Paul - Ahead of the curve on many issues that we now face, I think he has a lot of good answers to our problems. Even if he could win, which doesn't seem likely, he would have to continue to fight the status quo. I like his desire to move some of the power of our federal government to the states, but it would be a radical change that would take time to implement. I do think he would do the best job on foreign policy and economic stability, the two areas that concern me most. I think he is, by far, the most complete candidate, but he probably doesn't have as much clout as McCain and Clinton. Obama - He may be reliant on advisers because of inexperience, but I trust him to do much more in that role that Bush has done. He seems very genuine and I think he would mostly do a good job on foreign policy. I think Paul is better because I can see Obama wanting to get involved in the internal affairs of foreign nations with the intention of aid, but Obama will act less unilaterally than Bush. Obama will probably expand the role of the federal government, but I think he'd also try to deal with the national debt responsibly. I don't agree with his domestic policy, but I'd rather money be wasted domestically than abroad. 3rd party candidate - Better than anyone else. Clinton - Somewhat experienced and strong, but she is a spineless politician. I think she'd do a better job than the Republicans in foreign policy, but I don't think her domestic policy would be in the best interest of our nation. McCain - Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.... I think his foreign policy sucks. He would probably do a better job with domestic policy than the Democrats, but he'd probably also make lots of compromises and not do much to take power from the federal government. I don't trust his economic policy. He'd rely heavily on advisers but probably do more with that than Bush has. Huckabee - I'd don't think he has a strong platform. I've seen him lift things from Paul's campaign and I think he'll continue to smudge the line between church and state. He'd likely be led by his Evangelical convictions. Reminds me a lot of Bush. I think he'd rely heavily on advisers. Romney - He reminds me of Kerry but on the Republican side of the aisle. I don't trust his convictions. His foreign policy sucks worse than McCain's and I don't think his business background will do him any good in fixing our economy. He'd rely heavily on advisers. I also don't like the winner takes all primaries. I don't mind a confusing primary and I think it is probably better than simply basing delegates on popular vote, but some state-level GOP organizations have resorted to questionable tactics to seemingly not allow Paul to dominate their state.
To me, this 2008 election is heaven compared to the Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards election in 2004. When it comes to candidates "made of Presidential timber" or "quality people," I'm pretty impressed with Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Sure, the election is not until November, and we have a long time to get to know these candidates better, but of what I know about them so far, they both come across like great people who I'd imagine would do great job as President and would enjoy high approval ratings during their time in office. The only other candidate I felt good about was Mr. Giuliani. I'd like to see Senator McCain and Mr. Guiliani agree to be running mates for the November 2008 election. As for Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney, I've never considered them serious candidates. As for Senator Clinton, I think the Democrats would make a mistake putting her up for President. Sure, she's had a great career, but fair or not, she has a very negative image in the eyes of many Americans. I don't know her personally, but she does come across like she cares more about her own image than she does about the United States of America. Even if she became President of the US, I don't think she would be humbled by it at all. Whereas with Senator Obama and Senator McCain, from what I think of them so far, I think they would be humbled by being elected President of the United States of America, and that they would treat the office with the dignity that it deserves. If Senator Clinton does secure the Democratic nomination for President, it's a tough call, but I think I'd prefer that Senator Obama does not become her running mate (although it would be the smart political move on his part). Anyway, to you that aren't pleased at all with any of the candidates this year, here's the list of every major President/Vice President candidate since 1900. How many of them were you impressed by as "quality people" or people "made of Presidential timber"? 04 -- Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards 02 -- Bush/Cheney vs. Gore/Lieberman 96 -- Dole/Kemp vs. Clinton/Gore 92 -- Bush/Quail vs. Clinton/Gore vs. Perot/Stockdale 88 -- Bush/Quail vs. Dukakis/Bentson 84 -- Reagan/Bush vs. Mondale/Ferraro 80 -- Reagan/Bush vs. Carter/Mondale 76 -- Ford/Dole vs. Carter/Mondale 72 -- Nixon/Agnew vs. McGovern/Shriver 68 -- Nixon/Agnew vs. Humphrey/Muskie vs. Wallace/LeMay 64 -- Goldwater/Miller vs. Johnson/Humphrey 60 -- Nixon/Lodge vs. Kennedy/Johnson 56 -- Eisenhower/Nixon vs. Stevenson/Kefauver 52 -- Eisenhower/Nixon vs. Stevenson/Sparkman 48 -- Dewey/Warren vs. Truman/Barkley 44 -- Dewey/Bricker vs. FD Roosevelt/Truman 40 -- Willkie/McNary vs. FD Roosevelt/Wallace 36 -- Landon/Knox vs. FD Roosevelt/Garner 32 -- Hoover/Curtis vs. FD Roosevelt/Garner 28 -- Hoover/Curtis vs. Smith/Robinson 24 -- Coolidge/Dawes vs. Davis/Bryan vs. La Follette/Wheeler 20 -- Harding/Coolidge vs. Cox/FD Roosevelt 16 -- Hughes/Fairbanks vs. Wilson/Marshall 12 -- Taft/Butler vs. Wilson/Marshall vs. T. Roosevelt/Johnson 08 -- Taft/Sherman vs. Bryan/Kern 04 -- T. Roosevelt/Fairbanks vs. Parker/Davis 00 -- McKinley/T. Roosevelt vs. Bryan/Stevenson
She shares that problem with McCain, Romney, and Obama for sure. Probably Huckabee, too. He surely has a negative image with me. Examples?
The big example to me was how she began her whole political career in the state of New York, right after her and her husband left the White House. At the time, Mrs. Clinton had zero ties to the state of New York (she was born and raised in Illinois, went to college in Massachusetts, and law school in Connecticut (Yale). At Yale, she met Bill, and they both moved back to Arkansas together. After Bill got elected President, they both lived in the White House in Washington DC). Granted, had she moved to New York, and started off serving in the New York State legislature first before running to be a U.S. Senator from New York, it wouldn't be a problem to me. But the fact that she moved to New York for the first time in her life, and then immediately runs for the U.S. Senate as a representative of the people of New York (who she had no connection to), wasn't a very honorable move on her part, in my opinion. A similar knock against Senator Clinton, although it is somewhat unfair, is that that she boot-strapped her whole political career on the heels of her husband. She met Bill in law school, goes to his home state, where he becomes governor and eventual US President. All of this happened before Senator Clinton ever ran for political office herself. Fair or not, I'd have a lot more respect for Senator Clinton if she had gotten to where she is today without so much significance dependence on her husband's political career.
Democratic race is too close to call right now and for the Republicans, it seems very likely that McCain will be the nominee. Romney had a dissapointing super tuesday thanks to Huckabee. Although I don't like any of the candidates, I'm an optimistic, they can do no worse than Bush did, except Romney maybe.
Also, this isn't that big deal of me anymore, since she seems to have been going by the name "Hillary Clinton" for many years now, but back when she went by the name Hillary Rodham-Clinton (before she married Bill, she was Hillary Rodham), that irritated me personally.
Now you're talking about an "honorable move" instead of an example of her caring "more about her own image than she does about the United States of America." We can live anywhere we want to in the United States of America and any citizen of legal age can run for office. If she chose to live in a place where she thought she could be influential and get elected to serve as a US senator, she had every right and it was a smart political move. She won, amigo. Sounds smart to me. I see no dishonor here . . . and no example at all of her caring "more about her own image than she does about the United States of America." Another example that doesn't support the point you made about her caring "more about her own image than she does about the United States of America." I just think you don't like her because she is female and because you didn't like Bill. If so, just say it. This is politics! Was it "a knock against" George Bush to run on the coat tails of his father? There is nothing illegal, unfair, or immoral about her having her own ambitions to be President. Perhaps that is what drew them together in law school? In the United States of America, you can be your own person. She ran for the US Senate, got elected, and got herself a national political record on her own merits, as did McCain and Obama. I'm not sold on Hillary Clinton, yet, but it is a mistake to discount her capability or her eligibility just because she "irritates you personally".
Actually, she changed her name for political purposes last year. Ran across this awhile back: Hillary Drops Rodham Her senate site includes Rodham. Her presidential campaign site does not.
Quite frankly I don't give a good turd anymore. The reason the "Republican" candidates keep splitting states is they all suck. Every (dem and rep) candidate left (and I don't count Paul as one of them and never have actually) will say or do anything in front of any group to win. They are all spenders, all taxers, all amnesty advocates.....so what's the difference in any of them other than the Iraq war? These people are giving away more free money in programs on the campaign trails than the GDP of all of Europe combined. It's a joke. So how anyone chooses a candidate from this group is beyond me. I for one am voting for Hillary. I'd rather her get in the WH and royally screw it up than a so-called Republican in McCain.
