Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:16 pm
by Manofsteel319
:eek: ARE YOU SERIOUS? lol

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:28 am
by TimD
Looks like it's all a moot point now anyway. Hillary is dropping out. Interesting choice we have now. A 70 YO who's lately been pandering to the religious right, and while he says he's against special interests, he seeme to have a bunch of lobbyists rumming his campaign. I liked the old 2000 NcCain, but not sure I'd vote for this one. On the other hand, we have a young, charismatic young man, who seems to have an aura about him, but the only thing I really know about his politics is that he has one of the most iberal voting records in congress, right up their with Kennedy. IMHO, the American Public blew the hell out of this primary season. They go for the rock star thing. What about experience and common sense. The Dems had 3 shoe ins, Richardson, Biden and Dodd, all of whom have at least 3 times the experience of Hillary and Obama combined. The Republicans didn't really have good choices. I think Huckabee or Paul should have gotten it. Yes, Huckabee is ordained, but if you look at his track record on social issues, he doesn't default to the religious right, and Ron Paul is a flat out Libertariain.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
by Manofsteel319
I'm voting for obama now. I hope he takes hilary as his vice.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:07 am
by TimD
I think that for his sake, he'd pick someone much more centrist than Hillary. There are republicans and independents like me that would never go for Hillary. Someone like the above choices I mentioned are not far left loons as Bill O'Reilly would say, but are centrists with good common sense that don't necessarily vote party line.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:21 am
by ironmaiden708
Hillarys' a horrible choice. Liar, Crook, Power Hungry. I sense a power struggle between the two of them. As you can tell she was obsessed with the thought that she had a chance of winning even though it was mathmatically impossible. So what makes you think that she won't try to get all the power that she can so she can either assassinate Obama or use this so she can run for president at a later time.

I don't think it's a good mix. He doesn't need the votes of the hardcore Hillary freaks anyways. He can win without the 80 year old womens right activist who don't have any reason to vote for her other than because she's a white women.

To be fair the same could be said about blacks and obama.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:36 am
by Matt Z
I find it kind of funny how many media outlets are already discounting McCain. The way I see it, if Bush can win a second term against Kerry (a liberal Democrat viewed by many as an elitist), then McCain stands a good chance against Obama (another liberal Democrat viewed by many as an elitist).

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:43 am
by Manofsteel319
I think the reason why obama will win is because of the horrible track record of previous republicans. If I were republican I'd wash my hands with em and vote obama.

People want change and improvement not stale stagnant views and ways going about doing them. Like vacationing all the damn time and not doing anything.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:45 am
by Matt Z
Barring any major developments, I'm going with McCain. Although he's not an ideal candidate, he is relatively moderate (which I like), and he has a history of going against his own party (which I also like). Obama on the other hand is liberal, even by Democrat standards, and seems to vote strictly along party lines.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:48 am
by Manofsteel319
Well matt that't the benefit of being american you can vote for who you want to. At least that doesnt change if a republican is in office.

I dont care if mcain wins I just want to see things better. I can improve myself and the things I do my beliefs can't sway millions I can't make laws or veto them.

A single goal oriented un tainted us president can change the world and how the world views the united states.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:54 am
by Matt Z
Actually, I'm an independent. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count on too many fresh ideas from either major party. If you really want major changes I'd suggest voting for a third party candidate. They may not stand much chance of winning, but if they get enough attention, one or both of the major parties may adopt portions of their platform.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:01 pm
by TimD
As to Obama being elitist, well, that's just Hillary's campaign and the media disorienting things. The guy is anything but an eltist, having been raised by his granddmother and going to school on acdademic scholarships. Thats what I like about him It's also what I like about his wife, Michele. Saw her doing an interview when the elitist thing came up, and she was asked if she was born with the selver spoon in her mouth,and she said the family had 3 spoons, they weren't silver, and they shared. I don't necessarily like they're politics, what little I know about it, but I truly admire tham as people. Even hardcore Bill O'Reilly says they're anything but elitists.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:44 pm
by TimD
Hillary as a VP? I don't even want to think about that, for other reasons than you might think. If Hillary gets the nomination, that drags Bill into the equation. You know he's not going to just sit back and not be heard. It's going to b a clash of 3 major ego's, not just the normal clash of two egos. Personally, I think Bill was a decent president; horrible ethics, but did a pretty fair job as far as the presidency was concerned. I just don't want to see the presidency torn three ways.

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:05 pm
by TeeBee
Do you think Obama will choose John Edwards? One thing for sure, he should distance himself from Hillary. She started to sling some mud McCain and Obama's way, but it didn't stick; good for them. But I think McCain is losing his marbles lately; I liked him better eight years ago. Bottom line, Obama is a smart guy (can form a sentence and pronounce each word correctly unlike Dubya who thinks illiteracy is cute), so let's see what he can do. Or what Washington lets him do. Whatever, just don't expect things to change TOO much.

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:53 pm
by Ironman
For VP, I think Clair McCaskill would be a good choice. Being a woman, that would win over the feminist Clinton backers, while at the same time knocking her down a peg since she won't be the top woman anymore. I like the idea of having a different woman poised to be the first female president and knocking Clinton out of the running for good. Plus she could secure Missouri.

McCain used to be cool, but he has turned into a Bush flunky lately.

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:33 am
by TimD
Edwards as a VP? Could be interesting. I like his populist positions, but like the 2004 Edards much better. And somehow, I can't get behind someone who has just built a personal mansion, and has 400 dollar haircuts. I know, it's been blown way out of proportions, but it still makes you think. I saw his wife interviewed 4 years ago when he was running for president, and she impresses me, big time. Might want to think about her for the same reasons Ironman mentioned with McGaskill.