It could just be me, but wouldn't it be a good thing to know exactly what someone would have done given two unappealing choices, and hearing the reasons for that person doing so?

A president faces all sorts of tough choices. I'd say that it's a good thing for voters to know what someone actually chose to do when confronted with the need to make such tough choices.

Oh, and of course he would have made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. The interesting thing is to see which mistakes people make, and what causes them to make those mistakes. That way, you have a decent indication of what will happen when they are put in a position of such immense responsibility as the presidency.

Got any facts to back up your rose colored beliefs that Obama will be able to do what Clinton wasn't able to? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

The fact is, she'll have a much better chance than Obama given she's been thru it once before and so knows exactly what she's going to face the next time around. If you fail to grasp that concept than you deserve another 8 years of fucked up government with a president that wastes a lot of time spinning his wheels.
You really come accross as a whiny little bitch sometimes...
That president will be 1 person... The funny thing is that he's doing eaxctly what everyone else does but he does it "better".. He's demonizing all the politicians he will have to work with.. he's speaking against all those politicians that play gotcha politics... So vote him in.. and then he'll have to work with all those politicians that do all those things he speaks against. We all know how well that works out... i.e. It's politics as usual in Washington...

You are right, Clinton was probably planning on a presidential run from the start. And she took her time, making sure to polish up her knowledge of things like the armed services. Yes, she's a calculating, ambitious person. Is there anything wrong with calculating? Would you rather have a president who is fond of taking large risks?

As for Obama, yes, he was quite successful before running for senator, remarkable even. In the Senate, on the other hand, his record is rather unremarkable, showing very little of the change he's so fond of speaking about. He worked on his image, there, but delivered very little substance outside of the mainstream party line.

There are plenty of people who have accomplished plenty as public servants. That does not mean they are all suitable for the presidency. The only really remarkable thing about Obama, politically, is his charisma. Charisma alone, however, is not enough to bring about change, nor is it enough to fix the economy.

I'm saying that at the end of the day, no side is going to change the government as much as their supporters wish... So pick the one that will be able to get as many things done as possible.. And that IMO would be Hillary... Obama is running on changing washington.. but what the US needs is someone to fix the country... The US is in some serious trouble.. So now is not the time to be working on "nice to haves"...

Like pork barrel spending??? He seemed to feed at the trough like everyone else... And is it true that he hasn't discosed what all of that spending was for and who it went to? Did he only disclose some info once it became a requirement but didn't disclose his previous earmarks? And yet he bashes Hillary for not disclosing her taxes? Seriously.. He's no different than any other politician except he gives really good speeches.. At least McCain walks the walk...

It was a speech about the current blowup.. not a campaign speech...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I should have stuck with my idea a week or so ago about leaving these threads alone completely.

The only people who post in these threads are people who already have their minds made up (me included) and most of them aren't interested in an honest intellectual debate....but rather trying to convince you that the candidate you support sucks, rather than explaining why their candidate is a good choice.

I'm going to revert back to my previous plan of not discussing this anymore......I'll start a thread on Jan 20, 2009 when Obama is being inagurated, until then, have fun.

It is only honest if we are siding with you. You are in for a rude awakening come November.

I agree. But McCain's past is a bit sketchy. I mean we are in a bit of a financial crisis at the moment and expecting to go into a recession. Do you want to elect the guy who was involved in one of the largest banking scandals in our nation's history during that time?

Has it occurred to you that the reason many people are supporting certain candidates is simply that they believe the others to suck even more?

Clinton isn't exactly the perfect candidate. The mere fact that she's the wife of a former president would be enough for me not to support her, were there any good alternatives.

In my view, however, there aren't. Clinton appears, to me, to be the most likely among the three remaining options of being at least somewhat competent, especially with regards to handling the economy.

Obama is an unknown factor and thus a huge gamble, McCain is a republican not known for his astuteness with regards to the economy, and Clinton is an uninspiring but experienced bureaucrat.

Perhaps Obama would lessen the divisiveness in American politics, perhaps not. Either way, it's not the most important issue right now. The way the economy is going, full-blown hardcore catastrophic recession is a real and immediate threat.

If such a recession hits, there will be precious few people who worry about political divisions. They'll be too busy trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.

You want change? It's on its way, and it's not at all what you'd like it to be.

Right now, magnificent speeches aren't what's needed. A president capable of maintaining at least a certain degree of stability is what's needed.

Is Clinton the right man for the job? Most likely not. But out of the three bad options left right now, she's probably the best one.

A lot of good points in here on both sides. :-)

what's the record turnout for a presidential election? i just took a guess that it might be 60%.

if it's lower than it just proves my point stronger - if you want your candidate to win that badly then get out there working to get those who are likely to support him into a voting booth whatever it takes.

Who ever wins the election is screwed. The country is in the shitter and there is no way someone can clean up the mess in a term.