This is of course, assuming you aren't a fundamentalist Christian, who will you be voting for? Obama or Clinton? It's a tough decision, Obama is more likeable, but doesn't seem to have enough experience. In contrast, Hilary is kind of an asshole, but she has good policies and has a lot of experience. I guess it comes down to whoever has the best policy.
I despise both parties as they are effectively two cheeks of the same arse but I don't think you'll get much joy with this thread, most peeps in this P&R forum are Republicans mate.
I keep forgetting that only fundie Christians don't vote democrat. Newt, if he's planning on running, is smart. He's letting the early contenders beat each other to a pulp and then he'll just casually step in. Rudy + McCain would probably be the winner hands down at this point.
not all fundie Christians go for newt...Newt is the most "republican" of the group so far, very much like Ronnie Reagan... Rudy will only win if McCain is VP, McCain doesn't have a shot otherwise...
As I am strictly against the McCain Fiengold act, I will be against any pairing that involves McCain. I'm also against Hillary as thus far I don't trust her one bit. I'd have to do more research on Juliani, Newt, and Obama before I could make any call on them.
Duncan Hunter is my favorite (declared) candidate. Newt would be my guy if he throws his hat into the ring. i don't think either is electable nationally. i think it'll probably be guiliani who wins the republican nomination.
If it came down to choosing between the two I would go for Obama but hopefully the United States does not dissolve into a one party political system by then.
Obama doesn't have any experience. The only reason I'd ever vote for him is to convince my black friend's I'm not racist.
Most of the states are pushing to move their primary's back so that a candidate can be chosen quicker...(I think the logic there is that if they push them back it will somehow make it seam that Bush will be out of office quicker). Thats not a reason to vote at all...at least you know Obama doesn't have any experience...if your friends don't understand the issues, then they shouldn't be voting at all...we should not be voting simply because someones skin is a certain color or they are a certain sex or there last name is whatever.
Vote based on the issues, and who you think would do a better job. Vote based on who's policies most closely match what direction you think the country should go in. That sends a clear message to the leadership of all parties, no matter who you vote for, democrat, republican, green party, libertarian, socialist, or a party named after your state.
Clinton she is a very good speaker, especially what her husband did in office (not the bad stuff that happen), but the good stuff that happen. Fully respect them.
Gulliani would have the Republican nomination if he wasn't for more open borders. http://www.johnmccainaz.com/?section=politics&post=Giuliani_Wants_More_Immigration!? It's too bad JD Hayworth was corrupt. Now we're stuck with a Senator that wants to overrule the will of 70+% of Arizonans. And if Gulliani gets elected, then we're really screwed. The fact that Democrats think Hillary won't win because she's a woman and think you have to vote Obama or you're a racist demonstrate that they're both highly unqualified for the position. It used to be if you didn't vote for someone it was because of the issues. Since the Democrat candidates don't have positions (or 20 positions on the same issue) it makes sense that the Dems want to play the sex and race cards. If you can't win based on the issues maybe you can shame your opponents into voting for you. Spoiler Alert: Not gonna work.
Definitely, he supports anything that gives more power to the federal government at the expense of the state governments yet claims to be a republican.
I agree, but I would atleast want someone from one party to have the lead over the other party. If Gulliani gets the nomination there will be no difference what so ever. I guess I'll have to vote libertarian