Who do you think should be the next President of the United States?  I haven’t even come close to making up my mind who to vote for yet, so I would appreciate a little input on the topic.

I was leaning very slightly towards Hilary Clinton, until I heard that she had called on President Bush to boycott the Olympics in China.  If it was reported correctly in the papers (and I realize that it might not have been), this is political pandering, plain and simple.  It’s easy to call for someone else to take a step like this, when you yourself don’t have to suffer the consequences.

I was an Edwards guy; with him out of the race, I suppose I’ll be pulling the “D” lever for whoever bubbles to the top of the Democratic stew.

Will vote for Obama.  As Steve, I was an Edwards person.  His work to help those who have less resonates with me. 

I think that Clinton would also be a good president.  She is smart and has significant experience in world affairs and domestic issues.  I like her health care proposal better than Obama’s.  Closer to single-payer-ish (is that a word?).

But my vote will go to Obama because Clinton has forgotten who the opposition is.  It is not another Democrat.  It’s the other party.  I like when candidates disagree and criticize the other’s policies and promises.  Not when they criticize each other.  That sort of petty bickering gets us no where.

And Obama has opened up the discussion to people who have considered themselves outside the process.  Voter reg is up everywhere.  And that’s a good thing.

My 2 cents.

I like Al Gore.

I’m an Obama person. 

In this day and age, the ironic (and sad) fact is this: Any person who truly wants to be President, is a person who should not be President.  This could not be more clearly demonstrated than by the pathetic cast of characters currently (and recently) vying for that position.  None of them have what it takes.

I think it was Jefferson who said he would not vote for someone who went around saying they wanted to be president and what they wanted to do for people.  One of the early forefathers didn’t think highly of campaigning and another didn’t want to be president, but he got pushed into it.

Douglas Adams said the same thing.  In “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, the President of the Galaxy’s sole job was to draw attention away from the real ruler of the galaxy, who was the only person they could find who didn’t want the job!

I’m split between Paul Kurtz and Peter Singer.  I think that either of them would make a decent philosopher king.  Perhaps one of them could be president and the other could be vice president.  And Noam Chomsky could be chief foreign policy adviser. 

The more I learn about all the candidates the less I like them. Hillary sold her soul for power a long time ago. McCain sold his soul a few years ago when he started kissing up to GW Bush. Obama has done nothing more than give a few good speeches. Considering what we’ve heard for the past seven years good speeches would be a nice change, so I support Obama. Frankly, though, I think my 15-year-old dog would be a better choice than any of the above.

I’m a strong Obama supporter, in fact I’m among the adoring throngs. I have the advantage of being old enough and smart enough that this has nothing to do with sex appeal. Obama gets it in a way no other candidate in my lifetime has, and he is willing to push the envelope to help the culture get it.

His address on race is an example of that. His not wearing a flag lapel pin is another - he gets the mindless conformity of what becomes a forced expression of pseudo-patriotism. His not saying “God bless America” at the end of every event is another.

What people are calling a gaffe in his comments about bitterness and misunderstanding in rural and small town America is another. He’s right. Democrats have been losing elections because rural and small town voters, whose economic interests are best served by Democrats, have been electing Republicans because they’re voting on issues that have nothing to do with governing. Obama’s comments may or may not have been accidental, but even if they were, the firestorm gives him an opportunity to do on these issues what he did on race: open the discussion so we can get past this three-decades-long period of political insanity.

I appreciate that I’ve just made this very issue central to my argument. I see the irony. But the fact is that a politician can’t govern if he can’t get elected, and he can’t govern effectively without strong popular support. Obama has a long road ahead of him before he gets there, but a piece at a time, he’s getting there. None of the other candidates, with the exception of Edwards to a much lesser extent, even tried.

Mriana - 10 April 2008 07:38 PM

I think it was Jefferson who said he would not vote for someone who went around saying they wanted to be president and what they wanted to do for people.  One of the early forefathers didn’t think highly of campaigning and another didn’t want to be president, but he got pushed into it.

They had to beg Washington to be President.  I’m reading Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different which is a quick read for anyone wanting a some very brief biographies on some of the major founders.  I think only Hamilton would be happy with how things have turned out.

Obama....he will probably cause the least amount of damage and that, unfortunately, has become the new standard by which to judge a president.

Who will do the least amount of harm?

That’s why Bill Clinton was a pretty decent president when he kept his pants on.

Ralph Nader.

on any topic he is better than the other candidates.

I agree with you truth.  But isn’t Nader as much a Utopian candidate as Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer or Noam Chomsky?

Obama, at least he acknowledges non-believers as part of the American population.