can't deny the momentum Obama has right now. 90% of the people calling in to the open phone lines are supporting Obama... Everyone's rallies today look like quiet geriatric conventions compared to the Obama Rally i just saw. The only candidate who i have seen evidence of pulling people from the other Aisle so far is Obama... there were republicans at his rally today that explained how they were coming to Obama's message... Who else is having this kind of success with voters?

hillary is just to polarizing to accomplish this.

Huckabee has momentum to but im not sure he has the wide appeal needed to also enjoy success there in NH like Obama seems to be capturing. if Obama can hang on to this momentum he will be extremely formidable.


I predict Obama/McCain in NH

[Anguissette1979]

the political climate in your town right now of Nashua must be exciting, people here barely know the primaries are taking place, aside from watching the news.

Nashua and Manchester are the biggest "citites" in NH... There are probably at least two candidates in town as I type. It's a flood of information but at commercial breaks on TV literally EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL is a political ad. I get spam phone calls for polls or automated messages from different candidates every day. I would kind of like to share the political love with the rest of the country...

It is weird seeing places on CNN that I go to on a weekly basis :p

[Ghostvirus]

*Sets up table, chair, & puts up Obama Rules! sign in thread*

[souvlaki]

Clinton: 34% Obama: 30% Edwards: 25% Future VP Candidates: 11%

Romney: 29% McCain: 27% Huckabee: 24% Everyone Else: 20%

I'm predicting that Clinton wins then proclaims herself "The Comeback Kid Part II", even though she's been leading in the state forever.

This bodes well for Obama. It's within the margin of error, and the momentum of his win in Iowa may push him over the top. At the very least I expect Obama to finish in a very strong, very close second. Personally, I wasn't expecting him to win Iowa by the margin he did, so I don't think it's possible to predict this with any accuracy. It seems a lot of people came out that wouldn't normally come (younger people, independents), and if this is a sign of the type of people that may show up across the country in large for the election then Obama will win both the primary, and the general election. But I'm not holding my breath.

[SentinelMind]

Blip on the media scene, Mitt Romney won the Wyoming primary today....the state was punished for pushing date of election up....


Onto NEw Hampshire..
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

Some are calling this poll an anomoly or "unsettled after Iowa"

McCain 31%
Romney 26%

Obama 37%
Clinton 27%

Bad news for Clinton....the race is in 3 days...Horrible for Romney, this is his last stand....

This is terrible news for Edwards.....a third place win here can't bode well in South Carolina.

One op-ed piece noted the only saving grace is that Hillary Clinton is STILL FAR in the lead for electoral delegates....she won most of the superdelegates...and almost the same number of delegates as Obama/Edwards (the election was still pretty close)

Edwards will probably stay in after New Hampshire until South Carolina....that's the day he'll withdraw from the race....

[Dark Vigilante]

I think its going to be Obama and either Huckabee or McCain.

I also think Ron Paul is going to pull out some surprising figures, more surprising than his figures in Iowa. But we'll see how much the press talks about it. He might as well not have even been in the election on CNN the night of the caucus. He did well, coming in right behind McCain and Thompson.

Fox News told him he cannot participate in their Republican debates this weekend. He's asked why and he they won't tell him.

Figures

[comicgirl]

I think its going to be Obama and either Huckabee or McCain.

I also think Ron Paul is going to pull out some surprising figures, more surprising than his figures in Iowa. But we'll see how much the press talks about it. He might as well not have even been in the election on CNN the night of the caucus. He did well, coming in right behind McCain and Thompson.

Fox News told him he cannot participate in their Republican debates this weekend. He's asked why and he they won't tell him.

FiguresFoxNews, huh?...........That says it all








Obama and nothing but Obama

[Zen]

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Edwards Richardson Spread
RCP Average 01/02 - 01/05 - 33.2 31.2 19.2 5.0 Obama +2.0
American Res. Group 01/04 - 01/05 600 LV 38 26 20 3 Obama +12.0
Concord Monitor 01/04 - 01/05 400 LV 34 33 23 4 Obama +1.0
CNN/WMUR/UNH 01/04 - 01/05 359 LV 33 33 20 4 Tie
Rasmussen 01/04 - 01/04 510 LV 37 27 19 8 Obama +10.0
Suffolk/WHDH 01/03 - 01/04 500 LV 29 36 13 4 Clinton +7.0
Zogby Tracking 01/02 - 01/04 893 LV 28 32 20 7 Clinton +4.0

these are the latest polls, i copied and pasted out of a table so its a bit jumbled so if it looked confusing notice the obama and clinton point spreads, and note that they are ordered chronologically with the newest on top... since the "Rasmussen" poll (bolded), that SentinelMind mentioned there seems to be an obvious momentum building for Obama... on the same website they have a real nice chart (if your into charts! yeehaw!) illustrating the trends lately...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

it shows Obama on the upward swing, barring a mistake in the debate tonight he looks to have alot going for him in New Hampshire


on the republicans side...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

you can see McCain is simply Dominating... the trends have Romney loosing ground... huckabee doesnt appear to have enough support despite his bump from Iowa to really compete....YET

i think its all really going to hinge on the debates tonight. Huckabee needs to deliver a great performance and Obama just has to keep his smooth operator status rolling. Clinton has an uphill battle as it looks like many are finding her to NOT be an agent of the change that everyone is looking for and shes not delivering the passionate rhetoric and feelings that Obama is... something i think she needs to rectify if she wants to hang in there till the major states...

Personally i dont understand Gulliani... i do understand focusing on the big states but by ignoring these two areas gulliani has completly lost all of the free advertisement he would have gotten if he placed AT ALL in Iowa and hopefully better in NH then it looks like hes going to...

i really think it does come down to momentum here and its a mistake to ignore its effect on the campaign trail. however gullianni does have one thing to his advantage, there is no real republican front runner yet... someone who appears to be able to poll well in a majority of the states... the democrats have a much less narrow window of wiggle room... one mistake might just propell the other candidate into the nomination.


looks like... (pre-debate) Obama/McCain in NH

[Zen]

Edwards will probably stay in after New Hampshire until South Carolina....that's the day he'll withdraw from the race....

i think he'll swing his support towards Obama if he withdraws because of his rhetoric being more in line with the change that Obama is talking.

Obama/Edwards ticket... might be possible. i think its Edwards best chance at a presidency at some point in the future... constantly running makes a candidate appear weak and un-electable...

but attach him to an Obama administration that hopefully is successful with the american people... and Edwards should have no problem gliding right into the presidency. the Southern charm edwards holds would also be a boon to Obama in some southern battleground states...

as for Republicans, if Huckabee can't get off the ground he should do the same thing im talking about with McCain. McCain would be able to grab those libertarian conservatives and Huckabee would be able to grab the evangelicals and the young conservatives...

i know its cliche to pair up candidates, but its honestly good strategy... these are the people america is getting to know.... if you pic a VP everyone has to get introduced to... it just takes a little OOomph outa the campaign compared to Pairing Candidates.

i just dont see Romney pairing with either of these guys... their at each others throats about the negative ads... and the same goes for clinton.... shes painted into a corner here...

Obama/Edwards Vs McCain/Huckabee would be an amazing race...

[comicgirl]

i think he'll swing his support towards Obama if he withdraws because of his rhetoric being more in line with the change that Obama is talking.

Obama/Edwards ticket... might be possible. i think its Edwards best chance at a presidency at some point in the future... constantly running makes a candidate appear weak and un-electable...

but attach him to an Obama administration that hopefully is successful with the american people... and Edwards should have no problem gliding right into the presidency. the Southern charm edwards holds would also be a boon to Obama in some southern battleground states...

as for Republicans, if Huckabee can't get off the ground he should do the same thing im talking about with McCain. McCain would be able to grab those libertarian conservatives and Huckabee would be able to grab the evangelicals and the young conservatives...

i know its cliche to pair up candidates, but its honestly good strategy... these are the people america is getting to know.... if you pic a VP everyone has to get introduced to... it just takes a little OOomph outa the campaign compared to Pairing Candidates.

i just dont see Romney pairing with either of these guys... their at each others throats about the negative ads... and the same goes for clinton.... shes painted into a corner here...

Obama/Edwards Vs McCain/Huckabee would be an amazing race...I like Obama/Edwards....now that could win

[Matt]

I like Obama/Edwards....now that could win

Too much inexperience. They are both one term senators. Obama will need to balance his ticket with an older, more experienced running mate. I think Bob Graham is a possibility to try and win Florida back.

[SentinelMind]

Edwards was second lacky to Kerry.....now being second man to Obama seems unlikely, will remind people too much of 04. Edwards will never be President.

[Zen]

what exactly is experience offering people? how is experience an accurate marker of ability.

Bush was governor of texas, hillary is a one term senator... being a first lady doesn't offer any more experience than Obama's career as a constitutional Lawyer or edwards either....

i mean who has experience being president before actually being president? nobody i know of... i think this experience issue is a load of bunk.

john F. Kennedy was a one term senator... people liked that guy.

lincoln had 2 years experience before he went on to be a great president.

Washington, none
eisenhower, none


i think deep down its more a question of age then experience, these are young candidates and we are having a tough time as 'Seeing' them as viable...

Bush jr had 7 years experience and look where thats gotten us... James Buchanan, who had 29 years of service as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State, is arguably the worst president in the US history.

i think if America is looking for serious change... which is seems it is, voting in Older, more experienced people... just doesn't hold water.

but i can see how what your talking about is needed because people somehow fall prey to this experience claim across the nation...

*shrug*

[Matt]

But that is why Bush brought Cheney on board. To balance the ticket. Its just the way it works.

[R0rschach]

Hey guys are the debates live on tv today and if so can they be viewed online?
If so where?
And when..time?
I'm in Europe btw.

[Anguissette1979]

hillary is a one term senator...

I believe she was reelected to a second term. And of ANY of the people running for president, she most likely has the best idea of what to expect... she lived it through her husband. She saw what he went through and I don't think she'd be running if she didn't think she could handle it.

I like Obama... I do... bu he needs to come back and talk to me in 2012 when he's been around the block once or twice. It's great to have a vision for change and to be idealistic but not so great if you don't have the skill set to make that change happen.

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be AWESOME! :up: and would set him up to run in 2012 or 2016 :)

[SentinelMind]

Clinton/Obama would never happen...even with Clinton leading.....

I do think the whole experience argument is just a way to play gatekeeper with up and rising stars. Hillary's claim to experience is being in the Senate and getting re-elected? Edwards is what. People care more about character and determination and if you have enough experience. After a certain point, people don't care. And then too much experience can even hurt you...too much baggage to pick apart (Ahem Kerry).

[Anguissette1979]

I do think the whole experience argument is just a way to play gatekeeper with up and rising stars. Hillary's claim to experience is being in the Senate and getting re-elected? Edwards is what. People care more about character and determination and if you have enough experience. After a certain point, people don't care. And then too much experience can even hurt you...too much baggage to pick apart (Ahem Kerry).

I think there has to be a balance. Biden and Dodd had the experience but they couldn't motivate people. Obama can motivate people but he has little experience. I'm voting for Clinton because I believe she has the best mix of the two.

[The Senator]

what exactly is experience offering people? how is experience an accurate marker of ability.

Bush was governor of texas, hillary is a one term senator... being a first lady doesn't offer any more experience than Obama's career as a constitutional Lawyer or edwards either....

i mean who has experience being president before actually being president? nobody i know of... i think this experience issue is a load of bunk.

john F. Kennedy was a one term senator... people liked that guy.

lincoln had 2 years experience before he went on to be a great president.

Washington, none
eisenhower, none


i think deep down its more a question of age then experience, these are young candidates and we are having a tough time as 'Seeing' them as viable...

Bush jr had 7 years experience and look where thats gotten us... James Buchanan, who had 29 years of service as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State, is arguably the worst president in the US history.

i think if America is looking for serious change... which is seems it is, voting in Older, more experienced people... just doesn't hold water.

but i can see how what your talking about is needed because people somehow fall prey to this experience claim across the nation...

*shrug*

I tend to agree with this logic. Experience doesn't have anything to do with how successful a President becomes. It has to do with what kind of judgment a President uses during his/ her time in office.

Of course, that isn't a straight endorsement of anyone running for the Democratic nomination...

[Warhammer]

I'm not going to post my opinion on any of this debate because I don't want to argue with anyone, but this debate is great. I am really liking what the democrats are saying right now. I am having trouble seeing who I am agreeing with the most, to be honest.

[Anguissette1979]

What channel, Warhammer?

[Warhammer]

Abc.

I'm surprised the New Hampshire debates weren't on every other news channel like the Iowa debates were.

[Warhammer]

Good debate. :applaud

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think the debate may have an affect on predicitions at least in the case of Romney. I'd say people are more likely to pick Mccain over him now.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Btw Richardson proved to be the most repetitive out of all the candidates. OMG at one point I had to flip the channel till he was finished talking to continue watching the debate. He just reallllllllllllllly got on my nerves tonight.

[Warhammer]

He kept on bringing up "Well, since I was...so and so," "Because I was so and so," etc.

[Excel]

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhdem8-716.html

Obama has a 12% lead over clinton overall, Clinton a 2% over him with democracts but Barracka huge 37% lead with independents!

This is gonna be good!

[hippie_hunter]

I'm predicting Obama and McCain victories in New Hampshire with independents being the deciding factor on both the Republicans and Democrats.

Also add along with Romney's huge loss in Iowa against Huckabee (his victory in Wyoming is too insignificant because of complete lack media coverage) and Clinton's third place showing in Iowa.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I'm predicting Obama and McCain victories in New Hampshire with independents being the deciding factor on both the Republicans and Democrats.

Also add along with Romney's huge loss in Iowa against Huckabee (his victory in Wyoming is too insignificant because of complete lack media coverage) and Clinton's third place showing in Iowa.

I don't know if that counts as a prediction after seeing the debate... lol

[StorminNorman]

My biggest fear is that Obama wins the nomination and that he inspires the youth of America to vote.

That scares the hell out of me. The majority of my generation has little business deciding what they will eat for dinner - much less who the next leader of the free world is.

Think about it - the next President could win on the shoulders of masses that find Steve-O funny and Flava Flav entertaining.

My god.

The horror.

[StorminNorman]

I'm predicting Obama and McCain victories in New Hampshire with independents being the deciding factor on both the Republicans and Democrats.

Also add along with Romney's huge loss in Iowa against Huckabee (his victory in Wyoming is too insignificant because of complete lack media coverage) and Clinton's third place showing in Iowa.

You over play Romney's loss in Iowa. Romney over the past month had long lost the role of "favorite". It is well known that Iowa Republicans care deeply about religion. Romney was a favorite out of money and the lack of a credible "Christian" candidate. If Thompson's campaign was anything but inept - his Iowa following would of been very strong (his third place showing is proof of this).

When the Huckaboom happened - common sense made him the new Iowa favorite. At one point he had a twenty point lead in some polls for a while.

Now if Romney does not win NH he will start feeling the pressure- though a close second and wins in Nevada and Michigan could even fix that.

Out of all the candidates - Romney is the most secure because he has a practically limitless cash flow due to him being an ungodly successful businessman (a big reason why I support him).

[hippie_hunter]

You over play Romney's loss in Iowa. Romney over the past month had long lost the role of "favorite". It is well known that Iowa Republicans care deeply about religion. Romney was a favorite out of money and the lack of a credible "Christian" candidate. If Thompson's campaign was anything but inept - his Iowa following would of been very strong (his third place showing is proof of this).

When the Huckaboom happened - common sense made him the new Iowa favorite. At one point he had a twenty point lead in some polls for a while.
If Romney came in a very close second I'd agree with you but considering all the money Romney spent, he lost to a guy whom he outspent 20-1 and gained frontpage recognition less than two months ago (compared to Romney's year+) by almost 10%. That's a really big loss.

Now if Romney does not win NH he will start feeling the pressure- though a close second and wins in Nevada and Michigan could even fix that.
Romney has Michigan in the bag IMO because of his family roots there. But I think Nevada is going to be a close one.

Out of all the candidates - Romney is the most secure because he has a practically limitless cash flow due to him being an ungodly successful businessman (a big reason why I support him).
I don't think that any candidate is secure right now at all. Giuliani is making a big gamble betting on Florida and Super Tuesday. Romney probably can't handle losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. Who knows how far Mike Huckabee's momentum will go? Has John McCain's campaign finally revitalized? And Fred Thompson's campaign is all but dead due to his damn laziness.

[Spider-Bite]

Experience don't really mean jack as long as you at least have a little bit. Think about it really. What is he going to make a bad decision on the economy because he doesn't have experience running the economy? He's going to have the best advisers in the world sitting at his desk.

It really comes down to the mindset of the person. Bills will come before him and he will either veto them or or sign them.

[Spider-Bite]

What does everybody think of Huckabee's tax plan? The economists all say it's incredibly unfair and will hurt the middle class.

the last thing we should be talking about with the housing slump is a tax plan that will hurt the middle class.

[Zen]

My biggest fear is that Obama wins the nomination and that he inspires the youth of America to vote.

That scares the hell out of me. The majority of my generation has little business deciding what they will eat for dinner - much less who the next leader of the free world is.

Think about it - the next President could win on the shoulders of masses that find Steve-O funny and Flava Flav entertaining.

My god.

The horror.

those are precisely the Young folks that are not voting, be honest with yourself.

those that take the time to even carry themselves out to the voting booths already have twice the attention span of those you're afraid of...

and if you think age will make those people any more sharp take a look at whatever generation your apart of and how age has helped them, that is unless your over the age of 60... at which time i will place my foot in my mouth.

[Warhammer]

My biggest fear is that Obama wins the nomination and that he inspires the youth of America to vote.

That scares the hell out of me. The majority of my generation has little business deciding what they will eat for dinner - much less who the next leader of the free world is.

Think about it - the next President could win on the shoulders of masses that find Steve-O funny and Flava Flav entertaining.

My god.

The horror.

I think you are over-generalizing, and it's somewhat superficial, but think about it this way. Shouldn't the majority of people be getting out of apathy? It is a good thing that more people are voting, because most like what Obama has to say. Him inspiring more people to vote is a good thing, and his race has barely anything to do with it. The Iowa caucuses proved that. This will only inspire more future voters. Once you get involved in politics, you're out of apathy. People blame the majority of the American people because they don't give a damn about politics. Now, there is a possibility that they will. As a nation, that is an improvement that should have happened a long time ago, and if it took an idealist to do so, more power to him.

Does anyone see the possibility of Edwards being Obama's running mate, and vice-versa, if one of them wins the nomination? Or will Edwards not play second fiddle again?

[Prison Mike]

I think a Obama/Edwards ticket is the best bet. I don't really care about experience that much. I want change. Anything is better than Bush, even if the candidates are inexperienced. Let's hope America doesn't **** up this time like they did in 2004.

[StorminNorman]

If Romney came in a very close second I'd agree with you but considering all the money Romney spent, he lost to a guy whom he outspent 20-1 and gained frontpage recognition less than two months ago (compared to Romney's year+) by almost 10%. That's a really big loss.

Not when you consider that the variables in the Iowa debate were all leaning towards the Huckabee campaign. There was an incredible turnout by evangelical/born-again christians. And considering - again - Romney was down by 20% a few very short weeks before that, an 8% victory is not damning.

The fact he is leading or within the margin of error in almost all NH polls with McCain is proof of this.

Romney has Michigan in the bag IMO because of his family roots there. But I think Nevada is going to be a close one.

Of course it will be close - but with Rudy ignoring all states but Florida (due to lack of funds), the margin will grow for Romney. In theory of course.

I don't think that any candidate is secure right now at all. Giuliani is making a big gamble betting on Florida and Super Tuesday. Romney probably can't handle losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. Who knows how far Mike Huckabee's momentum will go? Has John McCain's campaign finally revitalized? And Fred Thompson's campaign is all but dead due to his damn laziness.

In politics money is security. Romney's campaign and great country wide organization gives him security no other candidate has.

Huckabee couldn't of afforded losing Iowa - his campaign would die. He can't afford losing South Carolina now.

Rudy can't afford losing in Florida.

McCain can't afford losing in New Hampshire

Thompson couldn't of afforded not coming in second in Iowa.

Paul needed to win 15% in Iowa.

Romney has no make or break state because he is the only candidate that is in the top 2/3 of all primary states. Now he needs to start winning or else the money will start flowing in with the other candidates and his campaign is doomed.

Thompson's campaign is more a victim of horrible campaign staff than Thompson himself. If he had a decent batch of consultants running his campaign his laziness could of been avoided.

[StorminNorman]

What does everybody think of Huckabee's tax plan? The economists all say it's incredibly unfair and will hurt the middle class.

the last thing we should be talking about with the housing slump is a tax plan that will hurt the middle class.

The Fair Tax plan does anything but hurt the middle class.

[StorminNorman]

those are precisely the Young folks that are not voting, be honest with yourself.

those that take the time to even carry themselves out to the voting booths already have twice the attention span of those you're afraid of...

and if you think age will make those people any more sharp take a look at whatever generation your apart of and how age has helped them, that is unless your over the age of 60... at which time i will place my foot in my mouth.

That is why I fear Obama will shake things up - I do not believe it, yet.

Now McGovern had a very similar youthful fan base, a large amount of support from the "hippy movement" who were adamant about showing up in and kicking Nixon out.

That worked so well.

[StorminNorman]

I think you are over-generalizing, and it's somewhat superficial, but think about it this way. Shouldn't the majority of people be getting out of apathy? It is a good thing that more people are voting, because most like what Obama has to say. Him inspiring more people to vote is a good thing, and his race has barely anything to do with it. The Iowa caucuses proved that. This will only inspire more future voters. Once you get involved in politics, you're out of apathy. People blame the majority of the American people because they don't give a damn about politics. Now, there is a possibility that they will. As a nation, that is an improvement that should have happened a long time ago, and if it took an idealist to do so, more power to him.

Does anyone see the possibility of Edwards being Obama's running mate, and vice-versa, if one of them wins the nomination? Or will Edwards not play second fiddle again?

No. The people who have decided in the past "its not important to vote" are the people that aren't intelligent enough to vote.

People are not voting for Obama because of his policies. They are voting for him because he is black, because he is young, because he has a sweet sweet voice that makes girls take of their panties. THAT IS NOT A WAY TO CHOOSE OUR NEXT LEADER. Excel is an example of this type of voter. This is the type of voter that has no business voting - and in the past would not be voting.

Edwards won't run as anyone's VP, I dont think. Plus Baby Obama will need a man with great experience - especially on a foreign level to give his campaign any credibility.

[hippie_hunter]

Not when you consider that the variables in the Iowa debate were all leaning towards the Huckabee campaign. There was an incredible turnout by evangelical/born-again christians. And considering - again - Romney was down by 20% a few very short weeks before that, an 8% victory is not damning.
I would say it was considering to whom he lost to and how much time and money he spent there.

The fact he is leading or within the margin of error in almost all NH polls with McCain is proof of this.
I think McCain is going to win New Hampshire by just a big margin in New Hampshire due to independent voters.

Of course it will be close - but with Rudy ignoring all states but Florida (due to lack of funds), the margin will grow for Romney. In theory of course.
I agree that Rudy is making a HUGE gamble by ignoring the states before Florida but I think that if Romney loses New Hampshire it's pretty much over for him.

In politics money is security. Romney's campaign and great country wide organization gives him security no other candidate has.
I think this election has proven that money does not guarantee votes. Take a look at Romney, he lost to someone he outspent 20-1. Take a look at John Edwards, he beat Hillary Clinton who has a lot of money in the bank.

Huckabee couldn't of afforded losing Iowa - his campaign would die. He can't afford losing South Carolina now.
I completely agree that Huckabee couldn't have afforded to lose Iowa and he is going to need South Carolina, but I think he can handle a South Carolina loss because his evangellical roots can help him win states like Texas.

Rudy can't afford losing in Florida.

McCain can't afford losing in New Hampshire

Thompson couldn't of afforded not coming in second in Iowa.

Paul needed to win 15% in Iowa.
I agree completely with this

Romney has no make or break state because he is the only candidate that is in the top 2/3 of all primary states. Now he needs to start winning or else the money will start flowing in with the other candidates and his campaign is doomed.
I feel that the early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan are going to Romney's make or break states. He has states like Michigan, Utah, and Massachusetts in the bag, but if he doesn't do well in the early states, that isn't going to bode well in the Super Tuesday states where Giuliani currently has the advantage and McCain and Huckabee can really get some momentum in if they win some early states.

Thompson's campaign is more a victim of horrible campaign staff than Thompson himself. If he had a decent batch of consultants running his campaign his laziness could of been avoided.
Where's a head shaking in agreement smilie when you need one :csad:

[Venom'sDad]

That is why I fear Obama will shake things up - I do not believe it, yet.

Now Dukakis had a very similar youthful fan base, a large amount of support from the "hippy movement" who were adamant about showing up in and kicking Nixon out.

That worked so well.

???

[hippie_hunter]

That is why I fear Obama will shake things up - I do not believe it, yet.

Now Dukakis had a very similar youthful fan base, a large amount of support from the "hippy movement" who were adamant about showing up in and kicking Nixon out.

That worked so well.

Don't you mean McGovern, not Dukakis.

And McGovern lost so badly because unlike Bush who has completely demoralized American politics, Nixon was actually not only a competent President, but a pretty damn good one and was running for re-election.

I don't think you can compare McGovern to Obama.

[Chris B]

I'm not really sure what will happen in NH on Tuesday. With his win in Iowa, Obama will obviously have the momentum going in, while Hillary has tried to make NH her firewall state. Due to his strong debate performance last night, Edwards could still surprise a lot of people.

[StorminNorman]

???

I, as Hippy mentioned, meant McGovern and not Dukakis.

[The Senator]

What does everybody think of Huckabee's tax plan? The economists all say it's incredibly unfair and will hurt the middle class.

the last thing we should be talking about with the housing slump is a tax plan that will hurt the middle class.

I would agree with eliminating the IRS and installing a Fair Tax if I was not a full-time college student. I live on a very small, fragile income, and I can't afford to spend an extra 20% on food and basic necessities.

In about six years, though, I may be a supporter.

[YsoSerious]

People are not voting for Obama because of his policies. They are voting for him because he is black, because he is young, because he has a sweet sweet voice that makes girls take of their panties. THAT IS NOT A WAY TO CHOOSE OUR NEXT LEADER.

Why do you think we voted for Bill Clinton?

[StorminNorman]

Why do you think we voted for Bill Clinton?

Because George H.W. appeared to be out of touch with Americans struggling with the economy, had a dopey VP and made a mistake with taxes.

Also Ross Perot didn't help.

Clinton's sexyness didn't really kick in until after he was President.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It seems since the debate a lot of opinions shifted and we are seeing Obama and Mccain as the favorites now.

[hippie_hunter]

It seems since the debate a lot of opinions shifted and we are seeing Obama and Mccain as the favorites now.
Obama and McCain will definetely win New Hampshire IMO. Because of independents and poor showings in Iowa by Clinton and Romney.

I am sticking with that prediction.

[Moviefan2k4]

I watched Mike Huckabee's C-SPAN broadcast maybe an hour ago, and found it very aspiring and impressive. From what I've seen, Mike will be getting my vote, once the race gets brought to Texas.

[teseract]

I watched Mike Huckabee's C-SPAN broadcast maybe an hour ago, and found it very aspiring and impressive. From what I've seen, Mike will be getting my vote, once the race gets brought to Texas.

Why am I not surprised? :whatever:

[hippie_hunter]

Huckabee does give some good performances, not as charasmatic as Obama, but he sure does give a damn great job.

[teseract]

Huckabee does give some good performances, not as charasmatic as Obama, but he sure does give a damn great job.
The man's a religious nut and an Ordained Pastor!

What the United States does NOT need is an Ayatollah!

Imho. He has to decide. Lay down all pastoral duties and connection or don't become President. A Pastor and President is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

[hippie_hunter]

The man's a religious nut and an Ordained Pastor!

What the United States does NOT need is an Ayatollah!

Imho. He has to decide. Lay down all pastoral duties and connection or don't become President. A Pastor and President is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

As long as he preserves the first amendment's prohibition of an official religion, freedom of practicing whatever religion a person wants, and keeps the government secular, I see no problem with Huckabee's beliefs or him being an ordained minister.

And he most certainly does not act like a Christian version of the Ayatollah.

[The Senator]

The man's a religious nut and an Ordained Pastor!

What the United States does NOT need is an Ayatollah!

Imho. He has to decide. Lay down all pastoral duties and connection or don't become President. A Pastor and President is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

I agree with this to an extent. Pastors shouldn't be Presidents. That being said, he is the most likable candidate in the Republican field. Besides having to glare at his fugly teeth for four to eight years, I wouldn't have a major problem with him if he became President-- despite the fact that I disagree with about 80% of what he stands for.

[Spider-Bite]

My biggest fear is that Obama wins the nomination and that he inspires the youth of America to vote.

That scares the hell out of me. The majority of my generation has little business deciding what they will eat for dinner - much less who the next leader of the free world is.

Think about it - the next President could win on the shoulders of masses that find Steve-O funny and Flava Flav entertaining.

My god.

The horror.

the youth that actually vote are much more progressive than their older counterparts, so maybe they will vote for progress.

Not to mention, that when they say the youth vote they are talking about voters 35 and under and the youth, youth, youth, vote is the college vote. Yes Obama wins the college vote by a landslide in the polls. I don't remember the exact number but it's a giant majority. In fact I'm in college and I know two republicans. Aside from them everybody, and I mean everybody is rooting for Barack Obama. Professors included.

[Spider-Bite]

The Fair Tax plan does anything but hurt the middle class.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22520696/

Huckabee's tax plan appeals, but is it fair?

Critics say burden would fall on middle-income Americans

Long before Mike Huckabee (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/mike_huckabee/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former Republican governor of Arkansas, began campaigning for president, advocates for replacing the entire federal tax system with a national sales tax were campaigning to convert him to their cause.
They succeeded. “Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly,” Mr. Huckabee says on his Web site (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5). “But I am running to eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all — personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), self-employment.”
“Instead,” adds Mr. Huckabee, who demonstrated his appeal to voters with his victory on Thursday in the Iowa caucuses, “we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth.”

Under the plan, Americans would pay only one federal tax, which would be applied to just about everything they buy: not just the goods people buy at stores on which most states assess a sales tax, but nearly all services, including health care and insurance, the purchase of a new home or rental of an apartment, even things like a teenager mowing a lawn or baby-sitting for a neighbor.
But the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer), as its many fervent backers call it, is not as simple as its supporters describe. And, to most tax experts who have looked at the proposal, it is anything but fair. For one, its burden would fall disproportionately on middle-income people.
Still, the plan has undeniable appeal. “There is a yearning across the political system to make the tax system better,” said William G. Gale (http://www.brookings.edu/experts/galew.aspx), a critic of the proposal who is a leading tax economist at the Brookings Institution (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/brookings_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org), the liberal-leaning research organization in Washington. “Right now the only people talking about tax reform are the sales tax advocates.”
Supporters, including a handful of tax experts like Laurence J. Kotlikoff (http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/), an economist at Boston University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/boston_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), contend that a rate of about 23 percent, applied across the board, would bring in just as much money to the Treasury as all the taxes the federal government now collects.
It is not the same as a normal sales tax, however. Under the proposal, the tax is included first. That means a $100 item would cost $130, or 30 percent more. The plan’s supporters say that works out as a 23 percent rate because $30 is 23 percent of $130. Americans would no longer face federal withholding from their paychecks. But most analysts say the tax rate necessary to replace current federal revenues, under any likely plan, would actually need to be much higher. By some estimates it could add 40 percent, if not more, to the cost of living.
Whatever the rate, critics say, a steep federal retail tax, piled on top of existing state sales taxes, would encourage widespread illegal tax evasion, black market transactions and other forms of cheating, creating a cycle that would require even higher tax rates.
“The main weakness of the FairTax is its comprehensiveness,” said Dale W. Jorgenson (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson), an economist at Harvard who opposes the plan but whose research into problems with the current system is sometimes cited by supporters. “It tries to roll everything into one tax, which simply can’t carry all that weight.”

Mr. Huckabee, according to polls, won the Iowa caucuses largely on the strength of his appeal to evangelical voters and voters’ desire for change. But his campaign received much of its early backing from FairTax advocates who flocked to his banner and continue to fill seats at campaign rallies and provide financial support.
In May, at a rally in Columbia, S.C., about 10,000 supporters of the proposal turned out to hear Mr. Huckabee declare, “I realize that the FairTax organization does not endorse candidates, but let me be very clear: I endorse you.”
Supporters of the sales tax plan are particularly drawn to the feature that calls for repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org). That fits with the insurgent, populist-tinged nature of Mr. Huckabee’s campaign.
“The public desperately desires a better way to collect federal taxes for the common good and recognizes the current system as both inherently flawed and then further corrupted by inside-the-Beltway machinations,” Leo E. Linbeck Jr., the multimillionaire founder of Americans for Fair Taxation, wrote in a recent letter defending the decade-old proposal. “It is understood by those who are joining our effort that overcoming the self-interest of the increasingly disdained Congress and the army of income tax system defenders is no small task.”

For Mr. Huckabee, the sales tax plan also helps provide political cover against attacks from antitax Republicans, who suspect, based on his actions as governor, that he might be tempted to raise taxes in the White House.

Like any tax on consumption, the biggest burden, comparatively, would fall on the poor. To help compensate for this, the plan would provide a monthly check from the government to every American household, rich and poor alike.

The rebate amount would be set to equal what a household living at the poverty level would pay in taxes, leaving some of the poor better off and cushioning the proposal’s impact on the middle class.
But, apart from the administrative nightmares associated with giving every household a rebate, it would still not prevent transferring a substantial part of the current tax burden from those with annual incomes above $200,000, who tend to save a large part of their income rather than spending it, to those earning less.
“Even with the rebate counted the way FairTax supporters want it calculated,” said Bruce Bartlett (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/bruce_bartlett/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a conservative tax analyst and policy maker in the Reagan administration who has emerged as one of the proposal’s most powerful critics (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf), “there would be an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.”
Advocates for the proposal look at the distribution of taxes differently. Mr. Kotlikoff argues that over a lifetime most people spend just about everything they earn from their work and investments, so that those who avoid taxes on their savings now would end up paying later when they consume their wealth.
“The FairTax, looked at correctly, is actually pretty progressive,” contends Mr. Kotlikoff, who has been paid by the FairTax organization for his research. “Liberals should love it: it lowers taxes on wages and imposes a tax on wealth.”
Like many single-issue causes of the past, including the “Cross of Gold” campaign of William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the 20th century and the Depression-era “Every Man a King” plan of Huey Long to redistribute wealth, supporters make plenty of grandiose claims for the sales tax plan.
Advocates say that businesses, no longer required to pay taxes themselves, would pass on their savings to consumers through lower prices. The plan would also eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the income tax, provide a huge jolt to economic growth and give American companies a competitive advantage against foreign producers.
But even though critics acknowledge that there would be some economic benefits from introducing a broad-based consumption tax, Mr. Gale of the Brookings Institution said that the proposal itself was “fundamentally a ruse.”
“The notion that there is a 23 percent rate that solves all our problems,” he said, “is politically unrealistic and mathematically impossible.”

[Spider-Bite]

The man's a religious nut and an Ordained Pastor!

What the United States does NOT need is an Ayatollah!

Imho. He has to decide. Lay down all pastoral duties and connection or don't become President. A Pastor and President is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

We should not hold that against him. His having been a baptist is completely irrelevant. Not every religous person thinks they are in a position to speak on God's behalf about what he's thinking at this moment. And not every religous person believes that God is off in some factory typing up Bibles.

I wont vote for him, because I oppose him and where he stands on the issues, but his having been a baptist is irrelevant, because one of the things I oppose him on is bigotry, and if I were to hold his religous background against him, it would make me a hypocrite.

[Matt]

the youth that actually vote are much more progressive than their older counterparts, so maybe they will vote for progress.

Not to mention, that when they say the youth vote they are talking about voters 35 and under and the youth, youth, youth, vote is the college vote. Yes Obama wins the college vote by a landslide in the polls. I don't remember the exact number but it's a giant majority. In fact I'm in college and I know two republicans. Aside from them everybody, and I mean everybody is rooting for Barack Obama. Professors included.

Progress for the sake of progress is foolish. Especially when it is at the expense of something else (i.e. giving a pro-free trade, inexperienced, no platform man the presidency)

[Matt]

Did anyone catch The Simpsons today? Ralph's skyrocketing candidacy with no platform or experience because he was "fresh" seemed like pretty obvious satire to me.

[rdh007]

A sales tax is regressive. Didn't we establish that already?

[Excel]

Just days after people were declaring Hilary a lock to win Iowa, Obama has jumped out to 13% point lead in the state according to usa today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc

My personal opinion-this is the 2nd or 3rd poll Ive seen in recent days indicating Obama doesnt only lead, but lead big.

[Spider-Bite]

Progress for the sake of progress is foolish.

That is kind of a rediculous thing to say.


Especially when it is at the expense of something else (i.e. giving a pro-free trade, inexperienced, no platform man the presidency)


Why do you say he has no platform? The man does not lie about his positions. He doesn't flip flop. He's the peace candidate.

Nobody can directly attack him on the issues so all they do is attack the fact that he's fresh or the fact that he hasn't been in the senate very long. They more like indirectly attack him in a generalized fashion, rather than attack him with real substance on the issues, which is why when he wins the nomination he's going to wipe the floor with the republican nominee in the debates and the election.

Only a matter of time untill we get accused of voting for him because he's black, or because he has a muslim sounding name, to show how liberal we are.

[Spider-Bite]

Just days after people were declaring Hilary a lock to win Iowa, Obama has jumped out to 13% point lead in the state according to usa today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc

My personal opinion-this is the 2nd or 3rd poll Ive seen in recent days indicating Obama doesnt only lead, but lead big.

He already won Iowa. Now he's leading in New Hampshire too. Obama is probably going to be our next President.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not placing any bets yet on who has either nomination just yet. And I'm not placing a bet if the next President will be a Republican or Democrat either.

[Spider-Bite]

Did anyone catch The Simpsons today? Ralph's skyrocketing candidacy with no platform or experience because he was "fresh" seemed like pretty obvious satire to me.

Simpsons is a good show, but you do realize it's run by Fox right? Did Ralph talk about how he is going to change things?

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not placing any bets yet on who has either nomination just yet. And I'm not placing a bet if the next President will be a Republican or Democrat either.


Well Democrats already have Iowa locked up, and it's normally a swing state. Indepandants are siding with the democrats, and polling shows that democratic voters are much more satisfied with their front runners than the republican voters are with theirs.

Republicans don't like Huckabee's anti-Bush comments or his record on taxes. They don't like Romney's being a mormon or his John Kerry like flip flopping. They don't like McCain's position on immigration or his past preaching of acceptance and tolerance or his original opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or his opposition to torturing terrorists, and the youth vote is going to come out in record numbers this election because of Obama. Democrats are in a very good position right now, assuming Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

[hippie_hunter]

Simpsons is a good show, but you do realize it's run by Fox right? Did Ralph talk about how he is going to change things?

Despite the fact that Fox runs the Simpsons, the creators of the Simpsons for the most part are very, very, very liberal.

They've used the show and movie to criticize the Iraq War, the military (to the point where it was offensive), the enviroment, the Patriot Act and the government's spying programs, Republicans, etc.

[The Senator]

Simpsons is a good show, but you do realize it's run by Fox right? Did Ralph talk about how he is going to change things?

You also realize that The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening, who is very liberal? And you also realize that there are plenty of episodes which portray Republicans as vampires, mass murderers, or other evil entities? So don't blame this one on some conspiracy by Fox. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why the world looks down on liberals.

[Spider-Bite]

Despite the fact that Fox runs the Simpsons, the creators of the Simpsons for the most part are very, very, very liberal.

They've used the show and movie to criticize the Iraq War, the military (to the point where it was offensive), the enviroment, the Patriot Act and the government's spying programs, Republicans, etc.

Sam Raimi didn't want Venom in Spider-Man 3, but Sony did and Sony got what Sony wanted.

[Excel]

Can someone who likes Hilary or knows about he rplease explain one thing to me.

She brags about having 35 years of expirience in American government but also brags about being an agent for change.

She must be a lto stupider than most give her credit for because what she is saying is she has 35 years of expirience working IN and FOR the government we all want to CHANGE.

So if we want change, why the hell would we hire somebody who has so much expirience in it? Wouldnt be that be totally defeating the purpose?

[Spider-Bite]

You also realize that The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening, who is very liberal? And you also realize that there are plenty of episodes which portray Republicans as vampires, mass murderers, or other evil entities? So don't blame this one on some conspiracy by Fox. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why the world looks down on liberals.


I guess I can't really specifically talk about this instance because I didn't see it.

[Spider-Bite]

Can someone who likes Hilary or knows about he rplease explain one thing to me.

She brags about having 35 years of expirience in American government but also brags about being an agent for change.

She must be a lto stupider than most give her credit for because what she is saying is she has 35 years of expirience working IN and FOR the government we all want to CHANGE.

So if we want change, why the hell would we hire somebody who has so much expirience in it? Wouldnt be that be totally defeating the purpose?


It depends on that person's position on the issues, their record, the amount of money taken from lobbyists, and how willing that candidate is to compromise their beliefs to get elected or get high approval ratings. In Hillary's case she is an agent of moderate slight change from the Bush administration, but nothing pivotal or great.

She will probably be like Bill Clinton. He didn't ruin the country the way Bush did, but he didn't really usher in a new age either.

[hippie_hunter]

Well Democrats already have Iowa locked up, and it's normally a swing state. Indepandants are siding with the democrats, and polling shows that democratic voters are much more satisfied with their front runners than the republican voters are with theirs.
I agree that the Democrats will most likely win Iowa in 2008. I think they'll also take Ohio. I feel that Virginia has now become a swing state.

However, the Democrats have lost Florida. That state will go Republican in 2008.

Republicans don't like Huckabee's anti-Bush comments or his record on taxes. They don't like Romney's being a mormon or his John Kerry like flip flopping. They don't like McCain's position on immigration or his past preaching of acceptance and tolerance or his original opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or his opposition to torturing terrorists, and the youth vote is going to come out in record numbers this election because of Obama. Democrats are in a very good position right now, assuming Hillary doesn't win the nomination.
The Republicans will flock behind anyone if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.

The funny thing is that Huckabee's stance on taxes (raising taxes to pay for certain things when necessary and I like his Fair Tax) and his anti-Bush comments make perfect sense. McCain's positions on torture and opposition to the Bush tax cuts make perfect sense. Romney's just a douche. :o

I think it'll be much better when the nomination is finally decided the Republican base will be much more in line.

[The Senator]

Well Democrats already have Iowa locked up, and it's normally a swing state. Indepandants are siding with the democrats, and polling shows that democratic voters are much more satisfied with their front runners than the republican voters are with theirs.

Republicans don't like Huckabee's anti-Bush comments or his record on taxes. They don't like Romney's being a mormon or his John Kerry like flip flopping. They don't like McCain's position on immigration or his past preaching of acceptance and tolerance or his original opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or his opposition to torturing terrorists, and the youth vote is going to come out in record numbers this election because of Obama. Democrats are in a very good position right now, assuming Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

Democrats would be in a good position to win the presidency regardless of who wins the nomination. The problem is, our wonderful party will probably find some way to screw it up.

[Excel]

Off topic-

JOHN EDWARDS IS 54?

Wtf. He looks like hes 35.

[The Senator]

I guess I can't really specifically talk about this instance because I didn't see it.

But you can't say that the reason why The Simpsons satirized Barack Obama was because Fox is involved in some sort of vast, right-wing conspiracy. That's a completely baseless claim, which you based on the synopsis of one episode. You didn't think before you posted. You jumped in to defend Barack Obama, as if this was some sort of jab at his reputation. It's a cartoon which satirizes everything. Lighten up, and read up on things before you make outlandish accusations.

[hippie_hunter]

Sam Raimi didn't want Venom in Spider-Man 3, but Sony did and Sony got what Sony wanted.

But Fox actually allows Groening and the other producers express their views.

The Republicans are portrayed as evil, greedy vampires with a Translyvania castle headquarters with members like Montgomery Burns, the Rich Texan, Count Chocula, Sideshow Bob, and Krusty the Clown.

They've promoted a liberal position on immigration in the episode Much Apu About Nothing.

They've promoted our actions as harmful to the enviroment and global warming as a serious threat in the Simpsons Movie.

They've downright insulted the military and the state of the military to the point where it wasn't funny at all in G.I. (Annoyed Grunt).

They've criticized the Iraq War in Treehouse of Horror XVII. By the aliens complaining that they weren't greeted as liberators. A rather stupid comparision since Springfield was a rather free society compared to the totalitarian one in Iraq.

They make fun of FOX's conservative bias in Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington.

They've criticized the abuse of government power with the USA PATRIOT Act in the Simpson's Movie.

They make fun of the NRA and Second Amendment supporters in the Cartridge Family.

They've criticized outsourcing in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bangalore.

They criticized the incompetency of our government in the Simpson's Movie

Seriously how can you say that the Simpsons is remotely conservative?

[Warhammer]

No. The people who have decided in the past "its not important to vote" are the people that aren't intelligent enough to vote.

People are not voting for Obama because of his policies. They are voting for him because he is black, because he is young, because he has a sweet sweet voice that makes girls take of their panties. THAT IS NOT A WAY TO CHOOSE OUR NEXT LEADER. Excel is an example of this type of voter. This is the type of voter that has no business voting - and in the past would not be voting.

Edwards won't run as anyone's VP, I dont think. Plus Baby Obama will need a man with great experience - especially on a foreign level to give his campaign any credibility.

Well, I respect your opinion.

[hippie_hunter]

Well, I respect your opinion. However, I am not going to voice my counter-argument, etc. I'm not going to argue about politics.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but then what's the point of posting here? A higher post count?

Seriously arguing about politics is fun here and I have a blast doing it with various members of the Hype. All that you need to do is just be civil about it and don't act like a jackass like cellslim and it's all cool.

[Warhammer]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but then what's the point of posting here? A higher post count.

Seriously arguing about politics is fun here and I have a blast doing it with various members of the Hype.

I dunno. Politics and religion cause flamewars because, in more ways than one, nobody's opinion is wrong. As time passes, it's only a matter of time before you get that one poster who is ignorant and immature and does the wrong thing. Then things escalate, then people get banned, mod intervention, etc.

[hippie_hunter]

I dunno. Politics and religion cause flamewars because, in more ways than one, nobody's opinion is wrong. As time passes, it's only a matter of time before you get that one poster who is ignorant and immature and does the wrong thing. Then things escalate, then people get banned, mod intervention, etc.

Actually it's rather civil here with members like Spider-Bite, myself, Kritish, Mr. Sparkle, StorminNorman, lazur, Matt, jaguarr, and others.

Sure there are a few dumbasses like cellslim, but we all flame him anyways. :up:

[Warhammer]

Lol. :)

I'm sort of a n00bie when it comes to politics. Recently, I have gotten into politics and keeping up with the majority of current events after taking a government class. But hey, we all started from somewhere.

[Anguissette1979]

Can we PLEASE have a National Primary? I just drove to Manchester today and there are so many ****ing political signs up that I nearly was in a car accident because I couldn't see over or around snowbanks COVERED in Rude, Edwards, Obama, Romney, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Kucinich and "Dividedwefail.org" signs :rolleyes:

I'd REALLY like to share the love with the rest of you.... :(

[rdh007]

You poor thing. You get more say in the process than the rest of us and we have to feel sorry for you?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No, seriously, that must suck. Sorry to hear that. It's probably a circus right now. Oh, and I went to Portsmouth once, it was nice.

[Anguissette1979]

No, seriously, that must suck. Sorry to hear that. It's probably a circus right now. Oh, and I went to Portsmouth once, it was nice.

It's cool in some ways because we do get LOADS of information and plenty of opportunity to meet with candidates but I truly do feel bad that the rest of the people of the country don't get this much attention. If we all voted on the same day in primaries, just like we do in the general election, it would force the candidates to spread the love out :)

[Spider-Bite]

I am curious who does everybody side with on federalized health care with regards to Obama verses Clinton and Edwards? Clinton and Edwards want to force everybody to buy into it, and if htey don't they get penalized by the government, and Obama's leaves you with the option to buy federalized health care so that if you can't afford it you don't get in trouble. Obama leaves some without coverage, but in my opinion your not really helping people by forcing them to buy something that they don't have the money to pay for.

I know many are against federal health care, but for those who support it, who's do you like more? The Obama plan or the Edwards and HIllary's plan. I support Obama's plan. Yeah I'll probably be one of those without coverage because I probably wont be able to afford it, but I'd rather be without coverage than get put in jail or fined for not being able to afford it. I'm a full time college student. It's expensive, and I'm usually broke.

I just think Edward's and Hillary's plans are unfair.

[StorminNorman]

I am curious who does everybody side with on federalized health care with regards to Obama verses Clinton and Edwards? Clinton and Edwards want to force everybody to buy into it, and if htey don't they get penalized by the government, and Obama's leaves you with the option to buy federalized health care so that if you can't afford it you don't get in trouble. Obama leaves some without coverage, but in my opinion your not really helping people by forcing them to buy something that they don't have the money to pay for.

I know many are against federal health care, but for those who support it, who's do you like more? The Obama plan or the Edwards and HIllary's plan. I support Obama's plan. Yeah I'll probably be one of those without coverage because I probably wont be able to afford it, but I'd rather be without coverage than get put in jail or fined for not being able to afford it. I'm a full time college student. It's expensive, and I'm usually broke.

I just think Edward's and Hillary's plans are unfair.

The Clinton and Edwards plan would be payed for by taxes. So the poor that don't pay taxes will not be "jailed" for not having it. Being a college student it would come out of the taxes you pay now (though those taxes will go up).

In Obama's system - can you buy healthcare outside of the government plan?

[Spider-Bite]

The Clinton and Edwards plan would be payed for by taxes. So the poor that don't pay taxes will not be "jailed" for not having it. Being a college student it would come out of the taxes you pay now (though those taxes will go up).



With the Clinton and Edwards plan you have to pay into it though. It doesn't just come out of taxes, you actually have to buy a health care plan from the government.

Right now though I'm not working. I have my grants and student loans to get me through the year. Starting in a few weeks I'll be working one night a week though, but that's it. Anymore would be difficult with my class schedules, plus I want straight A's.

In Obama's system - can you buy healthcare outside of the government plan?

I'm pretty sure you can, but I'm not positive. I'll have to go back and look.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm watching the recent Republican debate on YouTube and God damn....ROMNEY IS A F**KING IDIOT!

He literally has no idea about radical jihadism. He literally threw away all what Ron Paul said, told him that he was listening to their propaganda, and completely ignored why it came about in the first place.

[Metamorpho1977]

politically, I guess I'm a Republican. However, of the candidates running, I'm liking Obama for the Democrat candidate and Huckabee for the Republican card.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

politically, I guess I'm a Republican. However, of the candidates running, I'm liking Obama for the Democrat candidate and Huckabee for the Republican card.

Sums up a lot of people Republican or not :o

[Spider-Bite]

Sums up a lot of people Republican or not :o

Indepandants who are voting republican are going more towards McCain than Huckabee.

I used to think that Giulliani was the republican's only hope of getting the white house, but now I'm pretty sure the only republican who would be strong in a general election is McCain.

I also feel that McCain and Obama are the only candidates with 100% good intentions.

[Matt]

That is kind of a rediculous thing to say.

No its not. To vote for someone simply because they are black or a woman or for any reason that can be said "It will be progressive to have them in office." is stupid.

Why do you say he has no platform? The man does not lie about his positions. He doesn't flip flop. He's the peace candidate.

Just out of curiousity, how do you know he doesn't lie? Have you read his thoughts? You seem to have him on some sort of a pedestal as if he can do absolutely no wrong.


Nobody can directly attack him on the issues so all they do is attack the fact that he's fresh or the fact that he hasn't been in the senate very long. They more like indirectly attack him in a generalized fashion, rather than attack him with real substance on the issues, which is why when he wins the nomination he's going to wipe the floor with the republican nominee in the debates and the election.

Only a matter of time untill we get accused of voting for him because he's black, or because he has a muslim sounding name, to show how liberal we are.

I CAN attack him on the few issues he has taken a stance on. His plan for Iraq is stupid. The country isn't stable. If you want a pull out, don't leave a "small peace force" behind as you are pretty much asking for them to be killed when the country goes into turmoil from the majority of our military pulling out. So yeah, either total pull out, or none at all. Don't sentence an entire group of "peacekeepers" to death.

We are at war. Not the one in Iraq (which is a load of bullocks) but we are at war with terrorists who attacked us. No ammount of "peace" is going to end that. Al-Queda and other terror networks want to cripple our country and kill our civilians. Ontop of that, Iran is a major threat not only to us, but crucial allies. Obama is saying that he will not go to war with them. Really refreshing to know that if they attack Israel or sponsor a terror attack against us as the Taliban did, he is not prepared to take action. Peace may be prefferable but it isn't always practical and I'm not sure that Obama realizes that and therefore I do not trust his finger on the button.

His plan to establish MORE free trade is just dumb. Free trade is killing our country, and for someone who claims to represent the average man to endorse it shows just what kind of person he is. Furthermore, he wants national healthcare...an incredibly expensive endeavor...yet refuses to acknowledge how he will pay for it. The only logical conclussion is a raise in taxes. Our country cannot afford a tax boost for MORE social programs at the moment. We are currently in a recession. Not to mention we currently have a huge deficit. We need to be CUTTING social programs while keeping tax cuts in place. I support nationalized health care. But it is simply the wrong time for it. Its not practical at the moment. Especially when you take into account that there will be hundreds of thousands of jobs exported if Obama's free trade agreements go into effect.

So there are some issues to attack him on (pretty much the only three he has taken a stance on).

[Matt]

Indepandants who are voting republican are going more towards McCain than Huckabee.

I used to think that Giulliani was the republican's only hope of getting the white house, but now I'm pretty sure the only republican who would be strong in a general election is McCain.

I also feel that McCain and Obama are the only candidates with 100% good intentions.

I think you underestimate the religious vote. Which is what killed the Democratic Party in 2004. It would be a vital mistake to do that again.

[BlackLantern]

as a black man myself, Obama does not make me belive he can be President....he is a great public speaker but thats about it.....The Rock is a great public speaker, doesnt mean he should be President....IMO Huckabee is the front runner on both sides....Hillary is a few steps behind him....Huckabee is a nice safe candidate that the Republicans can support and not worry about him flying off the handle like Ron Paul probably would

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Matt;13733156]No its not. To vote for someone simply because they are black or a woman or for any reason that can be said "It will be progressive to have them in office." is stupid.


Who said that was the reason I or anybody was voting for him? Progressive means liberal.


Just out of curiousity, how do you know he doesn't lie? Have you read his thoughts? You seem to have him on some sort of a pedestal as if he can do absolutely no wrong.



I do not believe Barack Obama is a dishonest politician. If he was he would have supported the Iraq war instead of opposed while running for his seat in the senate. He was not an incumbent and when he gave that speech against the Iraq war, prior to the invasion, it was an incredibly unpopular stance. Not to mention he ha snot taken money from lobbyists, and that is something that no other presidential hopeful can say about themselves.

I CAN attack him on the few issues he has taken a stance on. His plan for Iraq is stupid. The country isn't stable. If you want a pull out, don't leave a "small peace force" behind as you are pretty much asking for them to be killed when the country goes into turmoil from the majority of our military pulling out. His plan to establish MORE free trade is just dumb. Free trade is killing our country, and for someone who claims to represent the average man to endorse it shows just what kind of person he is.
Well regardless of whether I agree or disagree, here you are saying you disagree with him, but it is dishonest to say he only has a position on a few issues.

Furthermore, he wants national healthcare...an incredibly expensive endeavor...yet refuses to acknowledge how he will pay for it.
In order to get the health care you have to buy it, under his plan. Now your criticizing him for not answering a question he answered a long time ago.



So there are some issues to attack him on (pretty much the only three he has taken a stance on).

This is very dishonest. Pick a different issue, and I will tell you his position.
Alternative energy?
Energy efficency?
Gay marriage?
Gay adoption?
Gun control?
Minimum wage?
Tax cuts for the rich?
Iran?
Patriot Act?
Habious Corpeus?
No Child Left Behind Act?
Lobyists?
Guantanimo Bay?
Torture?
Abortion?
Sex education?
Child molestation prevention programs?

[Matt]

Who said that was the reason I or anybody was voting for him? Progressive means liberal.


Progressive and liberal are two different things. You should learn your terms before you debate them.


I do not believe Barack Obama is a dishonest politician. If he was he would have supported the Iraq war instead of opposed while running for his seat in the senate. He was not an incumbent and when he gave that speech against the Iraq war, prior to the invasion, it was an incredibly unpopular stance. Not to mention he ha snot taken money from lobbyists, and that is something that no other presidential hopeful can say about themselves.


None of that proves he is honest nor does it give you the ability to say he does not lie.


Well regardless of whether I agree or disagree, here you are saying you disagree with him, but it is dishonest to say he only has a position on a few issues.

He DOES have a stance on very few issues.


In order to get the health care you have to buy it, under his plan. Now your criticizing him for not answering a question he answered a long time ago.

And his stance involves a very elaborate health care plan. Either Americans will have to pay the same (if not more) as the privatized set up (in which case, why even bother resorting to socialism?) or tax payers will have to swollow the burden as well.



This is very dishonest. Pick a different issue, and I may or may not be able to tell you his position.

Lay out his platform for me. Tell me how he plans to accomplish every stance he has taken. Basically any other candidate can. He is the only one who I find has not laid out a detailed platform.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Matt;13733373]Progressive and liberal are two different things. You should learn your terms before you debate them.

Liberals tend to be secular progressives, I had assumed you knew what I meant.

None of that proves he is honest nor does it give you the ability to say he does not lie.
I can't prove he has never lied, after all he is still a human being. but based on everything we know about him, he comes off as being honest and sincere, even when it doesn't suit him.





And his stance involves a very elaborate health care plan. Either Americans will have to pay the same (if not more) as the privatized set up (in which case, why even bother resorting to socialism?) or tax payers will have to swollow the burden as well.

You may oppose him on this, but you said he never said how we would pay for it, and he did. You have to pay for the coverage.



Lay out his platform for me. Tell me how he plans to accomplish every stance he has taken. Basically any other candidate can. He is the only one who I find has not laid out a detailed platform.

Explain how the other candidates have a platform and he doesn't? And be specific about what you mean by platform.

I feel the base of his platform is to unify and bring change, and I feel he has laid how he will acheive these, and as for the unifying part, he is already acheiving it, which is why Indepandants and Republicans are flocking to him. Unlike liberals who want to defeat those who disagree with them, Obama is a liberal who has successfully reached out to them.

[GoldenAgeHero]

Simpsons is a good show, but you do realize it's run by Fox right? Did Ralph talk about how he is going to change things?


ahahaha he actually did. he said he wanted to end all the booms booms(wars) so everyone can live together. sounds like obama.

[Spider-Bite]

Watching the democratic debate, I have one thing to say. I love em all. I don't know if I care who wins, because the are all A-okay in my book, but Edwards and Obama are still my favorites.

Who will I vote for when my state comes around to voting? Whoever is ahead out of Edwards and Obama, but I do like the the top 3, and I think any of them would do a good job.

[Zen]

as a black man myself, Obama does not make me belive he can be President....he is a great public speaker but thats about it.....The Rock is a great public speaker, doesnt mean he should be President....IMO Huckabee is the front runner on both sides....Hillary is a few steps behind him....Huckabee is a nice safe candidate that the Republicans can support and not worry about him flying off the handle like Ron Paul probably would


the rock is a mediocre-at-best public speaker... aside from his laughable one liners, i have never felt inspired by any public speach by him both in and out of the wrestling ring, that he has ever made.

i am not sure huckabee will be able to carry enough of the "big" delegate states... plus nationally Huckabee is not as electable as a less staunch religious candidate would be, being a pastor is scaring people in the republican party away... mostly in the larger states, and insuring he will get a far less percentage of the independant voters which are so vital in this race, especially if Obama takes this primary.

there are questions about Huckabees ability to handle foreign policy with his fumblings over pakistan and such, i think Huckabee needs to be able to compete against guilianni and mccain on protecting the nation or he has no chance...

if Huckabee and McCain teamed up then you might have a winning team... but i just don't see any way the republicans can win otherwise. Obama and Clinton have the ability to bring out the vote and sway independants... especially Obama if he keeps this momentum rolling... nobody on the republican side has this ability yet.

this is huge, even the republicans admit that 70% of america wants major change... and are jaded by the current administration.

despite everyone trying to distance themselves from Bush, he still hurts the republicans in a way im not sure they can recover from.

[StorminNorman]

the rock is a mediocre-at-best public speaker... aside from his laughable one liners, i have never felt inspired by any public speach by him both in and out of the wrestling ring, that he has ever made.

i am not sure huckabee will be able to carry enough of the "big" delegate states... plus nationally Huckabee is not as electable as a less staunch religious candidate would be, being a pastor is scaring people in the republican party away... mostly in the larger states, and insuring he will get a far less percentage of the independant voters which are so vital in this race, especially if Obama takes this primary.

there are questions about Huckabees ability to handle foreign policy with his fumblings over pakistan and such, i think Huckabee needs to be able to compete against guilianni and mccain on protecting the nation or he has no chance...

if Huckabee and McCain teamed up then you might have a winning team... but i just don't see any way the republicans can win otherwise. Obama and Clinton have the ability to bring out the vote and sway independants... especially Obama if he keeps this momentum rolling... nobody on the republican side has this ability yet.

this is huge, even the republicans admit that 70% of america wants major change... and are jaded by the current administration.

despite everyone trying to distance themselves from Bush, he still hurts the republicans in a way im not sure they can recover from.

Actually Clinton has demonstrated absolutely no ability at all to gain the independent voters support...

If America really wants "change" then Ron Paul would be through the roof. American's may say they want change - but clearly their voting says otherwise.

The Democrats have had as much power as Republicans the last two years and have dip-squat. Worse than that really.

[BlackLantern]

To me...Hillary isnt running because she wants to, she seems to be running because she is expected to....and she just doesnt seem relatable...

[StorminNorman]

Oh she wants this - she was thsi bad.

[BlackLantern]

she isnt going to get it.....and if by some cosmic miracle she does win, dont be surprised if some sister ****ing Montana militia man blows her head off because "he dont want no wimmen runnin his country"

[bell110]

I predict Obama for the Dems and McCain for the Reps.

And I predict Paul will do surprisingly well

[hippie_hunter]

and Clinton have the ability to bring out the vote and sway independants...

Clinton has zero ablility of getting the independent vote. If the Democrats nominate her, you guys can gladly welcome 4 years of another Republican President.

[cookiva]

Clinton has zero ablility of getting the independent vote. If the Democrats nominate her, you guys can gladly welcome 4 years of another Republican President.

You guys???? I dont think so. There is no way in hell I vote for her. If its between McCain and Clinton, Im voting 3rd party.

[Ahura Mazda]

I am not American and percieve the election as a foreign visitor but given what I know about Hilary from friends in relations that live in the DC community woe to everyone if Hilary gets elected on the coat tails of Bill. She is extremely intelligent but from what I have heard not really leadership material.

[rdh007]

Clinton has zero ablility of getting the independent vote. If the Democrats nominate her, you guys can gladly welcome 4 years of another Republican President.
I generally agree. I think she probably brings out more vitriol than any other candidate on either side.

[bunk]

I'm not too worried about Hillary getting the nomination. I still think most of the country hates her guts, even if they don't come out and say it.

[the_ultimate_evil]

the one thing that worries me about hillary is from what i've read she seem to morally driven. she seems to be very against many form of genre's of entertainment and thats a very slippery slope

[Venom'sDad]

I used to think that Giulliani was the republican's only hope of getting the white house, but now I'm pretty sure the only republican who would be strong in a general election is McCain.


McCain has no chance. Many of you tend to mix the flavor of the day with the big picture or should I say the national picture. Giulliani will be the Repubs nominee and Prez of the U.S. There is a lot to fear about the sovereignty of this country for the next 8 years.


if Huckabee and McCain teamed up then you might have a winning team... but i just don't see any way the republicans can win otherwise. Obama and Clinton have the ability to bring out the vote and sway independants... especially Obama if he keeps this momentum rolling... nobody on the republican side has this ability yet.

this is huge, even the republicans admit that 70% of america wants major change... and are jaded by the current administration.

despite everyone trying to distance themselves from Bush, he still hurts the republicans in a way im not sure they can recover from.

There is a lot to say hear, so here it goes.

1st Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson for that matter, will be hard press to make it to Super Tuesday; however none of that matter, it's Rudy G's nomination. Despite the media discontent towards Romney, he is a favorate of a huge percentage of Reagan Repubs, and they do see him as presidential. He will be the VP Candidate for the Repubs....

2nd Clinton barely can maintain the female vote which is her strongest asset as well as the baby boomers vote. She will never get the Independent, because Independents are against the status quo which is why Obama is doing well for the moment. If they weren't independents they would vote the establishment and be classified as Conservatives/Liberals or Repubs/Demos and not Moderates/Independents

3rd Like someone has already stated, if people really want change Paul & Gravel would not be front-runners, don't get me wrong, but they both would have had a REAL IMPACT on these primaries and would be doing a lot better than what they are. Change is lip-service, mostly by the media. Americans don't want change, they want stability and European style socialism and security.... hence the reason why Rudy G & hillary are the parties front-runners.

Finally Conservatives loves Bush whelther many of you wants to disbelieve it or not. Those Repubs that the media keeps harping on that are displease with Bush are those moderate repubs, who like Liberals want the war ended. Conservative, no doubt feel, WAR FATIGUE, but they tremedously support him on mostly everything else and DO feel he is a man of Principles & Convictions. Something that they believe Liberals don't have... particular hillary. Which is the reason why they are so united against her.



Actually Clinton has demonstrated absolutely no ability at all to gain the independent voters support...

If America really wants "change" then Ron Paul would be through the roof. American's may say they want change - but clearly their voting says otherwise.

The Democrats have had as much power as Republicans the last two years and have dip-squat. Worse than that really.

Exactly... couldn't agree more.

As far the highlighted statement, because both parties desire the same thing... European Style Socialism. Which is the TRUE reason why both parties support the war regardless of the lip-service from the demo who say they was hogg-washed, following International Law over the U.S. Constitution(Paul is right on that) Fiscal policy, derogation of freedoms in this country(Patriot act and other unknowingly policies, that both parties voted for overwhelmingly), and the soveriegnty of this country and borders(NAFTA). This is real and is happening in the open...it is not conspiracy theory. The world is moving toward a Global Economy, Free Trade, and Global Law based on the European Model... that's just the fact and the U.S. is a member of such mind-set. It may or may not be a bad thing, I don't know; but, one cannot control 7.2 billion people, which it will be at time of complete implementation, without and Iron Fist. Many of freedoms will have to be removed for the sake of control and security. Let just be real about that.



Clinton has zero ablility of getting the independent vote. If the Democrats nominate her, you guys can gladly welcome 4 years of another Republican President.

8 years actually...

[luke1234]

Gulliani will not be the repbulicans nominee, he has no momentum and showed this country he does not put in much effort which showed in the iowa caucas.

If anything hes in 4th place for the republican vote.

And if hillary wins the democratic vote there will defintily be another republican president, im pulling for obama or edwards

[Spider-Bite]

Rudy is not even leading in Florida anymore. I think Rudy blew his chances by sitting out all these other states. He wont even be able to win super tuesday now.

[hippie_hunter]

McCain has no chance. Many of you tend to mix the flavor of the day with the big picture or should I say the national picture. Giulliani will be the Repubs nominee and Prez of the U.S. There is a lot to fear about the sovereignty of this country for the next 8 years.
I think right now that it is far too soon to determine who wins the Republican nominee. Romney still has a chance if he manages to win New Hampshire (though I doubt it). Huckabee could get some much needed momentum if he wins South Carolina. Same with McCain with New Hampshire. Giuliani is making a huge gamble with Florida and Super Tuesday.

Paul isn't going to get the nomination and neither will Thompson, but they are certainly be a factor.

1st Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson for that matter, will be hard press to make it to Super Tuesday; however none of that matter, it's Rudy G's nomination. Despite the media discontent towards Romney, he is a favorate of a huge percentage of Reagan Repubs, and they do see him as presidential. He will be the VP Candidate for the Repubs....
Thompson's nomination is dead. He was far too lazy in his candidacy. He could have won Iowa if he were more active but discontent evangellicals flocked to Huckabee as a result.

Huckabee will have a good showing in states such as South Carolina and Texas but he has Arkansas in the bag.

Romney has states like Utah, Michigan, and Massachusetts in the bag.

Thompson will probably get Tennessee simply because that's his home state.

McCain has states like New Hampshire, Arizona, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

And who knows if Giuliani's gamble will pay off.

2nd Clinton barely can maintain the female vote which is her strongest asset as well as the baby boomers vote. She will never get the Independent, because Independents are against the status quo which is why Obama is doing well for the moment. If they weren't independents they would vote the establishment and be classified as Conservatives/Liberals or Repubs/Demos and not Moderates/Independents
Like I said if Clinton gets the nomination another 4 years of a Republican administration is guaranteed. I'm kinda hoping that McCain will get the nomination in a way because he's proven that he'll work with the Democrats who will control Congress after the 2008 election.

3rd Like someone has already stated, if people really want change Paul & Gravel would not be front-runners, don't get me wrong, but they both would have had a REAL IMPACT on these primaries and would be doing a lot better than what they are. Change is lip-service, mostly by the media. Americans don't want change, they want stability and European style socialism and security.... hence the reason why Rudy G & hillary are the parties front-runners.
Americans don't want European style socialism and security. They just want something that works.

8 years actually...
4 years guaranteed if Hillary gets the nomination. 8 years depending how well the next President does and who's running.

[Apollo]

so what day does the NH voting take place? I need to catch up. i haven't been watching the news all weeks, to busy playing assassins creed :)

[souvlaki]

McCain has no chance. Many of you tend to mix the flavor of the day with the big picture or should I say the national picture. Giulliani will be the Repubs nominee and Prez of the U.S. There is a lot to fear about the sovereignty of this country for the next 8 years.

Not a chance in hell. I personally think he will completely blow the primaries, but even if by some miracle he were to make it to the general election he would lose easily. This is a candidate that wouldn't even be able to get votes from his own party. The evangelical vote have already pretty much made it clear they would not support Giulliani, and I think Obama (if he ends up getting the nomination) would probably steal the independent vote. Plus the man just has too many skeletons in his closet.

[souvlaki]

so what day does the NH voting take place? I need to catch up. i haven't been watching the news all weeks, to busy playing assassins creed :)

Tomorrow.

[Matt]

Like I said if Clinton gets the nomination another 4 years of a Republican administration is guaranteed. I'm kinda hoping that McCain will get the nomination in a way because he's proven that he'll work with the Democrats who will control Congress after the 2008 election.



I had very little respect for McCain after 2004 and after seeing him campaign and try to pander to the religious vote throughout 2007, I have pretty much no respect left for him.

[Matt]

Not a chance in hell. I personally think he will completely blow the primaries, but even if by some miracle he were to make it to the general election he would lose easily. This is a candidate that wouldn't even be able to get votes from his own party. The evangelical vote have already pretty much made it clear they would not support Giulliani, and I think Obama (if he ends up getting the nomination) would probably steal the independent vote. Plus the man just has too many skeletons in his closet.

The religious vote will trump Obama's independent and youth vote. Why? Because the religious right knows how to get out in full force come election day better than those other two factions. Which is why the worst thing the Republican party can do is nominate Giulliani. That is pretty much just asking for an extremely religious third party candidate to take about 12-15 % of the votes away that would've otherwise gone to a Republican candidate.

[StorminNorman]

It seems most perceived last nights Republican debate to be a win for Romney and not so positive for McCain.

I have only seen one clip on youtube and McCain came off as a complete ass...

This was the clip

hjAE4Nd70Co

[Venom'sDad]

I understand many of your sentiments, but the big picture is that Rudy G & hillary are still the consensus parties front-runners... and because the media seems to be hiding that fact, to keep some sense of excitement & fervor, for rating purposes(cause many would turn away if they felt it was predetermined), many of you tend to believe that rudy is out and hillary is in trouble. That is simply not entirely true.

The big states determine the nominees and presidency. That's why small states like Iowa, NH, and SC(which this year is behind Michigan) get first crack or a voice in determining the possible candidates, because once the big states voices are heard, it's over. These candidates leads in nearly every high delegate big state.

BTW, I would not be surprise that Romney win NH, because Obama will get the Independent votes hurt McCain.



I think right now that it is far too soon to determine who wins the Republican nominee. Romney still has a chance if he manages to win New Hampshire (though I doubt it). Huckabee could get some much needed momentum if he wins South Carolina. Same with McCain with New Hampshire. Giuliani is making a huge gamble with Florida and Super Tuesday.

Paul isn't going to get the nomination and neither will Thompson, but they are certainly be a factor.

I think not, these candidates has a national lead over their rivaries. I would love to be completely wrong, believe you me; however, i fear i'm not. Thompson is not a factor, and Paul will only be a factor for a possible Bloomberg Independent run, where Paul's supporters will jump ship to support Bloomberg run against the status quo.... which take votes away from Rudy G. a la Ross Perot..... which is exactly what Hillary is hoping for(a Bloomberg candidacy) All who have New York Ties... see how this is playing out.



Not a chance in hell. I personally think he will completely blow the primaries, but even if by some miracle he were to make it to the general election he would lose easily. This is a candidate that wouldn't even be able to get votes from his own party. The evangelical vote have already pretty much made it clear they would not support Giulliani, and I think Obama (if he ends up getting the nomination) would probably steal the independent vote. Plus the man just has too many skeletons in his closet.

Look, if you believe the conventional wisdom, than the repubs side is a rollercoastal, with no solid front-runner. If you believe conventional wisdom, there is no true conservative or better yet, true Reagan Conservative running for the Repubs nominee. Everyone is jocking to be the most conservative, which may be Thompson, and conservatives are ignoring him.

With that said Rudy G. was repubs 1st choice because of his 911 and crime stance and the fact they feel he's the strongest candidate against hillary. Given, if you follow conventional wisdom, the is no one candidate on the Repubs side take the bull by the horns, the 1st choice will come back to being Rudy, because what most important to Conservatives is truely Rudy's strongest attributes and they will ignore some of his more liberal stances in the event of defeating hillary.... which most don't believe is in trouble.

They suspect the media is portraying her as being in trouble to Obama, in order for the repubs to select a more weaker candidate. If you believe conventional wisdom, Rudy is the only candidate that hillary cannot beat, without a third party conservative running. All the other Repub candidate, hillary will win in a landslide.

[rdh007]

The religious vote will trump Obama's independent and youth vote. Why? Because the religious right knows how to get out in full force come election day better than those other two factions. Which is why the worst thing the Republican party can do is nominate Giulliani. That is pretty much just asking for an extremely religious third party candidate to take about 12-15 % of the votes away that would've otherwise gone to a Republican candidate.
But none of the Democrats appeal to those folks anyway. Right?

I agree that they vote well. If we have a President Huckabee I'm going to be upset. At least with Romney it's his first name that's so strange. But no one calls these guys by their first name.

[Chris B]

I wonder what will happen if Edwards comes in second place to Obama in NH? Coming in third again obviously wouldn't help Hillary much. I'm thinking it could set the stage for an Edwards victory in Nevada, setting-up a showdown with Obama in SC. If he won there again, he would be in a good position for Super Tuesday.

[hippie_hunter]

It seems most perceived last nights Republican debate to be a win for Romney and not so positive for McCain.

I have only seen one clip on youtube and McCain came off as a complete ass...

This was the clip

hjAE4Nd70Co

I disagree, I feel that the only advantage Romney had was in the health care department.

He sounded like a whiner when McCain made fun of him for being a flip-flopper. Rather hypocritical since he's very guilty of personal attacks and negative campaigning.

He came off as an ass acting like he knew why terrorism has sprung up.

I feel that Giuliani, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee came off better than Romney at that debate. Thompson sucked big time.

[hippie_hunter]

If you believe conventional wisdom, Rudy is the only candidate that hillary cannot beat, without a third party conservative running. All the other Repub candidate, hillary will win in a landslide.

No way. Hillary is a guaranteed loss for the Democrats. She is not electable. Republicans will not vote for her. Most independents and moderates will probably swing to the Republicans if she gets nominated.

If she gets nominated, no matter which Republican gets nominated, a Republican President for another 4 years is an inevitability.

[StorminNorman]

I disagree, I feel that the only advantage Romney had was in the health care department.

He sounded like a whiner when McCain made fun of him for being a flip-flopper. Rather hypocritical since he's very guilty of personal attacks and negative campaigning.

He came off as an ass acting like he knew why terrorism has sprung up.

I feel that Giuliani, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee came off better than Romney at that debate. Thompson sucked big time.

McCain's comment was unnecessary and incredibly random. Also, his campaign commercials that are considered "negative" are nothing more than comparisons commercials. Its not negative to bring up another guys record in an ad. While Romney's history of changing his position is similar - to do it the way McCain did there seemed like a cheap, unnecessary shot considering the topic.

I was not able to view the debate last night - but am slowly catching up on it. I was simply reporting what most I have talked to (who support various candidates) told me.

[bell110]

No way hillary will win in a landslide.

[StorminNorman]

No way hillary will win in a landslide.

I am not sure if there is suppose to be a comma after way.

If there is - :lmao:

[hippie_hunter]

McCain's comment was unnecessary and incredibly random. Also, his campaign commercials that are considered "negative" are nothing more than comparisons commercials. Its not negative to bring up another guys record in an ad. While Romney's history of changing his position is similar - to do it the way McCain did there seemed like a cheap, unnecessary shot considering the topic.

I was not able to view the debate last night - but am slowly catching up on it. I was simply reporting what most I have talked to (who support various candidates) told me.

I feel that Romney did horrible in the debate. I did not like his performance at all. Pretty much everyone ganged up on him (Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Paul). He acted like an ass when it came to terrorism and immigration. And he came off as a crybaby to McCain's attacks.

He did great though when health care came up.

[rdh007]

Hillary Rodham Clinton's eyes welled up and her voice broke repeatedly Monday as she talked with voters in a restaurant about her campaign for the presidency.

The former first lady was making a last-minute pitch for support as she spoke on the eve of the state's primary, with polls showing her trailing Democratic rival Barack Obama.

Asked by a sympathetic voter how she keeps going in the grueling campaign, she replied, "It's not easy. It's not easy."

"And I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do," she said, her voice catching.

"You know, I've had so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said, her voice trailing off. The voters crowded into the restaurant applauded encouragingly.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EMOTIONAL_CLINTON?SITE=FLROC&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Her majesty reverts to the "poor little old me, I'm just a woman" tactic. She sucks and people know it.

[StorminNorman]

I feel that Romney did horrible in the debate. I did not like his performance at all. Pretty much everyone ganged up on him (Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Paul). He acted like an ass when it came to terrorism and immigration. And he came off as a crybaby to McCain's attacks.

He did great though when health care came up.

You have an irrational hatred of Romney :o:csad::woot:

I need hope in my RomneyBoomTrain damn-it

[hippie_hunter]

You have an irrational hatred of Romney :o:csad::woot:
You're damn right I do :cmad:

Him, his douchey smile, and his damn perfect hair :cmad:

I need hope in my RomneyBoomTrain damn-it
I need hope in my Paul Train but that ain't gonna happen :o

[bell110]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EMOTIONAL_CLINTON?SITE=FLROC&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Her majesty reverts to the "poor little old me, I'm just a woman" tactic. She sucks and people know it.

God that's pathetic. She's just enforcing the stereotype that a woman can't be president because they are too emotional.

[StorminNorman]

You're damn right I do :cmad:

Him, his douchey smile, and his damn perfect hair :cmad:

He's a beautiful man :heart:

Oddly enough, I will probably still vote Paul over Romney - I just want Romney's momentum to be already rocking by the time it comes down for me to vote.

[Matt]

You're damn right I do :cmad:

Him, his douchey smile, and his damn perfect hair :cmad:


I need hope in my Paul Train but that ain't gonna happen :o

But wouldn't it be worth it to see a bio-movie where Bruce Campbell plays the 44th President of the United States?

"Hail to the chief, baby"

[rdh007]

He's a beautiful man :heart:

Oddly enough, I will probably still vote Paul over Romney - I just want Romney's momentum to be already rocking by the time it comes down for me to vote.
If Romney has a commanding lead; you'll vote Paul or if it's close you'll vote Paul? Or you'll vote Paul until your dying day?

[Golgo-13]

Go Obama!

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Respect/respect-059.GIF

[StorminNorman]

If Romney has a commanding lead; you'll vote Paul or if it's close you'll vote Paul? Or you'll vote Paul until your dying day?

I honestly think I am voting Paul - no matter what Romney does- its a protest vote with the GOP. Though I am rooting hard because Romney is the only plausible candidate that I support from the GOP.

[Anguissette1979]

Ok... to the Hillary haters... if she gets the nomination would you still vote for her in the general over a republican?

[Rated-X]

Brian Williams one-on-one (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/22544361#22544361) with Barack Obama.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Wow people I've been talking too have made up their minds not just for NH but overall that it's coming down to a Obama vs Huckabee showdown. :o My how things have changed. I wonder if this recent sentiment will stick.

[Matt]

Ok... to the Hillary haters... if she gets the nomination would you still vote for her in the general over a republican?

Depends who it is. Against Romney, probably not. If she is running against McCain or Thompson (both of whom I despise), I would go third party. If it is Huckabee or Giulliani I would probably listen to the issues and make a choice between one of them and third party.

[Matt]

Wow people I've been talking too have made up their minds not just for NH but overall that it's coming down to a Obama vs Huckabee showdown. :o My how things have changed. I wonder if this recent sentiment will stick.

Depends what happens in New Hampshire. Polls can be wrong and if Hilary wins...suddenly it is going to be a whole different political climate until South Carolina. If Huckabee loses New Hampshire you'll see a different political climate on the Republican side too. These early primaries are flavors of the week and can change in the blink of an eye.

[Anguissette1979]

Depends who it is. Against Romney, probably not. If she is running against McCain or Thompson (both of whom I despise), I would go third party. If it is Huckabee or Giulliani I would probably listen to the issues and make a choice between one of them and third party.

I'm guessing you're a conservative leaning independent?

[Spider-Bite]

You're damn right I do :cmad:

Him, his douchey smile, and his damn perfect hair :cmad:


I need hope in my Paul Train but that ain't gonna happen :o

Ealier on Harball it was revealed that prior to being a congressmen, Ron Paul used to spit out some pretty hateful comments about gays and blacks. He referred to blacks as animals, and said they should call New York zooville.

[Spider-Bite]

God that's pathetic. She's just enforcing the stereotype that a woman can't be president because they are too emotional.

Actually voters are looking for emotions in candidates right now because they feel that all politicians are polished corrupt actors with rehearsed lines.

I'm not sure if this will hurt or help Hillary because so far analysts have said she's too cold, too stiff, and not human enough. they kept saying she needed to show some emotion, so that voters know her heart is in it.

[Spider-Bite]

Wow people I've been talking too have made up their minds not just for NH but overall that it's coming down to a Obama vs Huckabee showdown. :o My how things have changed. I wonder if this recent sentiment will stick.

McCain is back in the race. He's probably going to win tomorrow, as for Obama New Hampshire is saying HillaryWho?

[Anguissette1979]

Actually voters are looking for emotions in candidates right now because they feel that all politicians are polished corrupt actors with rehearsed lines.

I'm not sure if this will hurt or help Hillary because so far analysts have said she's too cold, too stiff, and not human enough. they kept saying she needed to show some emotion, so that voters know her heart is in it.

Here's the catch 22 with Hillary (and I think every female candidate that will run in the near future). For a woman to get where they are they have to "play in a man's" world. That gives them a pretty think skin and can make them come across as "cold" sometimes... YET when they (meaning any female canidate) DOES show emotion they are accused of playing the gender card and "prove that women are too emotional to lead". It's really burns my bacon :mad:

[Matt]

I'm guessing you're a conservative leaning independent?

Quite the opposite. I am a Democrat who is unwilling to vote for pseudo-Democrats like Clinton or Obama and would rather endure 4 more years of Republican control to see a REAL Democrat like Sherrod Brown take the White House than deal with eight years of a Democrat in name only who supports free trade and other policies that pretty much crush the working man that FDR and Truman worked so hard to protect.

I am a REAL Democrat. What is the difference? I am more concerned in seeing that everyone has a job as opposed to seeing that a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing. I realize that war is sometimes not only inevitable, but neccessary and a strong military is best for our country. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse the War in Iraq, but to completely rule out the possibility of war with Iran is foolish. I am a Democrat who is more concerned with creating a good economy so that people can find their own jobs as opposed to just giving more incentive to become a welfare state. I understand the need for welfare programs...but they have gone above and beyond their original intent. I am a real Democrat. Obama and Hilary are not.

[cookiva]

Ok... to the Hillary haters... if she gets the nomination would you still vote for her in the general over a republican?

You do realize that there are 3rd party candidates, right?

There is no way Im voting Hilary. I just dont agree with anything she says. The only thing I like about her is that she has the experience of getting things done. That said, I need to read up on possible green party candidates. Kucinich is obviously going nowhere, and I really, outside of his public speaking, don't think Obama is ready for the white house.

[cookiva]

Quite the opposite. I am a Democrat who is unwilling to vote for pseudo-Democrats like Clinton or Obama and would rather endure 4 more years of Republican control to see a REAL Democrat like Sherrod Brown take the White House than deal with eight years of a Democrat in name only who supports free trade and other policies that pretty much crush the working man that FDR and Truman worked so hard to protect.

I am a REAL Democrat. What is the difference? I am more concerned in seeing that everyone has a job as opposed to seeing that a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing. I realize that war is sometimes not only inevitable, but neccessary and a strong military is best for our country. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse the War in Iraq, but to completely rule out the possibility of war with Iran is foolish. I am a Democrat who is more concerned with creating a good economy so that people can find their own jobs as opposed to just giving more incentive to become a welfare state. I understand the need for welfare programs...but they have gone above and beyond their original intent. I am a real Democrat. Obama and Hilary are not.


QFT. While I consider myself more of a social liberal, the one thing I want is an easy choice. Its jobs. There is no reason why we should have unemployment outside of pure apathy. If you want a job, there should be no reason, and Im not seeing that.

Second on my list is improvement civil rights. Thats why I want a Kucinich white house. He wants to improve civil and workers rights. Edwards, while having rich backers, I feel wants to help the lower to middle class. I would rather take someone who wants to help than someone who says they will help, then ditch them.

[Venom'sDad]

This is laughable... there are many people saying that they want real change; yet, look how they vote.

Now there are many people saying the wont vote for hillary.... laughable. :dry:

[cookiva]

This is laughable... there are many people saying that they want real change; yet, look how they vote.

Now there are many people saying the wont vote for hillary.... laughable. :dry:


....????

No one here who said they want change is voting for Hilary. No one who said they are voting for Hilary has stated its for change.

[Venom'sDad]

There is a lot of lip-service going on cookiva....

[cookiva]

I would like to know from who.....

I have long stood by Kucinich, only recently going towards Edwards slightly.

[Spider-Bite]

If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her, and I wont feel bad about it either. It will be a vote for her, and not against her opponent. She's not my first pick, but she's not my last either.

[hippie_hunter]

If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her, and I wont feel bad about it either. It will be a vote for her, and not against her opponent. She's not my first pick, but she's not my last either.

But she is such a...how do I say this....c-word :o.

[hippie_hunter]

Quite the opposite. I am a Democrat who is unwilling to vote for pseudo-Democrats like Clinton or Obama and would rather endure 4 more years of Republican control to see a REAL Democrat like Sherrod Brown take the White House than deal with eight years of a Democrat in name only who supports free trade and other policies that pretty much crush the working man that FDR and Truman worked so hard to protect.

I am a REAL Democrat. What is the difference? I am more concerned in seeing that everyone has a job as opposed to seeing that a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing. I realize that war is sometimes not only inevitable, but neccessary and a strong military is best for our country. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse the War in Iraq, but to completely rule out the possibility of war with Iran is foolish. I am a Democrat who is more concerned with creating a good economy so that people can find their own jobs as opposed to just giving more incentive to become a welfare state. I understand the need for welfare programs...but they have gone above and beyond their original intent. I am a real Democrat. Obama and Hilary are not.

I know how it feels when you see your own party get hijacked by a bunch of idiots.

I long for the day that the Republican Party doesn't concern itself with petty issues like abortion and gay marriage and once again represents fiscal common sense and small government. :csad:

[Matt]

QFT. While I consider myself more of a social liberal, the one thing I want is an easy choice. Its jobs. There is no reason why we should have unemployment outside of pure apathy. If you want a job, there should be no reason, and Im not seeing that.

Second on my list is improvement civil rights. Thats why I want a Kucinich white house. He wants to improve civil and workers rights. Edwards, while having rich backers, I feel wants to help the lower to middle class. I would rather take someone who wants to help than someone who says they will help, then ditch them.

I've given Kucinich's campaigns money, I did it in 2004. I did it this time as well. I will never do it again. Every time I have been to one of his speaking events, he has always said that he wants to help the common man, that he opposes free trade because it takes away middle class jobs, etc. Yet he gave his delegates in New Hampshire to Obama. A proponent of free trade. It sickens me that he would do that, when they could've gone to Edwards who has always spoken out against free trade. You are absolutely right, Edwards, despite being wealthy and having wealthy backers knows what it is like to be lower middle class. He understands the burden as he grew up in it. I do not believe Obama knows that burden, or at the very least does not care about it. No one who really cares about the lower and middle class would support free trade, which mark my words...will lead to the destruction of the middle class (and eventually the country's economy as a result). It may not be an immeidiate threat, but it is one of the most prevelant our country is facing.

[Matt]

I know how it feels when you see your own party get hijacked by a bunch of idiots.

I long for the day that the Republican Party doesn't concern itself with petty issues like abortion and gay marriage and once again represents fiscal common sense and small government. :csad:

At least your party's highjackers aren't the MTV generation having their strings pulled by baby boomers :csad:

[hippie_hunter]

The results of the first town in New Hampshire voting in the primaries are in:

Republicans
John McCain: 4
Mitt Romney: 2
Rudy Giuliani: 1

Democrats
Barack Obama: 7
John Edwards: 2
Bill Richardson: 1

[Matt]

Hehe why were the polls open at midnight and that town only has 17 residents of voting age? :huh:

[hippie_hunter]

At least your party's highjackers aren't the MTV generation having their strings pulled by baby boomers :csad:

At least your party isn't as humiliating right now. I get condolences and ewwws when I tell people I'm a Republican. :csad:

[Matt]

At least your party isn't as humiliating right now. I get condolences and ewwws when I tell people I'm a Republican. :csad:

At least your party knows its humiliating. My party is the stereotyped white guy on the dance floor at a club, completely oblivious to the fact that he can't dance and is making an ass of himself.

[hippie_hunter]

Hehe why were the polls open at midnight and that town only has 17 residents of voting age? :huh:

It's just the way it is. The town of Dixville Notch holds the tradition of being the first town in the nation to hold a primary at midnight.

It only has 17 registered voters, at least it has a voter turnout of 100%, with a population of 75.

[Matt]

Hehe thats awesome.

[hippie_hunter]

At least your party knows its humiliating. My party is the stereotyped white guy on the dance floor at a club, completely oblivious to the fact that he can't dance and is making an ass of himself.

My party is even more oblivious. They lost Congress in 2006 and still act like the same asshats.

It's kinda sad that we've been reduced to debating about why our respective parties is more humiliating.

[Matt]

My party is even more oblivious. They lost Congress in 2006 and still act like the same asshats.

It's kinda sad that we've been reduced to debating about why our respective parties is more humiliating.

I think it is time for a new mainstream party. I know this is a crazy notion, being as only the majority of Americans are them...but how about...a MODERATE PARTY! Shocking, I know :csad:

[hippie_hunter]

What should we call it?

[Matt]

What should we call it?

Hmm...a couple options.

1) "The REAL Party of Change (because no matter how much Barack Obama promises it...he's still as much a partisan tool as the next Democrat)"

2) "Independent Bait"

3) "The party that represents most of America, but still doesn't have a shot in hell of winning an election"

None are catchy :csad:

[hippie_hunter]

Hmm...a couple options.

1) "The REAL Party of Change (because no matter how much Barack Obama promises it...he's still as much a partisan tool as the next Democrat)"

2) "Independent Bait"

3) "The party that represents most of America, but still doesn't have a shot in hell of winning an election"

None are catchy :csad:

I pick Number Three!

[sithgoblin]

Or just 'Moderates"

[hippie_hunter]

Or just 'Moderates"

http://www.moviexplosion.com/moviexplosionarchive2007/simpsonsnewtrailer.jpg

Number Three!

[cookiva]

Again, i should QFT you, Matt, and you as well, Hunter.


BTW, one of the smartest men in the world, IMO, just "backed" another favorite candidate of mine, Mike Gravel.

http://www.gravel2008.us/content/noam-chomsky-applauds-senator-gravels-past-and-present-accomplishments

I love Gravel, but more so in the "grumpy old grampa with stories" kind of way. While he has achieved more than any other candidate, he would never EVER be a good choice for president. I do love the guy, though. He has the fire in his heart that changes Washington.

[chaseter]

I will vote for anybody except Hillary and Kucinich.

[Ghostvirus]

Ready your breakfast, & eat hardy. For Tonight We Dine In New Hampshire!!!!!

[Spider-Bite]

But she is such a...how do I say this....c-word :o.


All of the negative things a person can say about her, can be said about almost every single politician in politics. She is no worse than anybody else.

There are things I don't like about her, but she has invested a gigantic chunk of her life into helping her country, and it's kind of disrespectful, and unppreciative, even if you disagree with her positions, to use that kind of language about her. I mean were talking about decades of her life, and it's not like she is some super evil human being.

[Spider-Bite]

Hmm...a couple options.

1) "The REAL Party of Change (because no matter how much Barack Obama promises it...he's still as much a partisan tool as the next Democrat)"

:csad:

Can you back that up? Remember he did work with McCain to get finance reform passed, and he has not alienated anybody. I will say it again, there is a reason he is liked by independants and republicans.

[Addendum]

Hmm...a couple options.

1) "The REAL Party of Change (because no matter how much Barack Obama promises it...he's still as much a partisan tool as the next Democrat)"

2) "Independent Bait"

3) "The party that represents most of America, but still doesn't have a shot in hell of winning an election"

None are catchy :csad:

The write-in party
The "insert name here" party
The party to be named later

[rdh007]

I'm moving to Dixville Notch to change the country.

[Golgo-13]

Tonights gonna be exciting. You know, these primaries are even more exciting than the superbowl, this year. I don't think i've seen this many young ppl so tuned into politics, in my life. :up:

Go Obama!

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Respect/respect-059.GIF

[TNC9852002]

I'm still watching the Republican debate from New Hampshire on Youtube. I watched the Democratic debate two days ago.

Which debate is on tonight?

-TNC

[Matt]

Can you back that up? Remember he did work with McCain to get finance reform passed, and he has not alienated anybody. I will say it again, there is a reason he is liked by independants and republicans.

McCain's campaign finance reform is impotent of power. It is like sex offender registration laws...it sounds really really good on paper, but isn't really effective and/or practical. As for your comment on him being liked by Republicans and independents...I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest Republicans like him and he is liked by independents because the media has turned him into a rock star candidate where they ignore his many flaws and build up an image of him that is not true.

[Matt]

Tonights gonna be exciting. You know, these primaries are even more exciting than the superbowl, this year. I don't think i've seen this many young ppl so tuned into politics, in my life. :up:

Go Obama!

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Respect/respect-059.GIF

But politics shouldn't be that way. Young people shouldn't be voting simply because it is a handsome, charasmatic, black guy. They should learn the issues and vote on them. Does anyone else realize what a slippery slope it is to energize young voters for wrong reasons like this. We shouldn't turn voting into a sporting competition.

[Erzengel]

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Looks like I'm voting for Fred Thompson. :huh:

[Mr Sparkle]

But politics shouldn't be that way. Young people shouldn't be voting simply because it is a handsome, charasmatic, black guy. They should learn the issues and vote on them. Does anyone else realize what a slippery slope it is to energize young voters for wrong reasons like this. We shouldn't turn voting into a sporting competition.

so Obama is wrong on this issues?:huh: like, really wrong?

[Matt]

I got Joe Biden. Why is there nothing about free trade on there? I swear, free trade is killing our country and no one gives a damn :cmad:

[Matt]

so Obama is wrong on this issues?:huh: like, really wrong?

In a word, yes. And I've already explained why.

[Mr Sparkle]

In a word, yes. And I've already explained why.

no, you explained your opinion.
because, well, some people have brought up good counterpoints to many of the detractors.

[Matt]

no, you explained your opinion.
because, well, some people have brought up good counterpoints to many of the detractors.

I've yet to see one person address the reasons I've presented why he is wrong on the issues.

[TNC9852002]

But politics shouldn't be that way. Young people shouldn't be voting simply because it is a handsome, charasmatic, black guy. They should learn the issues and vote on them. Does anyone else realize what a slippery slope it is to energize young voters for wrong reasons like this. We shouldn't turn voting into a sporting competition.
Is that why you think Goglo-13 said "Go Obama!"

-TNC

[Mr Sparkle]

I've yet to see one person address the reasons I've presented why he is wrong on the issues.

where's your post?

[Matt]

few pages back

[Mr Sparkle]

meh, too lazy to look for it.

[cookiva]

I got Joe Biden. Why is there nothing about free trade on there? I swear, free trade is killing our country and no one gives a damn :cmad:

Chris Dodd for me.....

[Matt]

Dodd was my second.

[Golgo-13]

But politics shouldn't be that way. Young people shouldn't be voting simply because it is a handsome, charasmatic, black guy. They should learn the issues and vote on them. Does anyone else realize what a slippery slope it is to energize young voters for wrong reasons like this. We shouldn't turn voting into a sporting competition.

And ppl shouldn't be knocking a politian just for the hell of it, kinda like what you've been doing to Obama. It's like you hate this guy with a passion. To me it seems like you don't like him just to go against the grain. Just cause you think it's cool to be the rogue. You don't like the guy because everyone else likes him.... pretty lame reason not to like anyone, in any platform in life, if you ask me.

I don't think ppl have to justify why they like ANY one person, to anyone else. I don't have to justify why i like my wife to others; i don't have to justify why i like anyone. That's the way it is. 'Nobody' has to justify themselves to anyone else. If you like a politian because he/she smells good, or you like the way they smiled at you when you shook his/her hand, that's your business.

At the end of the day it's between you and the voting booth.

[Matt]

Knocking for the hell of it? Fine, here is why I dislike Obama (as posted in the other thread). And just for the record...YES, you should be able to justify why you are voting for someone! The entire prospect of voting fails if people cannot make informed decisions!

Since everyone always asks me my beef with Obama...I am going to state them.

1) Free Trade - Any one who is a proponent of free trade is not a real Democrat and does not give a damn about the lower to middle class. Plain and simple. Obama has stated on numerous times that he supports an FTA wil Peru and will continue to endorse free trade and make FTAs in his presidency. That is quite frankly, unacceptable.

2) The War in Iraq - Obama's plan is not acceptable. He wishes to pull out all of our troops but 5,000? Either **** or get off the pot. If you are going to pull out our troops, pull them all out. Don't leave behind a 5,000 troop "peace keeping force" that will inevitably be wiped out when termoil and civil war engulf the country (which will happen basically as soon as we pull out). I mean, that is like leaving 5,000 troops simply to be slaughtered.

3) Education - Merit pay is a ridiculously stupid idea. Grades are not bad because teachers are bad. They are bad because lower income students do not believe they have a chance to escape their current situation so they put no effort into it. Ontop of that, public schools are grossly underfunded. It has nothing to do with teacher's being ineffective. They can only teach effectively if they have up to date books and equipment as well as students who have a desire to learn. Lets stop pointing the finger at the teachers and start pointing them at ourselves for allowing our public education to enter such an economic depression and students who are unwilling to learn.

4) Business - I feel that he tries to get the government TOO involved in corporate managment. We have a free market society. Government intervention in issues such as share holder votes (as Obama supports) is not a good idea. It is border-line communism.

5) Alternative Energy - I like his support of the usage of nuclear power, however I do not like that he is a big fan of plug-in hybrids. There are frankly better and more promising types of alternative energy in automobiles that we should be focusing on. Ontop of that, he supports keeping a .54 cent per gallon tarriff on imported ethanol. It would be one thing if we had a better alternative readily avaliable...but the fact is, we don't. Right now we need gasoline and that tarriff is only hurting middle and lower class Americans at the pump. Its not helping anything but lining the pockets of our lawmakers.

6) Taxation - so he wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, only to make one of his own? I think it is a bad idea. First of all, we are in an extreme deficit. I don't think cutting taxes is a smart move at the moment (especially considering Obama wishes to expand the welfare state). However, I do believe the middle and lower class need some help. I say we make the first 5,000 dollars anyone earns in any given calender year tax free in terms of FICA and the Federal Income Tax. If you're earning 20 thousand dollars a year, that tax free 5,000 will help you quite a bit. Not to mention it won't put that much of a dent in our country's pocket as the lowest earning 50 % of our country only accounts for about 3 % of our total income taxes. It seems to me like it would help those lower income families quite a bit and hopefully the feds could convince state level government to follow suit.

Healthcare - I am opposed to federal funded healthcare at this point in our country's history. It is just the wrong time for it. I'd normally support it, but we honestly just can't afford it right now. And Obama's plan makes no sense to me anyway. He says he wants the recipetants of federal healthcare, which under his plan, will be the same program that Congress recieves, to pay for it? How the hell are they supposed to do that? People who use federal healthcare would be lower income families. They are supposed to be able to pay for the same healthcare as Congress? Considering his plan, there seems to be 2 options

1) Either he truly expects these people to pay for their own healthcare, in which case, why even bother intervening in it and leave it to the private sector? Government intervention in the private sector should only occur when absolutely necessary.

2) They will pay a small portion but the tax payers eat up the majority of the costs. In which case we come back to the entire...can't afford it problem (especially with his tax cut plan)

Social Welfare - Obama has said he wants to expand FDR's policies of the New Deal. That makes no sense to me. Our country is not nearly in as bad of a state as we were during the Great Depression so why expand a policy tailor made for that time? I believe welfare has its place. But I also believe it needs extreme reform and limitation. We should focus on finding jobs for people on welfare, not giving them more hand outs. And the hand outs we give should be very closely monitiored to avoid abuse. We shouldn't encourage anyone to be on welfare, and it seems to me, that is exactly what Obama wants to do.

Immigration - Obama supports guest worker programs (which I disagree with being as how many Americans are currently unemployed? How about we get them jobs before focusing on others. And he says he will oppose any law that blocks unregistered illegals from getting citizenship. Yay! Lets reward people for breaking the law!

Iran - To completely rule out war, with so many variables in that situation is just stupid...and yet Obama had no problem doing so.

Abortion - He opposes partial birth abortion bans? To me that is just sick. I don't like the notion of the government getting involved with a woman's body, but how anyone who has read anything on partial birth abortions can consider it anything less than murder baffles me.

Gay Marriage - Its a non-issue, really...but what bothers me is the way he does the same flip-flopping every politican does on it. "Well, I don't support a gay marriage ban, but I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Make up your mind :cmad:

Gun Control - I like his stances on gun control quite a bit. Why does anyone really need an autorifle? But alas, its really a non-issue for me.

Death Penalty - Seems like more flip-flopping. "I think the death penalty should not be used...but I don't support banning it and favor using it." WTF? :huh:

So yeah, that is why I am opposed to the candidacy of Barack Obama. You're welcome.

[Matt]

Re-sticky-ing, btw.

[Golgo-13]

Knocking for the hell of it? Fine, here is why I dislike Obama (as posted in the other thread). And just for the record...YES, you should be able to justify why you are voting for someone! The entire prospect of voting fails if people cannot make informed decisions!



Justify to who? :huh:

When i'm in the voting booth, i'm not thinking to myself "Damn, i sure hope the guy next to me approves of who i'm voting for."

So long as you as a voter are satisfied with your vote, it doesn't matter what the next person thinks. That's the freedom and prospect of individual voting.

[Matt]

But your voting should be educated, not a vote because you think he is a nice guy (which led us to 8 years of Bush) or because of the candidate's skin color or sexual organ. And just out of curiousity, why even come to a political forum whose sole purpose is debate and discussion if you cannot defend and backup your opinion? By entering this discussion, you sort of do have an obligation to back up your opinion.

[Golgo-13]

But your voting should be educated, not a vote because you think he is a nice guy (which led us to 8 years of Bush) or because of the candidate's skin color or sexual organ. And just out of curiosity, why even come to a political forum whose sole purpose is debate and discussion if you cannot defend and backup your opinion? By entering this discussion, you sort of do have an obligation to back up your opinion.

Fair enough question....

The reason i will vote for Obama is because i like his stance on the war. As a Veteran i tend to vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidates that tender to my personal concerns. Under the REPUBLICAN administration the care of vets have drastically decrease, and it's a shame too cause they sent the very unit i was a part of, to fight for a ridiculous war, and when they come home they're not even care for properly..? It's appalling! I'm sure many have heard about the below standards of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the very place most G.i get sent too once they are wounded in battle. And plz, don't get me started on the terrible care my fellow vets get at the VA hospitals.

I don't feel like typing details, but Clinton and Edward's come off as being soft to me. I've watched them at debates, and i just can't picture them standing up for this country, in any forum.

Using this process of elimination, coupled with his character my vote's for Obama. Hands down.

[cookiva]

EDIT....he explained himself already...


I agree with most of what Matt said about Obama. I honestly believe that its more style than substance with Obama. I dont think Edwards has a chance in this election, to be honest, if he doesnt win NH. I wish he would, because I feel he is the most qualified, and flat out best front running candidate, in either party.

[Matt]

Fair enough question....

The reason i will vote for Obama is because i like his stance on the war. As a Veteran i tend to vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidates that tender to my personal concerns. Under the REPUBLICAN administration the care of vets have drastically decrease, and it's a shame too cause they sent the very unit i was a part of, to fight for a ridiculous war, and when they come home they're not even care for properly..? It's appalling! I'm sure many have heard about the below standards of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the very place most G.i get sent too once they are wounded in battle. And plz, don't get me started on the terrible care my fellow vets get at the VA hospitals.

I don't feel like typing details, but Clinton and Edward's come off as being soft to me. I've watched them at debates, and i just can't picture them standing up for this country, in any forum.

Using this process of elimination, coupled with his character my vote's for Obama. Hands down.

So you support his war policies knowing he plans to pull all but 5,000 soliders out of Iraq and in turn leave those troops as sitting ducks?

[Golgo-13]

So you support his war policies knowing he plans to pull all but 5,000 soliders out of Iraq and in turn leave those troops as sitting ducks?

I'm sure there's more to just leaving them their as sitting ducks. As far as i know, he's been very vague on what exactly he has planned for those that do remain.

I'd like to know which candidate is gonna get ontop of the promised 'new government' in Iraq.

[Venom'sDad]

But your voting should be educated, not a vote because you think he is a nice guy (which led us to 8 years of Bush) or because of the candidate's skin color or sexual organ.

I think people here has had enough of you bashing one particular candidate over and over and over like a staunch supporter and worker for the clinton campaign.

You come in here like god-o-mighty with your accusation why people support and vote for Obama. People have their own personal reasons why they support Obama. YOU DON"T KNOW what those reasons are. I'm sure you have become very offesive, condescending, and belittling people's intelligents, by narrowing their personal reason for supporting him.

You act as if his supporters here on the Hype, will tilt the election to his side.... unnecessarily, imo. You are getting more laughable by the day... and pretty much, like hillary, pretty despirate.