View Poll Results: What is your Political Affiliation?
Registered Democrat 35 53.85%
Registered Republican 16 24.62%
Registered Independent 6 9.23%
Unregistered; Votes don't count anyway 2 3.08%
Ineligible to vote but I still care 6 9.23%
Earthlings! Back to the Twilight Zone where I rule 0 0%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

2008 Presidential Candidates

I realize the elections are three years away but politics never end and opinions are always timely. It is clear to those who are politically savvy that some potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 are already jockeying for position.

Does anyone support any potential candidate already? Is there someone(s) you would like to see in the race? Do you have a Pres.-VP candidate preference? If you have no favorites or preferences yet, who does your gutt tell you will run from the political parties? Similarly, is there someone that you would not like to see as a candidate for either P or VP?

The field is already shaping up nicely in my opinion. It looks to be a very spirited race with qualified, likeable candidates who could win a nice percentage of cross-over votes.
I am an idependent and my sole ideology is objectivity.

I hope that John McCain will run and Hillary Clinton. I have others but my guess is that a two man race between Clinton/McCain will be toe-to-toe down to the last vote counted. A real nail biter and a good one is long overdue---no nail-biting since Perot jumped into the '92. (Yes 2000 was a nail-biter, but in a different sense but not because the candidates were equally matched; let's just be honest about that. 2000 was only a nail-biter because of the FL debacle.)
I'd love a McCain/Gore ticket and either Edwards or Dean/Napolitano for the Dems.


I actually need to research Elizabeth Gore more, but from everything I know I really like her. And I think the Dems are more likely to have a female VP candidate if the Republicans do.

I liked Edwards a lot when he was running in the primaries, because I really agreed with the majority of his platform, though I didn't like him as much as a VP candidate, because he had to be Kerry's guy instead of himself. Dean is a bit of a hothead, but so's McCain-and with either one, we'll see where they really stand, instead of the posturing we tend to get.

I absolutely love Janet Napolitano, and would love to see her in Washington, even though I really appreciate her as governor. I'm not sure who I would vote for with the above tickets, but would be thrilled to get to pick between tickets I like.

I have a hard time thinking of any way I would ever vote for Hillary. I absolutely do not trust that woman, and have had a hard time figuring out why, until I spoke with some women far more politically savvy than I. She has always projected herself as the great feminist, but her voting record is definitely not. There are other examples of hypocrisy on her part, but the fact she has so much political love for her supposed feminism and her voting record showing it's not real is the easiest way I can articulate that.


I don't know a whole lot about Guiliani, but there's been talk of him, too. From what I know about him, I think I'd like him. There are thoughts that McCain is too old, and if so maybe Guiliani instead?
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
Not American, but I want to see Barack Obama as a Democratic presidenet!
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
There's no one in particular I like or trust. We'll see how this next one goes.
I want Hillary to win, but I don't think she can. She was so vilified when she was First Lady.

If she were to run against McCain, I think McCain would win in a heartbeat. More swing voters'll go for him than Hillary, for starters. I also think people will gravitate toward a male president as long as they've got that 9/11 fear in them.
My personal favorites are Obama and Clinton (it would be sooo great to have a Clinton in the White House again *drools*). But McCain has the best chance against both of them. I'm technically a dem, but I would looooove it if the republicans pick McCain. Hopefully they will be willing to put aside their fear of liberalism and pick McCain. Everyone wins: the rep. get to keep their party in power (though this is not necessarily a good thing), and America doesn't get quite so screwed (and the fundamentalists will be forced to cool off). McCain is really not that bad at all. He is probably one of the few politicians out there that truly has bi-partisan tendencies.

Wes Clark would also be good.

But hey, I'm not even old enough to vote.
Previously omnigirl

Password: curl lover (don't forget to type the space!)

Hair type that defies description...3.5 B maybe? Or 2 D? Looser 4B? *scream*

Was it where they lost me that I finally found myself? - Pablo Neruda
I don't know a whole lot about Guiliani, but there's been talk of him, too. From what I know about him, I think I'd like him. There are thoughts that McCain is too old, and if so maybe Guiliani instead?
Originally Posted by NetG
Guiliani for me is a big fat NO! If republicans put him up they will never be able to hide behind a clock of morals again. The hypocrasy will be clear and too ripe to stand. Guiliani is a known adulterer and one who brought his lover to his bed while still married, in the mayor's mansion and with his underage children down the hall.

The hypocrasy of Repbulicans even putting him up as one of the faces of the party makes me sick. :fuming:fuming.gif This is one of the many instances where Republicans think their isht doesn't stink. Call Clinton an adulterer and worse for oral sex but gives Guiliani and the countless others passes and positions as the poster pinups for the party. Just dumb. It makes people like me have to despise two parties at once. Can't get a decent, honest party in this craphole.

Guilani can't be trusted and many of his other follies other than intercourse adultery in the manner mentioned is only the start. Yuck! The reminder of the transparent hypocrasy makes me barf. On the other hand, if they put Guiliani up for P or VP in '08, it will force me to vote a straight democratic ticket for the first time in my life.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
Originally Posted by Cherish
Unfortunately, hypocrisy cannot be put aside because one party in particular makes their platform almost sole morality. It is not difficult to see the connection.

In a perfect world or an honest political system, it would not matter but seeing as how it mattered so *&#@ much in 1998 and with the continued "morality" issues, the world is clearly not perfect.

I also think that if people worried more about job performance instead of "trust", the world might be better off. "Trust" is a morality based virtue; that is just definition.

Have you had enough job performance concern for anyone in particular that would lead you to address the original post? In your view as someone who is only concerned with job performance, has anyone performed well enough at their job that you have noticed enough to state your preference for candidacy or at least a statement acknowledging his/her good job performance?
I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
Originally Posted by Cherish
Unfortunately, hypocrisy cannot be put aside because one party in particular makes their platform almost sole morality. It is not difficult to see the connection.

In a perfect world or an honest political system, it would not matter but seeing as how it mattered so *&#@ much in 1998 and with the continued "morality" issues, the world is clearly not perfect.
Originally Posted by ohura
My point is, just because it mattered to a bunch of politicians and the media, does not mean it should matter to us. I'm saying, rise about the BS.

I also think that if people worried more about job performance instead of "trust", the world might be better off. "Trust" is a morality based virtue; that is just definition.

Have you had enough job performance concern for anyone in particular that would lead you to address the original post? In your view as someone who is only concerned with job performance, has anyone performed well enough at their job that you have noticed enough to state your preference for candidacy or at least a statement acknowledging his/her good job performance?
I already addressed the original post and voted in your poll as *I* saw fit.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.
Originally Posted by ohura
For a while there, I thought you were a regular poster using an alias. From the above I guess you're a newbie here so I'll share this:
You can get pissy all you want, but you cannot control the way in which people choose to respond to your threads - assuming you can hold their attention to begin with.
I thought you were a regular poster using an alias.
You're not the only one.
I could not participate in the poll.

I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.
I could not participate in the poll.

I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.
Originally Posted by Sigi
I used to be like that when I registered to vote at 18 but by the next election I realized how important it was to vote in the Primaries especially for my local government.

I still consider myself undeclared because I do not believe in the exact politics of any party. But in order to exercise my right to vote on all levels of the voting process I had to officially register with a one of the larger parties.
We're all born mad. Some remain so.

My point is, just because it mattered to a bunch of politicians and the media, does not mean it should matter to us. I'm saying, rise about the BS..
Originally Posted by Cherish
Then the corresponding point is that just because you are not concerned with morality doesn't mean that noone else should be. The appropriate phrase for discounting integrity would be lowering nor rising. The BS is right because hypocrisy is nothing but BS and you and others are full of it.
I already addressed the original post and voted in your poll as *I* saw fit
.
Originally Posted by Cherish
So the point is clear that you know nothing but you want to say something. Since you don't know anything about the topic, then you will talk out of your butt off topic. Good, I will expect the "BS" that you fling to continue from this point on.
I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.
Originally Posted by ohura
For a while there, I thought you were a regular poster using an alias. From the above I guess you're a newbie here so I'll share this:
You can get pissy all you want, but you cannot control the way in which people choose to respond to your threads - assuming you can hold their attention to begin with.
Originally Posted by Cherish
And you can get pissy and speak off topic BS as much as you want but in case you are new to America (your "Black Brit" picture and profile just popped up after your first post in this topic), morals matter and hypocrisy is an issue. We are a bit more prudish in this country, get used to it or get out.

I expect your BS to continue so please oblige. Your lack of knowledge of the topic is entertaining. Your need to say anything even when irrelevant is more entertaining. The fact that if you really are "Black Brit", you are not eligible to vote in this country and your "response to [this] thread" means as much as all the BS you said before---this is most entertaining and hilarious on top.
WebjockeyGuide
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please refrain from attacking each other, and return to the topic at hand.
I could not participate in the poll.

I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.
Originally Posted by Sigi
Hi, Sigi,

Sorry about the poll. I was using "independent" as synonymous with undeclared.

Cute picture!

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com