<p>I can't believe it's the 21st century and this great "civilized" society of America is still wary of voting for a woman or a minority.</p>
<p>Gore did win. Kerry, on the other hand, did not win, unless you are the type to engage in liberal conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>Obama - what has he done? What bills or new ideas has he come up with?
Could someone provide a link?</p>
<p>jaso9n2 is right.</p>
<p>Regarding Obama, for starters, he has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and is one of very few who has had the courage to do that.</p>
<p>(Thanks, kunfuzed!)</p>
<p>You can be the type of conservative who believes in conspiracy theories. Ever see Hacking Democracy? Voting systems in the 2004 election were rigged. For example, a county in Ohio with only 600+ registered voters cast over a thousand votes. That's not a theory. That's recorded evidence.</p>
<p>This country isn't -- and I hate to say this because it sounds elitist -- smart enough to choose someone after careful research and keeping up to date on current events. Believe it or not, a lot of people voted Bush just because he "looks like the kind of guy who gets things done." No matter how many *****-ups he's made these past seven years, people still think he's the one you want if something goes down.</p>
<p>And a lot of voters are still sexist and racist. The Republicans can criticize all they want about Dems playing it safe, but the truth is they HAVE to until the public's consciousness changes from knee-jerk reactions to keen, analytical thought. Until then, we need a Dem who is more of the standard issue.</p>
<p>If McCain got past primaries he could probably trump any candidate the Democrats put out. And I really don't have a problem with McCain in the presidency. Problem is, McCain didn't make it past primaries eight years ago, and our country is probably more polarized today than it was then. </p>
<p>John Edwards apparently has shifted much to the left in three years. Apparently, he learned from Kerry being too wishy-washy and is attempting to appeal to his base. The problem with Edwards is that he has been thirsting for the Presidency since the moment Kerry was defeated in 2004, and anyone who desires power for that long has a much higher chance of abusing it when they do attain it.</p>
<p>Same for Hillary. She's completely absorbed in Washington politics. Look at her--she picks on the easy topics like violent videogames. What person over the age of 40 would have any objections to limiting violent videogames? Yet, any rational youth knows that having fun shooting things on a computer screen does not translate into the desire to start shooting people in real life. Also, it's not very democratic to be switching between a Bush and a Clinton in the Presidency every eight years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This country isn't -- and I hate to say this because it sounds elitist -- smart enough to choose someone after careful research and keeping up to date on current events. Believe it or not, a lot of people voted Bush just because he "looks like the kind of guy who gets things done." No matter how many *****-ups he's made these past seven years, people still think he's the one you want if something goes down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>jas, unfortunately you are right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This country isn't -- and I hate to say this because it sounds elitist -- smart enough to choose someone after careful research and keeping up to date on current events. Believe it or not, a lot of people voted Bush just because he "looks like the kind of guy who gets things done." No matter how many *****-ups he's made these past seven years, people still think he's the one you want if something goes down.</p>
<p>And a lot of voters are still sexist and racist. The Republicans can criticize all they want about Dems playing it safe, but the truth is they HAVE to until the public's consciousness changes from knee-jerk reactions to keen, analytical thought. Until then, we need a Dem who is more of the standard issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you're not being elitist at all. You're correct.</p>
<p>After the 2004 election, I don't buy into the "experience" idea. John Kerry had infinite more experience than Bush and he still lost because people found it easier to believe he was a war traitor and an aloof patrician than to read through 5000 pages of minutes from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this day and age, experience only means more chances for you to screw up.</p>
<p>Yes I agree that the country is not smart enough to choose someone. In a survey of young Americans, 89% could not locate Iraq on a map - and this was before the Iraq war. It is ignorance of this sort that allows the rise of any demagogue. But what's the alternative? There isn't one. You cannot instantly convert a great mass of apathetic, ignorant people into a model populace that knows the issues of the day.</p>
<p>McCain will be getting a lot of fire for supporting a 35,000 troop surge. I agree with him on this but once again, most Americans don't look to the future and members of both parties want to withdraw with their tails between their legs. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm</a>
a nice collection of polls between various potential candidates. Most show McCain whooping Hillary and just slightly beating Obama. But of course, it will be very tough for him to gain the nomination.</p>
<p>on the other hand, what do you guys think about such esteemed Democratic candidates such as Chris Dodd and Vilsack?
<em>snickers at the candidates who aren't going to be recognized</em></p>
<p>Of all the senators who are (potentially) seeking the presidential bid, the one I most respect is Joe Biden. But no one thrills me. Electing a president is not about being thrilled, but I can hardly distinguish from one another.</p>
<p>I checked, and I guess Kucinich is running again. I agree with him on like everything, but really, who's going to vote for Kucinich? No one.</p>
<p>The 2004 list of bids was so completely random. Now, it seems like I can't distinguish one potential candidate from another. We really need a Howard Dean. Say what you will of him, but we need that energy and we need that voice. Barack is something to be excited about...but he's not Dean!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got it:</p>
<p>Obama/Edwards
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds like a good ticket but i dont think edwards will run as VP again.</p>
<p>McCain, Hillary, Edwards, Obama: all different peas of the same pod. They're all socialist, big-government globalists who could care less about adhering to our Constitution. The presidential election has turned into some ridiculous popularity contest, where whoever appeals to more emotions & has the most money wins. This country can't afford another one of these buffoons in office. People need to realize that there are serious repercussions about who we elect, whether it be to a lowly House seat or the 'Grand Throne' itself.</p>
<p>It has turned into a popularity contest? What? It has been that way since...yeah, forever.</p>
<p>But seriously Panglossian, who is your ideal candidate?</p>
<p>gzhang, if Edwards has been lusting after power since 2004, and that's a negative in your book, then how can you support McCain, who has been running for president since 2000 <em>and</em> has already set aside his so-called ideals on a ton of issues so he could be Bush's bootlicker?</p>
<p>Panglossian, no one who is running on the Democratic side of the aisle is a Socialist, and no candidate could possibly have less regard for our Constitution than the current occupant of our White House. Big government? Bush and the Republican Congress that was just defeated spent more money than any other Congress, and loads of that on pork barrel projects like a $10 million dollar bus shelter. I don't disagree with your assessment that whoever has the most money wins, and although I'm a Democrat, I've been unhappy with my party since they did not take the lead in stopping the president from making the huge mistake that the Iraq War was, is, and always shall be.</p>
<p>Like I mentioned earlier, Ron Paul, aka 'Dr. No', since he votes down most of the frivolities the clowns in office try to get through. </p>
<p>I used the term 'popularity contest' in the sense that most people vote for them based solely on a few minute talking points or general 'I'll make the country better' statements, much like those silly Student Gov't. things in junior/senior high; the voters should be doing their research on them & voting for someone that matches their belief system, or at the very least stays true to the Constitution. & No more of this 'he's a D, so I'll vote for him' & vice-versa nonsense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
gzhang, if Edwards has been lusting after power since 2004, and that's a negative in your book, then how can you support McCain, who has been running for president since 2000 <em>and</em> has already set aside his so-called ideals on a ton of issues so he could be Bush's bootlicker?
[/quote]
I don't support McCain. I would much rather have McCain in the presidency than another Dubya-type candidate, but I don't explicitly support him and actually want to see Obama in office.
Also, McCain has actually continued to serve in the Senate in the six years between his bid in 2000 and now, and has done some impressive bipartisan work at that. Besides, McCain was never really considered for the position before 2004 since another Republican was already in the office, so he's officially been "running" for less time as Edwards since Edwards ran in 2004 as well. Also, Edwards resigned from the Senate before his bid in 2004 and I don't know what he's been doing besides planning his presidential campaign in 2008 for those four years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
no candidate could possibly have less regard for our Constitution than the current occupant of our White House. Big government? Bush and the Republican Congress that was just defeated spent more money than any other Congress, and loads of that on pork barrel projects like a $10 million dollar bus shelter. I don't disagree with your assessment that whoever has the most money wins, and although I'm a Democrat, I've been unhappy with my party since they did not take the lead in stopping the president from making the huge mistake that the Iraq War was, is, and always shall be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well said!</p>
<p>
[quote]
we wouldn't be in the mess we're in if Gore had become president.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> How can you be so sure? Do you know of Gore's motives had he been elected as President? How would have Gore handled the 9/11 situation? With regards to the 9/11 situation, President Bush, without question, handled 9/11 quite well considering the circumstances. Gore may not have been so decisive militarily, especially when we look at how quickly Bush acted on Afghanistan.
Saying that things may have been so much brighter and better with Al Gore in the White House is quite an assumption.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
With regards to the 9/11 situation, President Bush, without question, handled 9/11 quite well considering the circumstances. Gore may not have been so decisive militarily, especially when we look at how quickly Bush acted on Afghanistan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree that Bush handled 9/11 quite well, without question. First of all, there was his deer in the headlights initial reaction. Then there was his disappearing act, where we didn't hear from him for 3 days. Then his administration immediately began working to go into Iraq. Although they acted quickly in going into Afghanistan, they also managed to let the party responsible for planning 9/11 get away. </p>
<p>And Gore was actually in the military (although I think his father stepped in to make sure he didn't see combat), so I disagree that he would not have been decisive in a military response. Considering that anti-terrorism was a priority of the Clinton White House (hence the swift end of the Milennium plot and the arrest and prosecution of those who bombed the WTC in '93), I actually think that the attacks on 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all, but that may just be wishful thinking. </p>
<p>The Clinton White House, when they were passing the keys to the Bush administration, stressed anti-terrorism should be a number 1 priority, and the Bush administration chose to ignore that in favor of spreading what turned out to be lies about the Clinton staff trashing the White House.</p>
<p>Plus, you know, Gore seems like a smarter-than-average guy who has been in politics awhile. Not some C-student whose administration and brother cheated him into the White House. Bush is just a pawn.</p>