Honk if you like Obama.

[Karatedrifter7]

Just trying to get an idea of who does on here, besides me.

 

[setboy]

I would vote for him before i voted for any one esle.

 

[arnisador]

I'm definitely interested, but not ready to commit to anyone just yet!

 

[terryl965]

There is only one canidate that can have my vote MICKEY MOUSE and that says it all.

 

[michaeledward]

The Audacity of Hope speech during the '04 convention was one of the great political speeches of our lifetime.

 

[Empty Hands]

I had, and still somewhat have, alot of hope for him. However, his overly cautious approach and watered down proposals have disappointed me. I still like him better than that authoritarian panderer, Hillary Clinton.

 

[tellner]

Ron Paul has some good ideas about civil liberties and the importance of the Rule of Law as opposed to the Rule of Men. And he's not likely to round up me and mine and send us to the camps. The visceral hatred he draws from the neocons, mainstream media and patrician Republicans are all marks of honor. But his religious fundamentalism - the first Church of Marketism - is very troubling. Anyone who believes that all difficult problems will be solved automatically if we just do a few automatic things and trust the Magic to do the heavy lifting gives me some serious qualms.

The leading Republicans - Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee - shouldn't be allowed within the Red Shift Limit of the Presidency.

My favorite Democrat is Kucinich. His policies and his principles are pretty close to my own. Of course he has about as much chance of getting the nomination as I have of poking soft butter up a wildcat's *** with a red hot needle.

Dodd gets props because of his consistent stand for freedom. Anyone who makes Harry Reid that angry for obstructing tyranny is on the side of the angels.

The three Democratic front runners?

I like Edwards and Obama pretty well. They've got some very good ideas and seem to have their priorities straight.

Clinton is a Republican. She's consistently voted with the GOP against our freedoms, for the Iraq debacle and for unfettered corporatism. The only reason she's even being considered is nostalgia for the Clinton presidency.

If it even matters when the Oregon primaries come around I'll vote for whichever non-Clinton Democrat has the most delegates.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

They are ALL unacceptable candidates. I'm going third party no matter what.

It is perhaps a vain hope to wish that enough of my countrymen will have the intellectual wherewithal to follow my example.

 

[arnisador]

It is perhaps a vain hope to wish that enough of my countrymen will have the intellectual wherewithal to follow my example.

That isn't intellectual wherewithal--we know very well that the votes for John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc., don't have a direct effect on their odds of getting elected, only a (substantial) indirect effect on the candidacy of one of the other candidates. The logical move is to pick the least objectionable of the top two candidates. You're talking about the moral wherewithal to send a message, and there I agree with you and have so voted at times in the past. I am neither a (registered) Democrat nor Republican, just a democrat and a republican. We definitely need more viable third-party/independent candidates to shake things up. Jesse "The Body" Ventura sent a message just by being elected: Take me seriously. That was a real victory for democracy regardless of how you view his governorship.

Voting third party is great, but it only makes a statement. Look back at the history of the U.S.: We only ever have two major parties, apart from brief transitional periods (for better or for worse). All you can realistically hope to do is change their names, for defining themselves will always mean polarization for the major parties here.

So, I agree with your mission but not your reason.

 

[Cruentus]

I think that most people who are vocal about this upcoming election, especially on the message boards, are pessimistic to the point of being whiny. Waaaa.... none of the candidates have exactly the same stance that I have with everything so I'm going to cry, waaa waaa. I wonder if we could be any more self-centered and bellyachey?

I think that there are plenty of people running right now that we are in the primary stage who would do a fine job, even if I don't agree with their stance on everything. I am not self-centered enough to think that the candidates should do everything that I want, or else I will REALLY ***** and ***** and ***** about it (waa, wa).

That said, I do not think Obama is the right candidate. He seems like a good person, however, I just feel that he is not going to do enough to protect our individual rights, and would in fact sacrifice them if he felt it would be for a "greater good." I also think that he would be the wrong choice in regards to foreign policy. My favorites right now are Huckabee on the republican side, and Johnathan Edwards on the dem side.

So, no honking for Obama for me...

 

[agemechanic03]

I'm for Huckabee, He's the only one who still believes the same now as he did a long time ago AND he can give a straight answer without beating around the bush and stumbling to try and find an answer. His values are right on too and haven't changed....Oh yeah, I come from a Democratic family that votes only Democratic. Not me this year. No Hilary def, did u just hear about Paki's first FEMALE President and America is not ready for a female president, atleast that's how I feel and so does my wife. And Obama has only been in Senate for like what, a year? My $.02

 

[Big Don]

Obama is, from all appearances a good guy, but, he doesn't share my values, and he is far too inexperienced. He is all flash, no substance. His biggest recommendation is "vote for me, I'm black" and that is just stupid, that is like saying, "vote for me, I wear red socks" utterly, utterly not important.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

That isn't intellectual wherewithal--we know very well that the votes for John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc., don't have a direct effect on their odds of getting elected, only a (substantial) indirect effect on the candidacy of one of the other candidates. The logical move is to pick the least objectionable of the top two candidates. You're talking about the moral wherewithal to send a message, and there I agree with you and have so voted at times in the past. I am neither a (registered) Democrat nor Republican, just a democrat and a republican. We definitely need more viable third-party/independent candidates to shake things up. Jesse "The Body" Ventura sent a message just by being elected: Take me seriously. That was a real victory for democracy regardless of how you view his governorship.

Voting third party is great, but it only makes a statement. Look back at the history of the U.S.: We only ever have two major parties, apart from brief transitional periods (for better or for worse). All you can realistically hope to do is change their names, for defining themselves will always mean polarization for the major parties here.

So, I agree with your mission but not your reason.

That actually is a better way of putting it, but, I think, a vain hope nonetheless.

 

[crushing]

What the heck, I'll honk for Obama. He can't be any worse than the last two jokers we had. 16 years of the Blinton/Cush twins is way too much!

 

[Gordon Nore]

...Voting third party is great, but it only makes a statement. Look back at the history of the U.S.: We only ever have two major parties, apart from brief transitional periods (for better or for worse). All you can realistically hope to do is change their names, for defining themselves will always mean polarization for the major parties here...

It seems to me that a big part of the dilemma with third-party candidates is that they don't make it into major televised debates -- Perot and Stockdale being the exception. Conversely, Ralph Nader -- love him or hate him -- with a long track record in public life, could not get himself in the same room with the Democratic and Republican front runners.

The flip-side is that if debates make room for credible third-party candidates, what to do about an array of single-issue parties and, well, kooks who also want in on the action. We've had similar discussions in Canada when we were a three-party parliament (now it's five, but that's another story).

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, the two-party system seems bent on keeping its power, but as you indicate multi-party systems with three or more parties have their flaws tooAs for one-party systems, well.... Unless we think we can suppress the formation of parties--a thought I find incompatible with basic freedoms--the two-party system may be the best we can hope for, as sad as that thought is.

I'll still be encouraging the independents. My thought is that, realistically, the best that can be hoped for is to occasionally rotate an old party out and a new one in, so that no party feels too enshrined in the "top two" category and becomes overly complacent.

 

[tellner]

There are ways that a multi-party system could be encouraged. Some countries, notably Israel, allot seats in Parliament based on the nationwide percentage of the vote that the Parties get. People can't say they aren't represented. But it leads to splintered coalitions and small extremist Parties getting a lot of power as kingmakers.

 

[arnisador]

Israel has been a bit different, but in so many cases--including, often, the Knesset--where there are multiple parties, you effectively get one coalition as a super-party and the rest banding together (maybe in different groupings at different times) as s second super-party with maybe a few fringe elements around the edges. It's our system with a more complicated majority and minority whip situation.

allot seats in Parliament based on the nationwide percentage of the vote that the Parties get. People can't say they aren't represented.

Despite my cynicism above, and despite my misgivings when thinking of how David Duke nearly won in Louisiana, for example, this does appeal to me philosophically. It certainly has the patina of fairness. But I feel it results in less efficient legislatures, and you all can make your own jokes there. I hardly want to be cast as defender of our effectively two-party system, having opted out of it as much as possible myself, but in practice if there is more than one party then deals are struck until there's one party plus a second party, namely, "all others".