Vote: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton

[STING2]

I'm just telling you what is coming directly from their mouths.



I think you overestimate his pull and the roll of Iraq in 2008.

The fact that McCain draws voters from a wider base that past Republican candidates is a proven fact, at least in terms of the polling data. If Iraq is not the top issue in 2008, then it would only benefit Republicans since the Democrats don't have anything else to run on.

 

[STING2]

Many veterans, colonels, and others in the military don't think so...

But the majority do, and the evidence so far shows that they are correct.

 

[BVS]

The fact that McCain draws voters from a wider base that past Republican candidates is a proven fact, at least in terms of the polling data.

Then why is he losing in some states?

 

[BVS]

But the majority do, and the evidence so far shows that they are correct.

And what "evidence" is that?

 

[STING2]

As if people aren't also sick to death of Bush, the entire administration and Republican corruption running rampant.

McCain is polling like 20 points behind Romney in some states. I think he's DOA.

Well, 3 months ago he was DOA because of Rudy, now its Romney. Rudy can't win the Republican nomination, Romney will stay in for the long hall because he has the money, but in the long run, McCain will get the nomination. Hell Pat Buchanan beat George Bush's father in New Hampshire, which was obviously irrelevant. Most national polls have McCain with a solid lead over Romney.

 

[martha]

And what "evidence" is that?

Polls, obviously.

 

[financeguy]

Hell Pat Buchanan beat George Bush's father in New Hampshire,

Such fond memories...

 

[BVS]

Oh, yeah.

 

[STING2]

And what "evidence" is that?

As has been widely reported, the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad has dropped. Overall Violence in Al Anbar province is also down, and local tribes that were either indifferent or hostile to coalition forces are now helping them. Violence is still strong in other area's just north and south of Baghdad, but the area's that were initially targeted in the surge have had some success.

 

[BVS]

As has been widely reported, the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad has dropped. Overall Violence in Al Anbar province is also down, and local tribes that were either indifferent or hostile to coalition forces are now helping them. Violence is still strong in other area's just north and south of Baghdad, but the area's that were initially targeted in the surge have had some success.

Um, sorry but violence in Baghdad was reducing before the first surge, which makes sense, since it's been occuppied since day one.

 

[anitram]

Well, 3 months ago he was DOA because of Rudy, now its Romney.

No, he's DOA because he's an old windbag who stands for nothing anymore.

 

[martha]

Democrats don't have anything else to run on.

Oil companies fucking us all over, health care failing miserably, Constitutional rights being trampled.

Nope. Nothing else.

 

[Lila64]

As has been widely reported...

by whom is the key question there

Oil companies fucking us all over, health care failing miserably, Constitutional rights being trampled.

Nope. Nothing else.

No, he's DOA because he's an old windbag who stands for nothing anymore.

<<<sneaks back out

 

[redhotswami]

Well, it breaks my heart to think that these two are the predicted front runners. Neither of them appeal to me. My own community was shaken from the ground up, and neither one of them has any sort of policy that will prevent something like this from happening again.

But...since I have to choose between these two, I suppose I'll pick Obama. But for the record, I don't forsee much progress happening from either of these two candidates. At least, not what I consider to be worthy progress. But who knows...perhaps they could surprise me

 

[STING2]

Um, sorry but violence in Baghdad was reducing before the first surge, which makes sense, since it's been occuppied since day one.

Sectarian violence in Baghdad rapidly increased after Al Quada's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq occurs in and around Baghdad. General Petraeus, the new US commander in Iraq who was approved unanimously by Democrats and Republicans decided on the surge in Baghdad to reduce the sectarian violence as well sending extra Marines to Al Anbar province to reduce violence there. In addition, negotiations with Sunni Tribes in the Al Anbar province have brought new allies in the war against Sunni insurgence and Al Quada. In Baghdad, sectarian violence has been reduced as reported by both Iraqi and US military forces on the ground there. In addition overall violence in Al Anbar province is down. Many Sunni insurgents and Al Quada have fled to Diyala province leading to an increase in violence there, but the efforts in both Al Anbar and Baghdad have made progress.

 

[STING2]

Oil companies fucking us all over, health care failing miserably, Constitutional rights being trampled.

Nope. Nothing else.

When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?

 

[Ormus]

When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?

When was the last time the Democrats actually had an election with "issues"?

I think that's probably their worst problem. If voters actually believed that the Democrats would sincerely address those problems, I think people would vote for them. As it stands, though, I think very few people actually believe that they--or any political party--actually would.

Instead, they're busy voting for go-nowhere bills like "NOPEC" that come across as little more than ineffective, pre-election year politicking. They'd be better off targeting the oil companies for Enron-style supply throttling and price fixing. It's certainly not the oil prices that are making gas prices this high, and seeing so many of our refineries either offline or operating well under maximum capacity smacks of cartel-style gouging.

Or, if the Democrats wanted to do something about our environment, they could also do something as simple as banning the traditional light bulb, as replacing those with newer, freely available florescent-based bulbs would alone save massive amounts of energy.

But, no. Our politicians--Democratic and Republican alike--are too busy "fundraising" constantly, tripping over one another to see who can be the most "Christian" candidate of them all, and working themselves up for the "next election." What a useless bunch of idiots, and shame on the American public for constantly and consistently letting these jokers get away with it year after year after year.

 

[martha]

When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?

When was the last time the Republicans talked about anything but terrorism?

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

Democracy sux. We should let those who know best decide.

But don't you see even if you 'win' you still lose? Our entire political system is a sham. No one is going to do what they promise. This latest herd elected to congress proved that. They told you what you wanted to hear and then they didn't follow through. None of them will. They only want your vote. There are a bunch of writers and coaches behind them all trying to sell these losers to us as a product and they just love it when you fall for it or think one is better than the other. Wrong. There will be no positive changes under our current two party system. Anyone who votes is being taken for a fool by the whole system. Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

My predicition on these two: it will be a very tough and bitterly fought campaign right up until the convention, with them saying terrible things about each other to sway the voters. But in the end, the one who doesn't get the nomination will cave and smile and kiss ass to the other, disregarding all the strong statements of the past that fall by the wayside now in the name of 'party unity.' They will raise their fists together at the podium as running mates as the balloons come down.

And being too controversial for the average middle American voter, this ticket will be pummeled by whatever talking head the GOP puts out there.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Even if the Dems do win (which they won't if they accept the Hillary/Obama ticket)

 

[meegannie]

Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.

A low voter turnout would just be interpreted as apathy (as it is now). I would prefer it if there were a "none of the above" option.

 

[martha]

Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.

That message would be "Do whatever the fuck you want. We don't care."

Not voting is exactly what the rich and powerful want you to do. The lower the participation, the more the power will consolidate.

"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.

 

[BVS]

"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.

Exactly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.

Your right, what they should do is compromise their principles and throw their vote for the rich and powerful that pretend to care.

 

[Sherry Darling]

It's worth observing that there is a BIG difference between an organized, powerful boycott of an election, and a bunch of people just not showing up.

 

[martha]

Your right, what they should do is compromise their principles and throw their vote for the rich and powerful that pretend to care.

What principles?

Real, organized voting for a real candidate would send a much clearer "message" than just not voting.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Does voting for this real candidate include third party candidates?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Probably neither-at this point I think I might vote for Mitt Romney

 

[martha]

Does voting for this real candidate include third party candidates?

Probably. Participation is the key.

Although at this point a third party candidate is usually a spoiler.

 

[Chizip]

A low voter turnout would just be interpreted as apathy (as it is now). I would prefer it if there were a "none of the above" option.

but shouldn't apathy been seen as a message about the political system? i don't blame voters for being apathetic when the choice they are given is between a punch in the face or a kick in the nuts. the blame should be placed on a system that doesn't provide enough quality choices that inspire people to get off their ass and vote.

i dont see low voter turnout as public laziness, i see it as a failure of the political system.