**D**

*Obama* — basically the same candidate as Ma Clinton, but minus all the baggage and negatives. Is uplifting, positive and has a great speechwriter. But on the issues, Obama is a DLC centrist candidate sharing same stances as Hillary.

*Hillary* — Americans don't want a president that has a mental condition, physical afflictions, or one that cries. Whether it was a genuine heartfelt moment or a contrived act spurred by misguided focus group advice, it's her "Muskie moment" and I'd say she's done.

*Edwards* — my personal (though not in the horse race handicap) favorite, really like his taking on corporate interests, wish Kucinich would throw his supporters behind Edwards instead of clinging to grudge. Trial lawyers are so overly castigated as scum, yet they serve the public far more than judges (who possess all the corruption of trial lawyers, partisanship of party pols, and serve corporate interests, not Americans).

*Kucinich* — all those survey polls say I should vote for Dennis, and maybe I could if I thought he was taking a presidential run serious instead of just showcasing issues he's interested in spotlighting.

*Gravel* — the "Give Peace a Chance" rap video just didn't get it…

*Richardson* — is he still in race. I actually would prefer him, but it looks like he has no chance now…

**R**

*Paul* — my choice if I was voting today. Yes, he's the choice of neoconfederates, economic utopian libertarians, political virgins and the fervent anti-war crowd, but he's the only one that would honor the Constitution as prescribed by the nation's founders. And all the scary stuff he stands for he would not be able to implement as Congress would certainly rebuff him there. Remember kids, president is the "executive" branch (where laws are enforced, not made) - not the legislative branch where all sausage making actually is performed (or not)

*Huckabee* — I read all of these accounts about what a great communicator and charming individual he is, but when I've had chance (I watch little TV, and mostly clips from youtube is the extent…) to see him speak, he frightens me. Not as much as the other 'R' sans Ron Paul, but still…

*McCain* — doubletalk express, my home state senator and long time crook, former member of Keating 5 and total corporate sellout, even if he's a kinder, gentler form of war mongering hawk.

*Thompson* — /em yawns

*Giuliani* — Biden put it best, when Rudy is talking it's "a noun, verb, and 9/11".  Only vote for Rudy if you like the police state.

*Romney* — an even scarier candidate than Rudy, I will post a link but please read his responses to WP questions on Constitution and executive privilege. Mitt believes GWB has been a great president and moreover, fully supports "unitary executive" doctrine that grants presidential God powers. Though, this poster summation of Mitt is even better: Romney is everything that is wrong with our electoral system made manifest. He’s a smug millionaire who is trying to buy the nomination through buying as much sludge as the stations will sell him air time to sling it, only to primly declare that personal attacks are crude when called on it. Not to mention the fact that he turned from a moderate Republican governor of Massa-frikin-chusetts to a Bush neocon clone solely because some focus group told him it would get him nominated, which implies that everything he believes is negotiable. I not only hope he comes in 3rd and promptly drops out of the race, I also hope Chuck Norris punches him square in the nose.

Pertinent ad on the page:

I'm guessing McCain/Huckabee as a pairing.  Romney seems to have really angered the other candidates--so they might refuse even if asked.

But a VP for Obama is a bit tricky.  On one hand, if he beats Hillary, he'll have rocked the Democratic vote a lot.  He might want a cautious choice there.  On the other hand, I don't think he could take a Hillary after running the campaign as a break from the past.  I would pair him with Biden or Dodd.  Perhaps Dodd as the quieter of the pair.  There's also Richardson.  Obama/Richardson would be an interesting pairing.

Edwards actually beat Hillary in Iowa--but I agree that he's not so viable.  Maybe he can pull something off in South Carolina.

Obama just got his first union endorsements today.  It looks like they're fairly critical ones.

The biggest difference I see between Obama and Hillary is that Obama is promising to change the political process.  Hillary, from my impressions, would be happy with 50% +1 politics.  Obama seems a lot better at consensus building.  Sure, he can do things where there isn't a consensus--but I think he would be much better at getting people to agree with him willingly rather than because it is the politically expedient thing to do.

My 2008 predictions are already coming apart:

Sparky wrote:

*Gulliani wins the nomination but loses the Presidency handily in terms of electoral votes."

Well, he did lose handily.

Edwards essentially called both Hillary and Obama and said, "Hey guys, I'm not endorsing anybody...yet.  It would be really cool of you to talk about poverty a bit.  Hint, hint."

I do see McCain winning the Republicans with Giuliani and Schwartzenegger's endorsements.  That could bring NY, NJ, CA, and NH.  That could be huge.  He does have some on camera liabilities.  He looks very old.  I think Obama would win handily.  Hillary?   Maybe.  But she has some liabilities herself.

If Hillary's our nominee, I'm voting for a different party.

I think one of the things that has really impressed me about Barak Obama (in addition to his sheer charisma) is how he's managed to deflect some of the anti-black, anti-Muslim rhetoric that would otherwise be flying.  I appreciate that he tries to focus his campaign on things like the economy, the war, and the need for accountability in government, which are all things a President can actually do.  If you dig around on his website, you can find his stance on gay marriage, abortion, religion, and other hot-button topics - but at least from what I've seen, whenever he talks about these issues it's with a healthy dose of "But the president doesn't make the laws so these are my personal feelings."  I haven't dissected the campaigns of all the other potentials, but there are at least a few who are running on platforms based on topics that the President really has no control over.

I think it would be great if we could actually elect someone and not have to find out exactly what their theological leanings are, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon :-\

It was Dan's encouragement.

It was a very effective article. I stopped in the middle of editing it to contribute.

Everyone please read this and forward to your friends and family. This writer makes the most brilliant case for why we should vote Obama. http://m.freep.com/detail.jsp?key=20094 … amp;full=1

As much as i respect Obama and hope for his election to the presidency, merely being a "leader" doesn't gaurantee a good road for the country. Obama must also make wise decisions and this is why the lack of experience charge does hold some weight. Kennedy as the youthful hopeful and powerful leader is the typical comparison to Obama, but Kennedy got us immeshed in Vietnam, failed to implement any civil rights legislation and played nuclear brinkmanship that nearly brought about war with Cuba and possibly the Soviet Union. (not to mention being a very personally shabby guy). Many MANY people saw bush as an idealistic leader devoid of policy experience. I think he very well might have been that.

It is good to hope and to have leaders who inspire us. Yet we must remember that that leader makes key policy decisions and often the most well intentioned actions cause significant harm (Carter refusing to support the Shaw of Iran, Bush's No Child Left Behind act, the disasterous school busing programs of the 60's and 70's)

Last edited by Dirk Gently (Feb 5, 2008 2:48 pm)

the biggest mark in Obama's favor is not taking ANY money from national special interest groups.  It's telling that he and Clinton are neck-and-neck for raising $$$, but (when I last head), Obama had three times the number of individual donors that Clinton did.  I'd just as soon have a president who owes no favors to big drug companies on day 1 in office.

I sure hope so. The big states are discouraging.

I just hope it's close enough that the race doesn't end tonight.

I counted vote sums on CNN and found Obama ahead by around 300,000 votes of perhaps 5  million.  Of course a lot of that is the 500,000 lead in Illinois and if California (12% reporting) doesn't start shifting in his favor that will disappear.

But that doesn't say much about delegates since we can't assume voter turnout is similar in each state.

I think Obama has a better chance than anybody of winning Alabama.  Clinton won New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, and apparently California (though the New York Times is hesitating to make that call).  She also won Arkansas and Tennessee.  And American Samoa.  Obama won handily in all the traditional red states.  As in, he won by about 2:1.