<p>I have been a NYC resident my entire life, so RUDY is my pick.</p>
<p>Id never vote for a democrat, they are some crazy bastards.</p>
<p>Ross Perot & Ralph Nader. The problem with career politicians is that for people who are so connected with money eg bribes, lobbying, whatever you desire to call it they are absolutely terrible at anything relating to economics and have spent the US into a huge (and probably impossible to cure) fiscal crisis. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I see absolutely no point in voting beteen a bunch of cantidates who are, at the core, absolutely the same and will continue following political decisions of the past (deficit spending, huge entitlement programs without any funding, the list could go on forever...) and at the same time be taking bribes under the table (or lobbying, if thats what you prefer to call it because unfortunatley in our political system only career politicians who sell their souls for campaign contributions have any sort of chance of victory) and if you look historically you can see many examples of voter fraud, and those are just a drop in the pond (Florida 2000 and the Supreme Court's decision, JQA's victory decided in the House of Representatives, the deal between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes to remove Northern troops in the South in return for the executive seat, people who vote multiple times, the electoral college in general). </p>
<p>If people were more involved in the electoral process, surely everything would improve, but the problem is normal people aren't interested in getting their hands dirty by getting involved in such a corrupt system, even if politics does have such a large effect on their lives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fred Thompson's my guy, but seeing as everyone on here's liberal you all probably hate him...eh.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><3 Fred Thompson :)</p>
<p>I don't feel passionate about any of the candidates, but I am going to vote for Obama if he makes it past the primaries.
I don't want to vote for Hillary because first of all, Bill Clinton makes me sick and Hillary seems way too ambitious. It's like she thinks 'I have to be president or else!!!' and that's all she lives for. She kind of scares me. If she beats Obama then I'm going to vote Libertarian or Green or something.</p>
<p>I like Obama because he's a new face in politics, he's from a younger generation and he seems very intelligent and candid. Also, he was one of the few who voted against the war which takes guts.</p>
<p>I am definitely not going to vote republican because they had their chance and wasted it, and I'm not going to vote for a party that's going to lose.</p>
<p>I wish Schwarzenegger could run, he's pretty cool.</p>
<p>If Bloomberg ran, I'd consider him. I don't know enough about him though.</p>
<p>But in the scheme of things, my one little vote really doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Stewart/Colbert!!! :)</p>
<p>Pahaha, but no really, I basically agree w/ TritiumKnight so far..</p>
<p>Democrat: I'm a committed big government liberal, but I can't think of a single decent candidate, even though they're all big government liberals too. They're all extremely arrogant mindless robots who hold their opinions solely for political reasons. And they're all the same.
Republican: Ron Paul, in a direct contradiction of the above statement.</p>
<p>whaa??</p>
<p>Pahaha, everytime you guys say Ron Paul, I picture RuPaul.
LOL.</p>
<p>Republican: Ron Paul. The rest of the Republicans are pretty frightening, in a fascist sort of way.</p>
<p>Democrat: Barack Obama. Not ideal, but he's our best hope of getting rid of hillary early on. Please America, virtually ANYONE but Hillary Clinton (and don't pick Giuliani either please).</p>
<p>Here's the unfortunate situation with me and this election. I barely miss being able to vote in the primaries, so I'm stuck voting for the main candiate in the election. I'll vote for sure, just would have been a bit more relevant if I could have voted in the primaries.</p>
<p>Ron Paul first choice. Fred Thompson or Richardson...Anti Hillary all the way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LOL....It's funny when the majority thinks they're being persecuted...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Amen, you said it. After 8 years of the most overtly fundamentalist Christian president in American history, and where do we stand? Pardon the American public if they're wary of electing yet another public servant who lists God as a personal consultant.</p>
<p>If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then they can't say anything about Obama's lack of foreign experience. Rudy's a fricking former mayor! Granted, mayor of NYC is probably tougher than being Governor of Montana or something, but despite his 9/11 heroism and talks about toughening up on terrorism, Giuliani is probably the weakest foreign policy major candidate in either field. The best Republican choice would be McCain, but he looks finished. Plus, he's too old and would probably suffer from health problems once in office. And yes, I know Reagan was old too, but there are those stories about how he showed signs of Alzheimer's in only his second year of office (if his economic policies are of any proof, then he had full-blown dementia). </p>
<p>I see Obama as the idealistic choice, Gore as the moral choice, and Clinton as the expected choice. </p>
<p>Obama would be the anti-Bush that America needs after 8 years of the most shameful presidency since Nixon's. After they re-elect the guy they never voted for in the first place, the American public wants to badly atone for its horrible mistake. It'd be depressing to have elect yet another barnacle on the ship that is Washington DC like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Wouldn't it be a great story of American progress if after they elect a faux-Texan, blue-blooded WASP, fundamentalist Christian, and war-mongering dumbass, they finally let a Black liberal into the Executive Office?</p>
<p>Or another great story is giving Al Gore the position he once so desired and rightfully won. It's like in that 200th Simpsons episode when Springfield chooses to elect Homer as sanitation commissioner, instead of re-electing the able and stalwart Ray Patterson. After Homer's crazy promises create unimaginable chaos, the town begs Patterson to come back. Hopefully, Gore will be more gracious than Patterson and not spurn the public's request, but it's a similar story of overlooked appreciation and redemption. Re-elect Al Gore!</p>
<p>But of course, all polls seem to indicate a strong Clinton lead. I say that after all she's been through, she deserves a legitimate shot at the presidency. I don't like the sexism-based attacks on her about being cold and calculating. She's a politician! What do you expect, Mother Theresa?! John McCain can still be a "maverick" even after embracing Bush, but unless Hillary lives up to our societal expectations of Madonna/Virgin/Saint/Mother/Nurturer/Florence Nightingale, we label her as a ***** or something. I'm not ecstatic at the thought, but she'd have my vote.</p>
<p>Ron paul has zero chance.</p>
<p>Re elect Al Gore. sigh, liberals can't seem to grasp the Constitution or let go...rofl worthy if it wasn't so sad.</p>
<p>John Edwards is my favorite candidate. I think it will come down to him and Hillary, but Edwards has the better chance of beating the GOP candidate IMO, because he could win a few southern states.</p>
<p>OBAMA '08</p>
<p>as for republicans, i don't think McCain is too bad.</p>
<p>oprah should run for president</p>
<p>Dennis Kucinich 2008!!!
I support his stance on a number of touchy issues and his liberal views. I would love to see him win, but I would also like to see a woman in the oval office with Hillary Clinton.... =/ eh... Go Kucinich and Clinton!</p>
<p>I think Obama would make a better candidate after a few years. imo he doesn't have enough experience.</p>
<p>Tom Tancredo!!</p>
<p>close down that border</p>
<p>This 'argument' that Barack Obama is too inexperienced is absolute hogwash. All of the major candidates have relevant experience in various roles related to governance, and none has ever run a country before. So they are all inexperienced, just as every president has been until they were elected for the first time.</p>
<p>By the way, I support the Republican party, which I hope will start moving back toward its small-government roots; this isn't a defense of Obama. I’m just sick of hearing this shabby reasoning parroted in the American media. Surely Obama has some flaws in his proposed policies, the discussion of which would be a better use of airtime?</p>