It's time for a fresh look. Democrats and Dem leaners only please. Others can vote in the Republican poll.
I'm not happy. The guy I want to vote for isn't running. You can guess who it is. D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture. My Typing Speed Sucks.
I feel the same way, Deckard. I wish he was running too. I voted for Obama like I did the last time, though I've been disappointed by his campaign to date. My vote's up for grabs. I could see myself moving over to virtually any of the other candidates, though Kucinich is obviously not a real possibility and Richardson seems so incredibly unready for prime time. But as it stands, if the primary was held today, I'd still vote Obama.
Me three. I was leaning to Obama, but he has not impressed me at all so far. It's like he has an idea for himself rather than an idea for the country. Edwards has the best ideas, but is more Chief of Staff material. Hillary is the most competent of the crew in terms of running the government, but that competence comes with some calculation. Dodd is cool, but geez, where has he been the last 6 years. You would think a Senator who talks about some of the topics he does could have thrown a monkey wrench into things before this Fall. I had Richardson as Gov and don't want him as Prez. I think his ego would get the better of him. Biden and Kucinich are fringe characters at this point, though Biden wins the talk show primary and Kucinich has a potential FLILF. Am I forgetting anyone? Bah, I'll support the party's nominee... which will probably be decided by the time I get to vote.
Look, I wish Biden would stop saying "look" before every single thing he says ever. For that matter, I wish Obama would stop saying it before half the things he ever says. Other random thoughts: I like Edwards' politics this time around, but that's no surprise. Apart from poverty -- a big, big exception and an issue that he admirably cared about before Katrina happened and before the rest of the country gave a damn -- they're exactly calculated to appeal to a liberal/progressive netroots sort like myself. He has a lot of nerve hitting Hillary for being calculating as he's done a total 180 on every single thing of style and substance since 04, coincidentally each time in perfect alignment with polled positions. Takes one to know one I guess. Richardson has been the single greatest disappointment of the campaign, outracing even Fred Thompson for the (dis)honor. Man is he horrible in debates and on the stump. I get him being Energy Secretary, U.N. Ambassador, even US Rep. But I can't understand at all how he ever won a statewide election. He is a truly horrible big screen politician. I'm really surprised Biden's done as badly as he has. He's wrong on a lot of stuff and he's got a bad foot in mouth problem, but he's a true statesman. It's downright weird to see him relegated to fringe status. Dodd's impressed me. I never saw him gaining any traction whatsoever as a NE liberal policy wonk. He seems made for the Senate and never anything more, but he's proved he belongs in the debates. His accent and cadence are grating though. He just doesn't read presidential.
I'm watching The McLaughlin Group on my DVR now and just as I read your post, John McLaughlin said, "Wild exaggeration." A handy coincidence. I don't disagree that John Edwards is a 'jackhole' in a way, but venturing that he'd be no better than W is indeed a wild exaggeration. In fact it's totally insane. But I see you voted for Hillary. Maybe your support of her and his opposition of her is coloring your judgment. They are both, Clinton and Edwards, cynics and indeed 'jackholes' but it is flat stupid to compare either of them to George Bush, particularly without explaining the inane comparison.
Thank you. I'd pick Kucinich if he had a chance; Biden if he had a chance and Denny didn't; but since neither of those is the case, I'm going with Obama.
As one non-American said to me at dinner the other night, "I don't understand American politics. This is virtually an un-losable election for the Democrats and they are likely putting forth the one candidate who will lose in the General election." GREATNESS
too bad ohio and florida numbers make democratic wins there very likely. oh and virginia will swing too. bet on it.
tradertexx picks hillary - big surprise there. as ive been saying, if you like bush you will love hillary! pro-iraq war pro-attacking iran pro-kicking dissenters out of public events pro-rupert murdoch pro-amnesty pro-north american union pro-big government
Here's more from Dick Morris, who knows Hillary better than most, having served Bill throughout his presidency and before: HILLARY CLINTON CAN BE STOPPED IN IOWA By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on FoxNews.com on November 1, 2007. Printer-Friendly Version The presidential race is now entering its most dangerous period for the front-runners in each party — Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. With each boasting consistent and formidable leads in most na tional polling, the leading candidate in each party must now prove his and her mettle by winning in a small state among a relative handful of voters. And Iowa can be a funny place. When a presidential campaign, funded and staffed on a national scale, crams itself into a tiny state, the resulting overkill makes the outcome hard to predict. Even candidates whose resources could not yet begin to cover the entire country — Huckabee for example — can effectively blanket Iowa. So far, the trends in Iowa are not good for either front-runner. Hillary holds only the narrowest of leads over Obama — less than two points in the recent Iowa Straw Poll — a survey which also found Rudy running a disastrous fourth on the Republican side of the ledger. Hillary’s vulnerability is especially interesting now that the Democrats running against her seem determined to take off their gloves and go after the front runner. The Marquis of Queensbury rules that have restrained them seem to have fallen by the wayside and a tag team of Obama, Edwards, and Dodd appears ready to deconstruct her bit by bit. By himself, it is clear that Obama lacks the starch to go after Hillary. In Tuesday night’s debate, Tim Russert set up an opportunity for the Illinois Senator with his first question, probing why he felt she was lacking in candor. Instead of charging into the fray, as Russert’s question invited, he began by denigrating the media hype about his remarks. If Obama played T-ball, he’d bunt! But John Edwards seems to have a bracing effect on the reluctant dragon from Illinois. His trial lawyer style, eviscerating Hillary while smiling all the time, appears to be making headway. Between them, with a bit of Chris Dodd thrown in, Hillary was team-tackled on Tuesday night. However, it is Hillary herself who creates her own vulnerability. With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill’s more famous remarks — “I didn’t inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth. And, under the scrutiny of opponents like Edwards and Dodd, and the questioning of Tim Russert, it is becoming obvious even to demented Democrats. So can Hillary be beaten in Iowa? It all depends on whether, in this era of daily polling, her opponents can coalesce around whoever is in second place. Hillary won’t win a majority in Iowa, but, if Edwards and Obama continue to split the anti-Hillary vote, she will win a plurality. Such a victory will let her get out of Des Moines alive and will pave the way for truly dominating victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan — then Florida and the rest of the nation will fall in line. But if Edwards defers to Obama — or, more likely, his voters realize that they must back Bar ack in order to stop Hillary — a viable alternative to the New York senator could emerge. If Obama beats Hillary, even by the narrowest of margins, her entire sense of inevitability will vaporize and she could be defeated as the primary cycle continues. The key is that Edwards, Obama and Dodd must devote their resources to relentless negative advertising and media attacks against Hillary and need to band together in the remaining debates to expose her falsifications of her positions. (Richardson, auditioning for vice president, and Biden, indulging his mid-life crisis, won’t do it.) But if the trio of her vigorous opponents, do their work, maybe, just maybe, she can be stopped.
This is the second time Jorge has picked a candidate in the D poll but not in the R one, even though he's as R as they come. I guess all the candidates on his side just suck too bad.
Bats, I recognize that you are eager to hear who my favorite is, presumably because you trust my judgment and will consider supporting the same candidate. That said, I am still evaluating the field. Romney is the smartest and best leader among any candidate running on either side. Huckabee is the most likeable. McCain is the most patriotic. Hillary is the most disingenuous. Obama is the most inexperienced. John Edwards is the most feminine.
I can understand the first two criticisms, but for the life of me, I don't know why Repub losers like Coulter et.al. keep trying to make Edwards into a homo. Here's a guy who kicked corporate ass in the courtroom, has been married since college, lost a son and is dealing with his wife's illness and Repubs are calling him gay and effeminate. All it really does is remind voters of the spate of gay Repub stories and makes them contrast that with Edwards. I guess it makes the dead-ender base feel good though.
These are total lies. Ann Coulter, who does not speak for the Republican party as a whole, called him gay. I do not think Edwards is gay. He is very feminine, but not gay. I'm against virtually every single policy initiative that he stands for. He, more than any of the others, would cripple the energy industry. He would also decimate the economy with increased regulation and higher taxes. The bottom line is that he is a hypocrite. He says he stands for the poor, but when he had time off after the last election, he went and worked for a hedge fund that was foreclosing on Katrina refugees' houses. There is only one reason to work at a hedge fund, and that is to make big $$$. Don't get me wrong, I love that, but don't try to tell me that he's interested in helping the poor when that's how he is spending his time. Anyone that gets a $400 haircut is not a man's man. Anyone that checks himself out in a make-up applicator mirror is not a man's man. He is weak.
