Who's your favorite candidate now?

[Sueven]

Poll is open for ten days.

Options are limited to serious candidates.

I spent a while considering Hillary, before rejecting her and deciding that I'm really excited about Obama. After Obama, I would probably support Hillary > McCain > everyone else sucks and let's hope I don't have to pick between Edwards and Romney or something awful like that.

[Leonaerd]

McCain's on your radar? What has he done to deserve this?

[Canelek]

As of now, I would say Obama. Hillary scares me (It's the teeth!), McCain is too old and worn down, and the rest are clown-fodder. As for the folks who bring religion up in their campaigns to garner the flock-votes... they can eat a bag of dicks.

[Sueven]

McCain's on your radar? What has he done to deserve this?

Been honest. I know that lots of people accuse him of having lost his independent streak after he lost in '00, but I don't entirely agree. It is a little sad to watch him cozying up to the religious right, but it's not like he's gone off the deep end there. I give him a lot of credit for his consistency on the war.

Basically, I think he has a strong understanding of the realities of foreign policy, and he takes it seriously instead of using it as a political tool. He's maintained a consistent stance on Iraq and what we ought to do in the war on terror generally. While I don't entirely agree with his foreign policy vision, at least he's got one, it's identifiable, it's predictable, I trust that he'll stick by it. The fact that he's been a leading figure in torture opposition shows his honesty to me. He's also been one of the few reasonable republican candidates when it comes to immigration. He's steadfastly refused to grandstand or engage in politically-motivated hyperbole. I'm fairly well convinced that he's running because he thinks he would make a good president, and that his motives are honestly and legitimately to do good for America.

[Tyek]

He also seems to grasp the idea that Nuclear power is the best, cleanest option. Something few others seem to understand.

[Sueven]

Yeah-- it's basically that he seems to analyze issues in reality instead of in inside-the-beltway-political-fantasyland.

[Leonaerd]

McCain's on your radar? What has he done to deserve this?

Been honest. I know that lots of people accuse him of having lost his independent streak after he lost in '00, but I don't entirely agree. It is a little sad to watch him cozying up to the religious right, but it's not like he's gone off the deep end there. I give him a lot of credit for his consistency on the war.

Basically, I think he has a strong understanding of the realities of foreign policy, and he takes it seriously instead of using it as a political tool. He's maintained a consistent stance on Iraq and what we ought to do in the war on terror generally. While I don't entirely agree with his foreign policy vision, at least he's got one, it's identifiable, it's predictable, I trust that he'll stick by it. The fact that he's been a leading figure in torture opposition shows his honesty to me. He's also been one of the few reasonable republican candidates when it comes to immigration. He's steadfastly refused to grandstand or engage in politically-motivated hyperbole. I'm fairly well convinced that he's running because he thinks he would make a good president, and that his motives are honestly and legitimately to do good for America.

Well and good. If only he could have taken something other than religious right to pander to.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Fred Thompson.

[redeemed]

I'm voting for ron paul.
not that it matters ;p

[Fairweather Pure]

I was also considering Hillary. However, I feel that she would create an even larger gap between our political parties (as if that's even possible). Let me make it clear that I believe she is a good candidate, I just feel that she has too much baggage (for lack of a better term). I'm becoming more of an Obama man for the reason stated above, but if Hillary wins I would be happy with that as well.

[Winnow]

Yeah-- it's basically that he seems to analyze issues in reality instead of in inside-the-beltway-political-fantasyland.

I added a weak vote for McCain for the moment.

The time he spent in prison (Vietnam), combined with his age are really catching up to him fast. I see more of him with the local news coverage and sometimes he looks like he's going to keel over.

That's about it for the Republicans.

Obama is the sexy choice but he I'm not sold yet.

I'd like to see Hillary eliminated from the picture as either a Presidential Candidate or Vice President. After that's done, It's time to take a serious look at the other D candidates.

[Arborealus]

The time he spent in prison (Vietnam), combined with his age are really catching up to him fast. I see more of him with the local news coverage and sometimes he looks like he's going to keel over.

It was the watch he kept in his anus so the goddamn slopes wouldn't get it.

[rhyae]

leaning Hillary.
Anyone who has been through the personal and political torture she has already been through and is willing to do it again has a cast iron set of cajones.
I'll vote for Obama in 2016.

[Fairweather Pure]

leaning Hillary.
Anyone who has been through the personal and political torture she has already been through and is willing to do it again has a cast iron set of cajones.
I'll vote for Obama in 2016.

If you're going to vote on experiance alone, Hillary has every candidate beat by an extremely large margin. I've said it before and I'll say it again: She is probbaly the greatest politician of my lifetime. There are too many people who despise her for that though. We really need someone to unite us again on some basic levels.

[Sylvus]

I like Obama right now. I feel he's the candidate I can most relate with. He's young, he's had his indiscretions and been pretty forthright with them, and he seems far enough outside of the system (as far as a legitimate candidate can be) that he might be able to actually make some changes. If I don't have the opportunity to vote for Obama, McCain might be my next choice.

[Siji]

leaning Hillary.
Anyone who has been through the personal and political torture she has already been through and is willing to do it again has a cast iron set of cajones.
I'll vote for Obama in 2016.

If you're going to vote on experiance alone, Hillary has every candidate beat by an extremely large margin. I've said it before and I'll say it again: She is probbaly the greatest politician of my lifetime. There are too many people who despise her for that though. We really need someone to unite us again on some basic levels.

We need someone that's not as much of a politician as she (or any of the others) is, imo.

Then again, if he got elected he could end up having every good thing he wants to do shot down like Carter. Obama Beer!

[Winnow]

If you're going to vote on experiance alone, Hillary has every candidate beat by an extremely large margin.

How do you come up with Hillary having more experience than McCain not even taking into account your claim of it being by an "extremely large margin"?

[Ashur]

I like Ron Paul* (Whom I've selected in the poll) and McCain. That said, I don't believe either will get the nomination and we'll be looking at Romney, Thompson, Giuliani or Huckabee (or some combination thereof) vs Obama, in which case Obama has my vote unless he choose Hillary as a running mate (hey, politics makes stange bedfellows).

Again, if it's Hillary, the Republican guy gets my vote.

* (Yes, I've called out some others for supporting him while condeming his stances on issues, but only because I wanted to make sure they weren't being hipocritical. They don't like some of what he stands for, but they like the man's character.)

[rhyae]

If you're going to vote on experiance alone, Hillary has every candidate beat by an extremely large margin.

How do you come up with Hillary having more experience than McCain not even taking into account your claim of it being by an "extremely large margin"?

She's certainly had more exposure to politics. By age 13 she was 'working' to uncover voter fraud in Chicago, and she's been going strong ever since.

[Winnow]

She's certainly had more exposure to politics. By age 13 she was 'working' to uncover voter fraud in Chicago, and she's been going strong ever since.

"Exposure" isn't going to count for me. Being elected and serving time in a state or national position is what I consider political experience, not working for a campaign, etc. or being a first lady. That's the bullshit side of politics imo.

Questioning Hillary's experience

Here's a question that everyone seems to be ignoring: why does Hillary Clinton get a pass on the experience question while Barack Obama and John Edwards are portrayed as inexperienced? Here are their respective resumes in public office:

Clinton -- six years in the United States Senate;
Edwards -- six years in the United States Senate;
Obama -- seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate.

There's no question that Clinton was highly involved in politics and policy for most of her adult life. But is her pre-Senate experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate really that much more substantial than Obama's seven years as a state legislator? Implicitly, the Clinton experience argument seems to rest more on the fact that she was inside the White House advising her husband for eight years. But no one's suggesting that other people who advised Clinton are qualified to be president on that basis -- otherwise Rahm Emanuel and Leon Panetta would be throwing their hats in the ring. Sure, she was a closer adviser to her husband than those two, but to my mind, you either have experience being "the decider" or you don't. And Clinton has no executive experience, no experience managing a large bureaucracy, and less experience as an elected representative than Obama. Just because she's famous and has lots of experience in national politics doesn't make her more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her rivals.

McCain's Political Experience:

Political career:

5 Years U.S. House, 1983-87
20 Years U.S. Senate, 1987-present.

Someone tell me again how Hillary is far and away the most politically experienced candidate.

edit: typos

[Animale]

I put Obama in the poll, but I'm still deciding between Edwards or Obama for the primary. I like Edwards populist bent, but I'm not sure he's the one to do what he wants... hopefully Obama will co-opt some of his ideas and be the one to implement them (particularly healthcare - that is a huge issue for both moral (poor people) and business (international competitiveness - countries that supply healthcare to their workers have a lower direct cost on business that in the U.S. where they are part of the benefits package).
We'll see when the time rolls around who I actually vote for - in a month and a half I guess.

[Bagar-]

Obama.

[Zamtuk]

Heh, I am the one person here going for Rudy. Not sure why. When I look at all the issues he seems to be the one that matches up great with what I'm looking for. Even the liberals have to agree that he is the most left republican out there. (also his immigrant policy stating that they all must learn English is lol) I sincerely think that the republicans are coming away with this election since the only thing the democrats could come up with is a black man and a woman. As much as I like Barack and would vote for him, I just don't see it happening.

I hope to god that Huckabee and Romney lose out to Rudy, but since Rudy has apparently no desire to campaign in Iowa, it's looking like that's not happening.

[Ashur]

I think the Democratic Primary will determine the General election. Put Hillary up and lose, put someone else up and win.

[Siji]

Heh, I am the one person here going for Rudy.

I must be the only one hoping for a bullet between his eyes an embarrassing homosexual scandal from him.

[Leonaerd]

This poll and its results speak volumes.

[Ashur]

No, it really doesn't. This forum (and college, where you are) I would suspect has a lot more left-leaning folks than right, which isn't really indicitive of anything.

[Fash]

So far on the democrat side, the favored candidate is one of the two media front-runners (a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, who was raised in a muslim community, whose platform is all about 'change'... sounds like surrender to me, though I've expressed respect for Obama before)... and on the republican side, the media front-runners get no love, the support is behind the 'long-shot' candidate Ron Paul who gets minimal airtime. (an older white man with a long track record of attacking government programs and foreign policy while preaching solutions to make things better for everyone) I think it's pretty telling, too.

[Winnow]

All this shows is that if Hillary was banned from VV, she would remain banned after this poll.

[Chidoro]

I put Edwards but I would still vote for Biden first and foremost with Dodd a close second, and even though he will never ever run, Specter from PA as a third choice.

Hillary would never get my vote. I don't know enough about Obama for my vote yet. But then this has been the most apathetic I've been about a presidential election so I haven't been paying attention to any of the debates or any of the posturing so far. The POTUS station on Xm is just about the most boring thing I've tried to subject myself to.

[Gzette]

So far on the democrat side, the favored candidate is one of the two media front-runners (a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, who was raised in a muslim community, whose platform is all about 'change'... sounds like surrender to me, though I've expressed respect for Obama before)

That sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek. If not, then I pity you.

[Sueven]

Heh, I am the one person here going for Rudy. Not sure why. When I look at all the issues he seems to be the one that matches up great with what I'm looking for. Even the liberals have to agree that he is the most left republican out there.

You are right. Let me explain why Rudy Giuliani is an awful candidate who does not deserve your vote nevertheless.

1. He's an authoritarian leader with no sense of restraint or discretion. Rudy was a prosecutor before he was Mayor. He was known for being a highly overzealous prosecutor who would routinely overcharge defendants, selectively charge uncooperative witnesses with crimes to compel testimony and so forth. There were times when juries acquitted obviously guilty defendants because of (apparently) their disgust for Rudy's prosecution. He brought the same style to his role as Mayor: Grandiose rhetoric, attempting to appropriate the largest possible degree of authority for the Mayor's office, trying to silence critical political ads on the sides of buses, and so on. Some might argue that we need a leader with a bold vision who is willing to try to smash all comers to enact that vision. I disagree that Rudy's vision is at all bold or worth following, but I'll discuss that later. I also disagree that we need an alpha male president at this point. Bush has done significant work in widening executive authority over the past 7 years. What we need now is a president who can exercise some discretion within the range of broadened authority that he possesses, and can work with the remainder of the government in a (relatively) cooperative fashion, not Rudy's I'm-the-hammer fashion.

2. His supposed accomplishments are ephemeral. Rudy has no valuable record whatsoever. He's been a mayor, which is cool and all in that it gives some leadership skills and some familiarity with bureaucracy, but he's never had to deal with the issues that arise when you're governing something broader than a city, let alone having any familiarity whatsoever with foreign policy or international diplomacy. He's praised for his governing of New York-- why? He did, admittedly, lower crime. But let's not give too much credit here-- the entire nation was in the midst of a major drop in violent crime. New York did drop faster than other cities, but really, the solution there was pretty simple-- expanding the police force. Rudy deserves credit for saying "hey, crime's an issue, let's help out the situation by hiring more cops," but really it's not fucking rocket science. Rudy's toughening up of the city's crime enforcement also led to some of the uglier racial police episodes in recent memory, including the plunger-sodomizing of a suspect by police and innocent Amadou Diallo's being shot 41 times for holding a wallet. Prior to 9/11, Rudy was fairly widely disliked, and especially reviled by minority populations. His other supposed accomplishment is having happened to be Mayor when 9/11 occurred. He did do a good job projecting an image of control after the attacks. Beyond that, I'm not sure what he's supposed to have accomplished. There are various aspects of his actions that have been heavily criticized-- for inadequate concern as to air-quality issues which may have led to the disease or death of rescue personnel, for angering police and firefighters by calling off the body recovery effort, and so on.

3. He's an asshole personally. Usually, this sort of stuff isn't important to me. But when you use taxpayer money to usher your mistress around New York under police protection, divorce your wife (for the mistress) in a press conference, and can't convince a single one of your children to stick with you... well, that's enough to become an issue for me. Especially when this is all in the past decade.

4. You might like the fact that he's relatively socially liberal, as Republicans go. Unfortunately, like it or not, battles of social liberalism are fought in the courts these days. Rudy has not indicated a desire to start fighting these battles in the executive/legislative arena, nor does he appear to have any ability to cause that shift to occur if he wanted to. As such, the only truly relevant issue as far as his social liberalism is concerned is the question of what sort of judicial appointments he's made. He's promised to appoint strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, etc. There are two problems here. First, if you don't like Scalia, then the problem is straightforward. Second, even if you do like Scalia, courts benefit from diversity of opinions. The judicial system functions best when you appoint the most qualified, most reasoned people, regardless of ideological affiliation (with the exceptions of extremes, of course). Even if you want to choose from a narrower partisan spectrum, there is significant diversity within the 'originalist' judicial camp which is not represented in the notion of strict constructionism as represented by Scalia. If originalism is Christianity, then strict constructionism is Southern Baptist. Even if you're convinced that originalism is the only real way to go, how about we mix it up a little bit? I do NOT want an executively-defined method of constitutional interpretation to be binding on the entire federal judiciary.

5. His foreign policy is ignorant, arrogant, dangerous, and awful. It's so awful that it would really be pointless for me to explain it. I will simply point you to it, and then point you to criticisms wrote by various people on the internet, some more qualified than others. You can check out their pages if you're actually interested in which ones are qualified (rest assured that some are).

Here is the piece which his campaign wrote for Foreign Affairs, outlining his foreign policy vision.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901f ... peace.html

I recommend you read the piece and the reactions, but I'll quote a few key passages:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003445.html

This is an unbelievably unserious essay.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archi ... 08/14/6964

You will not enjoy a day of peace so long as Rudy has anything to say about it. Peace is something we will “achieve” in the distant future when the lion has been clubbed senseless with the lamb.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/ar ... 12550.html

And after having read the piece, I can safely say that Giuliani is as nutty as a fruitcake. His approach to foreign policy is spectacularly dangerous, irresponsible, and stupid. Imagine Dick Cheney with a loaded gun in one hand, and an empty bottle of antidepressants in the other, and you can start to get the idea.
....
I’ve seen some analyses suggest that Giuliani would be a continuation of the Bush policy. That’s false. Giuliani seems to believe that Bush has been weak and compliant, and what we really need is to be far more forceful in opposing diplomacy, using force, beating allies into submission, and leading through fear.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/

Rudy Giuliani's essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, laying out his ideas for a new U.S. foreign policy, is one of the shallowest articles of its kind I've ever read. Had it been written for a freshman course on international relations, it would deserve at best a C-minus (with a concerned note to come see the professor as soon as possible).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... cy_vision/

Essentially, he wants to massively increase a defense budget that already spends more than the rest of the countries on the planet combined so as to buy more submarines and anti-missile systems to protect us against a land-based guerrilla movement. We’re then going to use that military to go in, apparently, to topple every regime we don’t like and to wipe out every instance of non-democratic badness and spend decades occupying those countries. All, of course, while winning friends and influencing people.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/ ... e.php#more

That kind of political calculation combined with a gut-level love of confrontation and years of association with the strange faction that is New York City-based conservative intellectual life has produced a striking decision to double down on neoconservative foreign policy.
....
The result of this policy is going to be an endless series of wars, a bankrupt country accounting for way more than fifty percent of world defense expenditures, fewer and fewer countries willing to cooperate with us on key priorities and, perhaps worst of all, more and more nuclear proliferation as countries decide its not safe to live in a world where the Rudy-led USA is the big kid on the block.

[Nick]

If America chooses anyone other than Obama it's essentially yet another 4 year (3rd time in a row) admission that the majority of Americans are criminally fucking retarded and totally disconnected from global reality.

Obama stands no chance.

You seem like a pretty smart guy Zamtuk, why in fuck's name would you ever support a twat like Guiliani? He's effectively a fascist. Are you?

[Kaldaur]

Obama is doing well in the Iowa polls. I wouldn't count him out completely. He'll face difficulties if he wins a national nod, but then again he was down twenty points over two months ago, and now the situation is looking markedly different. Don't give up on him yet.

[Tyek]

If America chooses anyone other than Obama it's essentially yet another 4 year (3rd time in a row) admission that the majority of Americans are criminally fucking retarded and totally disconnected from global reality.

????

There are retarded leaders elected in many different countries. The bigger issue is that we will never get a true populist candidate. By the time we get a choice, the potential candidates are committee'd, focus grouped and bought and paid for.

I personally would be happy to see us escape the Bush, Clinton, Bush debacle we are in. Adding another Clinton would not help.

I have not officially decided, Obama is a possibilty, but I also want to know who their running mates will be, their real platforms and I will make the most reasonable choice for me. If you think that makes me retarded so be it.

[Forthe]

2cents from a Newf wishing this global warming thing would hurry up already.

I think Obama is way out ahead of any of the other candidates.

-Smart
-Charismatic
-Honest
-Moderate\Diplomatic
-Good morals
-Real (as opposed to the typical politically fabricated persona)

He is the only one that I could see bringing the US back to the good side and perhaps lessen this red vs blue crap many yanks seem brainwashed with.

I would be extremely surprised if he won.

[Aardor]

2cents from a Newf wishing this global warming thing would hurry up already.
He is the only one that I could see bringing the US back to the good side and perhaps lessen this red vs blue crap many yanks seem brainwashed with.

When you say Yanks, do you mean American citizens, people from the north, or democrats? I have heard it used to mean all 3, and I think you mean American citizens, but I am not sure.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Once I found out Obama was a muslim, I ran away from liking him. I'm hoping Fred Thompson becomes more prominent soon.

[Sueven]

Obama's not a muslim. I think you're trolling, but just wanted to cover my bases.

[Forthe]

When you say Yanks, do you mean American citizens, people from the north, or democrats? I have heard it used to mean all 3, and I think you mean American citizens, but I am not sure.

yanks = US citizens

Not meant in a derogatory sense, just short form

You really need a proper term for your citizens. I propose Usadians.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... s+a+muslim

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 ... ama-habit/

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/71943.php

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pol ... liani.html

[Boogahz]

When you say Yanks, do you mean American citizens, people from the north, or democrats? I have heard it used to mean all 3, and I think you mean American citizens, but I am not sure.

yanks = US citizens

Not meant in a derogatory sense, just short form

You really need a proper term for your citizens. I propose Usadians.

USAmericans

[Drinsic Darkwood]

When you say Yanks, do you mean American citizens, people from the north, or democrats? I have heard it used to mean all 3, and I think you mean American citizens, but I am not sure.

yanks = US citizens

Not meant in a derogatory sense, just short form

You really need a proper term for your citizens. I propose Usadians.

American has worked fine for years.

[Winnow]

When you say Yanks, do you mean American citizens, people from the north, or democrats? I have heard it used to mean all 3, and I think you mean American citizens, but I am not sure.

yanks = US citizens

Not meant in a derogatory sense, just short form

You really need a proper term for your citizens. I propose Usadians.

People from Europe call themselves Europeans. Canadians need to be calling themselves Americans...at least while the Looney is higher than the Dollar. (Mexicans aren't allowed to...stick them in Central America!)

As for United States citizens, perhaps you could call us "Cops" since we're the World Police.

[Nick]

or "twats" because you're the twats of the world?

[Canelek]

or "twats" because you're the twats of the world?

Hey, don't lump us west coast people with those fucking martians in the jesusland.

And I agree with Forthe, USAdians sounds pretty good.

[Nick]

People like Canelek don't apply to the term obviously

[Cracc]

mmmmm... bagdicks!