2008 Presidential Poll

[edisonoside]

Hillary and Obama promise change...the only change I see is a woman and a black man.

[edisonoside]

I think Hillary will take the nomination..McCain does not have what it takes to debate her..Hillary is way to sharp and McCain is so dumb. Hillary will also eat up Romney... Ron Paul is the only one that could put her in her place.

[NuWaveRx]

While I'm not in Obama's camp I do find the charge of "inexperience" interesting. What do the majority of Americans consider appropriate "prior experience" for a job like the Presidency? Being a Senator or Governor has some aspects of the job, but on such a small scale that you have to wonder how much it prepares you really for the Oval Office. Certainly our history is littered with Presidents with those credentials on their resume that are considered among the worst in our 200+ year history (not to mention certain business "credentials" like running a major league baseball team into the ground). Conversely many past Presidents with virtually no civilian governing experience at all have been among our best. Like all generalizations there are expceptions in both camps, but in 2008 I'm not sure any job--save that of Vice-President--could really prepare a person for the presidency. Remember the last freshman senator from Illinois who became president did a pretty good job.[^]

The other thing I find interesting is right-wing talk radio falling all over itself to get Romney elected. Either the extreme right wing of the GOP has lost touch with the base of the party, or they don't mind risking this country turning into a theocracy by getting "their" candidate elected.

[club80]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>While I'm not in Obama's camp I do find the charge of "inexperience" interesting. What do the majority of Americans consider appropriate "prior experience" for a job like the Presidency? Being a Senator or Governor has some aspects of the job, but on such a small scale that you have to wonder how much it prepares you really for the Oval Office. Certainly our history is littered with Presidents with those credentials on their resume that are considered among the worst in our 200+ year history (not to mention certain business "credentials" like running a major league baseball team into the ground). Conversely many past Presidents with virtually no civilian governing experience at all have been among our best. Like all generalizations there are expceptions in both camps, but in 2008 I'm not sure any job--save that of Vice-President--could really prepare a person for the presidency. Remember the last freshman senator from Illinois who became president did a pretty good job.[^]

The other thing I find interesting is right-wing talk radio falling all over itself to get Romney elected. Either the extreme right wing of the GOP has lost touch with the base of the party, or they don't mind risking this country turning into a theocracy by getting "their" candidate elected.
[/quote]


Well...Hillary has White House experience in terms of living there. However, in terms of being an insider during The Clinton Administration, I would guess that Monica Lewinsky had more actual "inside-her" experience during those years than Hillary did.



We didn't sell a lot of records, but somehow we left an impression.
-Johnny Ramone-

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by i_like_lectric_motors[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>Can someone please tell me what is all the hype about Obama? I don't see it. I watched the debate last night trying to find that spark everyone is talking about. Am I missing something?
[/quote]

You're missing nothing. He's eloquent ... big fucking deal. He's inexperienced (except when it comes to being corrupt ... he's an expert in that area) and he wouldn't even be considered a frontrunner if not for the color of his skin. He's a joke and he doesn't stand a chance no matter how much of the ethnic and white liberal guilt vote he gets.



[/quote]

I am thinking more along these lines too. Plus, Hillary and Obama seem to have the same ideas, but Obama is a baby compared to Hillary.
Does anyone think that if Hillary does get the nomination, Obama will be asked to be the Vice President?

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>
Does anyone think that if Hillary does get the nomination, Obama will be asked to be the Vice President?
[/quote]

For a long time, the liberal blogs and newsites had been getting themselves into a lather about a dream ticket of Obama-Edwards. I think only recently has there been discussion about aClinton-Obama ticket. I would find that intriguing. Wow ! That would certainly be historic. And think about what it would look like to the rest of the world !![^]

[Frau_Blucher]

I think I'm feeling a generational compulsion here. Obama's near the age of many of us. Hilary and Bill suddenly seem older and less connected than during their first go-round. Obama's technically a late Boomer but he's got some Gen X qualities about him. I almost feel like the Baby Boomers had their shot, and now it's somebody else's turn. I mean, they're more experienced in what, a shit system?

Growing up with California politics, it's be great if Obama truly did turn out to be a post-racial, post-partisan pragmatist like I see more of out west than in the east. Like I said elsewhere, I [i]want[/i] to believe...don't know if I [i]do[/i] fully believe yet. However, I'm not naive enough to think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a good idea - realistically, too many liabilities.

I do love all the independent opinions here though. It's highly unlikely any are accurately explaining national sentiments no matter how declaratively self-assured they are...but I love 'em. Is it necessary though to ask if you're missing something then wait for validation before expressing your own thoughts? [}:)]

[marie3]

I would just like to feel the optimisim others do about Obama or any other candidate that will be on the ballot. To me he is just the same old thing in a new package. I was hoping for some insight that I may have missed.

I thank KYYX for posting her feelings regarding Obama. That is how I would like to feel about one of the candidates that will be on the ballot!

[glokstadt]

The Big Super Tuesday, vote in California tomorrow... we moved our primary up, so we can count our electoral in with the rest of the 25 states, I sure hope it's not a fizzle... or it's just gonna be a "Fat" Tuesday for one candidate... [^]



<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/vespa_boy_2006/Smallerglokstadt.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[enzfan]

McCain has moved away from the conservative republican base and Romney has the personality of another loser presidential candidate from the northeast John Kerry. As a republican neither enthuses me. I see Hillary eventually winning out and becoming the first female president, with the only benefit being Bill Maher will have nothing to say and his show will be cancelled. Maybe when W leaves his staff can pull all the H's off the keyboards as payback.

[Frau_Blucher]

I just voted this morning - Super Tuesday and all. It's weird that I felt a strange thrill in doing so. Usually voting in CT is about as 'meaningful' and 'exciting' as it must be in most far-Blue states. Today felt inexplicably different. It really gave me a rush. I can't explain it. Maybe it's just the prospect of The Long Darkness of The Bush coming to an end, or maybe it's the prospect of something or [i]someone[/i] new.


Oh, and [b]GO VOTE![/b]

[marie3]

Unfortunately, here in New York, if your not registered Democrat or Republican you cannot vote in the primary. [:(]

[Frau_Blucher]

Is anyone else just tripping out on the wide wide swings in the voting from one state to the other? A buddy and I were sitting in a Boston bar with a bunch of people, and everyone there was just scratching their heads at some of the results. I mean, 60%+ for Obama in some states and then 60%+ for Clinton in others, etc. "United" States?! It seems nothing of the sort.

[rotator]

what Marvymarv said...

[waldnorm]

Our country's political campaigns are way too long and way too expensive--thus the reason for the disparities between states on Tuesday. In addition to that, different approaches to determining winners--caucuses and voter primaries. Then--the Democratic party goes proportional for the most part in selecting delegates, the Republican party goes for winner take all for the most part. And what we're finally voting for is delegates--even in primaries we do not directly elect a party nominee for President.

It would be nice to have a briefer window between selecting the party candidate and the election as well. This time around this whole season is two years, but that's mainly because the current administration helped provide such a focus--a big need for all to want to get beyond our current situation.