I'll cast my two cents in here.

my problem with hilary is very simple. She's a self serving bitch. I'm not saying this to be mean, but to be totally and completely blunt. I have heard her promise so many things, and then turn around and do whatever is in her OWN best interest, and when she answers a question about what her policies will be, she has to consult whatever the popular polls show. some people take this as a sign that she's truly representing the people, but when it really comes down to it, she's only saying whatever it is she thinks you want to hear so that she can get your vote and get into office where she'll continue to do whatever it is she wants.

Obama, yes, he sounds really cool and hip, breath of fresh air, really gives off a good image to the rest of the world. He's a great figurehead. That's not the same thing as being a great leader. There is a very distinct difference between having a positive attitude and being able to make hard decisions even if they'll make you look bad.

Other than that, my problem with this election in general is that the Democrats are all running against Bush. Maybe it's because they still believe what they've been saying about how he never got elected. Does that leave him free to run for another term?

On the other side, the republicans don't really seem to have much other than "We're republican, so we'll continue supporting what bush has started" or "We WON'T support what bush has done... but we're still republicans"

That pretty much covers it.

Some thought.:

The two parties are what make up a functional politcal environment and keeps the United States running.


Radical ideas are generally not good ideas for business. Being socially and/or economically too far to the left or right is dangerous for nations and individuals.
- Communism/Revolutionary Socialism
- National Socialism, fascism
- Anarchist
Some other groups are radical for the (1) behavior or (2) departure from acknowledged working systems.
- Libertarians (2)
- Al Qaeda (1), Christian Radicals(1/2), Zionists Extremists(1).


What's fair isn't always best when thinking in terms of national interests. Fair isn't usually popular enough to get votes anyway.

- Yes I know: "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular. It's true, but this is the real world.

- Politicians have to balance what is "right in a moral vacuum" with what is right in realistic situations, much of the complex needs of individual nations can't be clearly separated between right and wrong in a world with many different ideas about what's moral and with many different domestic and international interests.

I am not for Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. People assume that our taxes will goto the heights of other countries like England, France, etc. This is unlikely, taxes will go up but a US version of UH/SM would probably be more subsidization of private medical and pharmaceutical companies. Gas will not be $10/gallon and incomes taxes will not go up to EU levels. Hell, a 1% national sales tax would probably pay for it, if we could manage the existing debt.

Why am I against it? I am uninsured, make almost nothing, and I do not want others to pay for my problems. However, if it is in the national interest to provide healthcare to make sure that they have bodies to work and fight, then so be it. I don't think it is.

Kinda on topic, if I were a registered Republican I would probably vote for anyone who is not: Ron Paul (a radical, but a really nice, well meaning guy) or Guliani (a fascist who tries to ban art, doesn't know about national or international politics, prefers fascist/Nazi/neocon style economics through allocation). If I were a registered democrat I would probably vote for Hilary (due to my interest in how the world views us), Obama is inexperienced, Edwards is confused, but honestly I don't know enough about either parties candidates to decide yet.

Yeah, I've noticed that about politics as well as just about any subject that can be debated over. It's a problem I've been trying to figure out how to deal with for a long time now.
Any subject out there, you have one side arguing for the topic, the other against it, and when it really comes down to it, neither side is right. The best way to address the situation is usually right up the middle, but when you do that, no one can really argue against it effectively because it works. as a result, the people that do hear about it don't really debate against it which means the people that would debate for it don't have another side to debate against. the people who haven't heard about the middle stance continue debating against each other and so it's impossible for the middle stance to gain any traction.
If you notice in presidents, it has almost constantly swung back and forth between a republican and a democrat at a fairly regular basis, usually about 8 - 12 years for one side and then 8 - 12 years for the other side. people are constantly trying to get towards the middle ground, but can't because the debates always leave them with polarized choices, hence all we can do is seesaw back and forth.

@OP
- Because people are idiots.

IMO
If Hilary is elected, I won't have pride for my country anymore. What happens when she is on her time of the month- another war will be started!

I wouldnt go as far as saying Bush is educated. The man is a complete idiot. I will give you one example......Nuclear.....Nucular. Which one is correct? Why the first one obviously. How does good ol George W. pronounce it time after time....

 The only thing Bush is Elite as is being a complete buffoon. The comments on here about Clinton being on the rag and starting wars, and feeling "less safe" with her in office are completly stupid as well. There was never a good reason to go to war with Iraq, thats been proven time after time, month after month. They didnt and dont have any weapons that could have hurt us....had we stayed over hear, and they arent the ones who attacked us. Its funny how we cant find the person who actually did, in the country that we attacked in the first place.....OSAMA.....yet we find Sudam. Someone that had nothing to do with the attackes on us. Oh yeah, thats right, Bush and his family let all of the Bin Laden family leave the country while all of us Americans where stuck at the airports. Now I could care less if a Republican, Democrat, or whatever get into office. The only problem I see is that right now the Repulicans dont have anyone intelligent enough for the job. Obama seams very fake, and has no real experience. Hilary with the help of her husband can right the sinking ship that is the US right now, and make our money worth something again. LAst I checked it only took Bush 3 weeks to wipe out a 3 billion surpluss this country had under the Clinton admin. Not to mention Bush has no clue when it comes to environmental issues, all he cares about is lining his and his buddies pockets with our money. He can spend 160 Billion on a war he started yet 30 billion to give millions of families healthcare is too much of a cost. 160 billion so more troops can die for there country but nothing to actually help people. With that 160Billion he has spent on this war so far, we could have done a lot more to help this country, in education, Katrina victims, healthcare, reducing carbon emmisions, etc. etc. Anyone who still feels that Bush is there man, why dont you quit your job, join the Military and go fight for your country. Only then will you see him for the idot that he truly is.

Is that just Hilary or would that apply to any woman as president? Seriously.

Do me a favor: don't point out rankings by a supremely biased source as "proof" of something and then get upset when I don't accept them.

Wow, surprising to hear.  Do you have a link where I can read this article?  I know there are several in this thread that would like me to visit the crow-eating thread :)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm