The next U.S. President (for non-US members only)

Kucinich and Paul are the two best choices of a line up of bad choices.  

someone very wise wrote: Dude, I would totally vote for the Zorn/Frith ticket.  Their motto would be like "We'll make every city Naked City."

I second this nomination.  Start petitioning.  NOW. 

I have no idea what Obama´s political ideas are... some info please.

Sean Trane wrote: I don't believe Obama will conquer the democratic seat and if he does, I believe the Reps will win it for a third mandate ina row.... (too many whites not willing to vote for a black candidate) ... on the Rep side, I'm not that familiar with the candidate's names, but I just hope the friggin' pastor/priest gets crushed very quickly (in New Hampshire hopefully)

I think you might have been right about whites not willing to vote for a black man a few years ago, and there are still many, many Archie Bunker types left in this country.  But even my uber-conservative Anabaptist parents (who live in the South) have said that they would consider voting for a moderate or even the Democratic candidate (which could end up being Obama) after the beating this country has taken the past seven years.  So in that sense Bush may have inadvertently done more for racial equality during his term than any president in the past 30 years .

The "friggin' pastor/priest" is Mike Huckabee, and following his victory in the Iowa caucases he finished a distant third-place in both the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries.

In the past couple of weeks he has made comments about sending Iranians "to the gates of Hell" and "helping them" see their seven virgins in the after-life, plus had a pep talk with supporters after Iowa where he told them they were "God's army" and were girding themselves to "do the Lord's work".  I'm sure that in context these comments weren't quite as inflammatory as they sound, but that's the kind of stuff that'll get you put on the shelf in a campaign real fast, even in the South.  I'd say his 15 minutes of fame will be over in about another 3-4 minutes.

On the Hillary note, I'm really watching this race with interest to see how it develops, but her emo stunt in New Hampshire is kind of like that old "are you still beating your wife?" question: if she was really actually crying in that interview then one has to be concerned about the resolve and steadfastness of someone who would bawl in public also being in charge of the world's largest military and thousands of nuclear warheads.  And if she was faking it then one has to consider what lengths she would go to for the nomination, and whether she can actually be trusted at face-value on anything else.  She was bordering on the same act last night during the Michigan debates on TV, so it looks like that's her new strategy until/if it backfires.

markosherrera wrote: Whe Clinton was President the USA economy was better.

_popupControl();

Before voting, check this out:

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

Not 100% accurate but is much more informative than voting based off of TV snippets.  I matched closest to Kucinch and Gravel (both have little chance to put it lightly), with the other dems all similar and behind.  The only republican that I didn't get a negative score with was Ron Paul, go figure.  Giuiliani still makes me cringe, he uses the words "terrorism" and "9/11" more than dizty, stereotypical girls use the word "like."

Dude, I would totally vote for the Zorn/Frith ticket.  Their motto would be like "We'll make every city Naked City."  

Vander isn't a US citizen, so he isn't eligible.

JOHN ZORN 2008!

They all suck, but I doubt they're realy gonna F*ck up anything.

Easy Livin wrote: I'd be interested to hear how much our US members feel this is a vote for the person, and how much the candidate's political allegiance and policies matter.

For me the leading candidates' stated policies don't matter all that much in today's environment.  Our past three 
presidents have done very little to follow up on most of their campaign promises anyway, and those who
ran and lost and ended up in the Senate have been largely silent as well so I think you can't give much
credence to specific proposals or promises.  Much of what a president accomplishes ends up being about how well they can work with Congress anyway.

I think this election is about making a definitive statement on what direction we want for our country. More of the same most likely means a continuing erosion of the middle class, an increased polarization of the country's citizenship between those who are progressive and socially-conscious, and those whose primary focus is on continuing to promote capitalism and strengthening our 'moral authority'.  

IMHO I think we should also consider our global standing, which has eroded more in the past seven years than at any time in our history (and which is why I asked the question in the first place).  Electing someone who will continue to act unilaterally in world affairs and show open disdain for the opinions and priorities of other nations will only further damage the reputation of all Americans world-wide.  On the upside states like mine that rely on tourism for much of their revenue will benefit since Americans will continue to forego foreign vacation travel for domestic since we will become even greater targets outside our own borders.

So there's that at least....