2008 US election poll

[fall-apart]

Now that the field has narrowed somewhat, we can have a poll with a reasonable number of names on it.  So, who would you like to see in the White House in 2009 and forward?  I've put in the names of the five that are still listed as running as Democrats or Republicans and who have won delegates, but I've no idea who might show up to the party as an independent, so if you have a name that you want other than the five listed (Gravel, Nader?), please put it in your post and vote for Other/none of the above.

I hope I've worded the question in such a way so that Americans won't get offended if we foreigners have our say as well, since the outcome will definitely affect us as well.  So vote for your winner, and if you want, state why in your post...

[Rocky]

Obama-Richardson will be the ticket!  That's my pick

[ScutMonkey]

I picked "other" because my first two preferences have dropped.  In fact, I feel my vote is the kiss of death and if Hillary gets nominated maybe I'll vote for her.  As I put it to my brother, "I'll martyr my vote for the good of our country."

[Reflex]

Obama/Warner would be a good ticket.  For now I'm solidly in Obama's camp.

[Virtuous1]

Did you put Ron Paul in there simply for Salamander (aka. Fontaine)? Just curious because he is about the only one I've seen give him any serious interest.

I also voted Obama, but if he doesn't get the democratic nomination I'd probably consider McCain second.

[VorLonUK]

I've gone for Hilary (ok I'm not a Yank, but indulge me   ) although I was favouring at one point Obama. But whilst i think Obama is a good orator, I also think he lacks experience, whereas i think Hilary would be better in the long run.

[Maturin]

I've mentioned here before that I prefer Obama. I believe that what he lacks in experience he makes up for in his ability to inspire and motivate. The more people and members of congress get motivated, the more gets done. Plus from listening to him speak I Trust him to carry the will of the people. I believe that Hillary and McCain, like Bush, believe so blindly in their point of view that they will do what they want, and unless we support them...We The People just get in the way.
Granted I'm not always with Obama on the issues, which is why I will vote non-democrat in the next congressional elections. (to make them work together instead of bulldozing legislation as in the pre-06 Bush years, when both the congress and presidency were controlled by the Republicans)

Off Topic, @ Scut - With all the conservative hate for McCain, what do you think are the chances of GA going blue in the general election if Obama gets the nomination? I think its possible at this point in time, but with all the mudslinging of the general election to follow, only time will tell.

Edit: now I realize I went a bit past "Who would you like to see as president?" I guess I'll leave it though, to give people perspective.

[Reflex]

First off, McCain is my second choice as well, I don't feel he'd be a bad president, I just feel Obama will get us past the partisan squabblign of the past 16 years.

Secondly, the Hillary 'experience' meme is a myth, she has less government and leadership than Obama and McCain, in fact she is by far the least experienced candidate this year.

[VorLonUK]

First off, McCain is my second choice as well, I don't feel he'd be a bad president, I just feel Obama will get us past the partisan squabblign of the past 16 years.

Secondly, the Hillary 'experience' meme is a myth, she has less government and leadership than Obama and McCain, in fact she is by far the least experienced candidate this year.

Not teaching you to suck eggs Reflex about your own country, but Hilary is a politician who's been married to a president whilst he was serving. I'm not sure if she was political before she got with Bill, but I bet she's learnt an awful lot in the time she has been with him, especially as she obviously now holds a clear political interest.
I don't think you can negate that in any way.

[fall-apart]

Did you put Ron Paul in there simply for Salamander (aka. Fontaine)? Just curious because he is about the only one I've seen give him any serious interest.

Not really - he hasn't conceded, and he has 16 delegates, which falls under the purview of the boundaries I set (unlike Gravel and Keyes).

[Rocky]

First off, McCain is my second choice as well, I don't feel he'd be a bad president, I just feel Obama will get us past the partisan squabblign of the past 16 years.

Secondly, the Hillary 'experience' meme is a myth, she has less government and leadership than Obama and McCain, in fact she is by far the least experienced candidate this year.

Not teaching you to suck eggs Reflex about your own country, but Hilary is a politician who's been married to a president whilst he was serving. I'm not sure if she was political before she got with Bill, but I bet she's learnt an awful lot in the time she has been with him, especially as she obviously now holds a clear political interest.
I don't think you can negate that in any way.

I agree, but for more than your reasons.  Trying to say Hillary is not experienced is laughable. Despite being a Senator for one of the most populated places in the world, she was the most active and visable first lady in history for 8 years, and 12 years before that in Arkansas.  She also served on the board of the biggest company in the world for six years and is a highly intelligent lawyer.  Disagree with her all you want, call her cold and bitchy, but calling her inexperience is like saying McCain doesnt know anything about fighting a war because after all half the time he was a soldier he got captured and was a prisoner.  Call it extreme, but I think not only is it a sexist comment to make that she did nothing as first lady, its inaccurate.

[Salamander]

Did you put Ron Paul in there simply for Salamander (aka. Fontaine)? Just curious because he is about the only one I've seen give him any serious interest.

I also voted Obama, but if he doesn't get the democratic nomination I'd probably consider McCain second.

Of course, he only puts that option there for me!

Btw I would vote for him because he's about the only 1 who is willing to fight the main things; debt and changing foreign policy . And no he wouldn't go back to the gold standard (he only said it would have been better if the world had sticked with it). This guy is just honest about what he thinks and feels (just very straight and clear).

But I am kinda happy he doesn't win because every president after 2x bush will have a hard time and all this nice talk about health care and other stuff will simply not happen but it's good for votes.
Bush is only saving his own face as long as possible and the real problems (some already surfaced) will come after.

[Intuit]

If we always vote on nepotistic-experience we'll continue to elect people by bloodline versus qualifications.  I think we've seen how disastrous that can be this time around.  But I suppose it wouldn't be the first time we've repeated a mistake...

[Reflex]

Hillary's Experience Lie: http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq—since shown to be undeniable—required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story, "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

Sorry folks, despite all the recent historical revisionism, of the candidates Hillary is among the least experienced, certainly much less experienced than McCain, and a little bit less experienced than Obama.

[VorLonUK]

Hillary's Experience Lie: http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq—since shown to be undeniable—required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story, "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

Sorry folks, despite all the recent historical revisionism, of the candidates Hillary is among the least experienced, certainly much less experienced than McCain, and a little bit less experienced than Obama.

That says absolutely nothing Reflex bar someone's obvious rantings and you've totally ignored my comment that she was a 1st lady for x amount of years. You should know yourself that if your partner has a very strong interest in the area you work in, so much so that in the future she could well go into it, that she/he can pick up an awful lot of information that isn't always privi to the masses. Being married to a President is a rarity to say the least (as it is to any head of government), you are poised in a position to learn all and sundry if you wish - an obvious advantage.

[Reflex]

The first lady has no ability to write policy, has no security clearance, does not make deals with congress, does not push legislation.  They are also not legally allowed to know anything considered secret without a security clearance(which she did not have) despite who their husband is.  At best, she has a good idea of the frustrations he went through and the people he had to deal with in Congress(who are mostly retired now).

If she truly knew what was going on, then what is her excuse for being an ardent backer of the Iraq war?  After all, she'd have known from her husband's time in office that the intelligence Bush was claiming was not accurate.....

[Rocky]

I love Obama, but I dont know how you claim he has more experience than Hillary.  It's just not accurate.  Your bias article shows very little other than the fact a candidate for President plays up their strengths.  Which candidate doesnt make themselves sound better than they are?  I think your comments about Hillarys 20 years as first lady are horribly sexist and naive.

[VorLonUK]

The first lady has no ability to write policy, has no security clearance, does not make deals with congress, does not push legislation.  They are also not legally allowed to know anything considered secret without a security clearance(which she did not have) despite who their husband is.  At best, she has a good idea of the frustrations he went through and the people he had to deal with in Congress(who are mostly retired now).

If she truly knew what was going on, then what is her excuse for being an ardent backer of the Iraq war?  After all, she'd have known from her husband's time in office that the intelligence Bush was claiming was not accurate.....

You are deliberately missing the point Reflex. She's been a first lady and a senator - why do you knock that fact? Or is it more the case you are really one of these yanks who sees strength in a man when it comes to the presidency?

The irony is too, you have spoken about your Partner on here before putting her opinion/s forward re global warming, which is something you have an interest in too. Imagine if you were Bill and your partner was Hilary and even whilst first lady she had a real interest in politics - not just a passing glance or doing her first lady duties. If a partner has that much interest there would be an awful lot they could learn. Obviously Hilary was that interested as eventually she went on to be a Senator.

[Reflex]

Barack Obama -

State Government: 1997-2004 (8 years, State Senate, Illinois is one of the largest states in the union)
Federal Government: 2004-2008 (4 years, US Senate)

Hillary Clinton -

Federal Government: 2001-2008 (8 years, US Senate)

So Obama has 12 years in government as an elected official, Hillary has 8.  Most of Obama's experience has come from state government, all of Hillary's has come at the federal level.  Some wish to classify 8 years of sleeping with Bill(during which time it was widely reported that she rarely actually was sleeping with him, I might add) as 'experience', however once again she had no security clearance, no policy writing responsibilities, one legislative action(Health Care, which failed miserably and cost Bill his Democratic congress), no official responsibilities during her overseas trips.

BTW, Vorlon, you are correct, I often speak about my significant other's experience.  You'll note however that I speak about her actual experience, not about how her time sleeping with me has made her knowledgable in tech.  Because it hasn't.  That would be like her trying to get a job at Microsoft because she slept with a MS engineer for years.  Is she more familiar with computers than she would be without knowing me?  Sure.  But is it something she could legitimatly qualify as 'experience' towards being given a job?  Not even close.  When I talk about her knowledge its in the areas she has specialized in, I don't try to use her opinions on technology to bolster my own arguments, after all its not her area of expertise.

Any way you cut it, Obama is the more experienced candidate when it comes to leadership, governance and legislative experience.  It may not be a significant lead, but seriously, claiming 'experience' as her defining attribute would be like McCain claiming 'youth and vigor' as his.

[Caffeine Cemetary]

I put Ron Paul simply because I want to see the government get completely F***ed up.  Ha!

But seriously, from everything I've read, seen and heard, Obama or McCain seem like good choices..  Hell, I wish it could be Obama/McCain '08.  But I guess I'm living in my own dream-world right now..  Hmm..  Maybe unemployment's getting to my head..

[Caffeine Cemetary]

Any way you cut it, Obama is the more experienced candidate when it comes to leadership, governance and legislative experience.  It may not be a significant lead, but seriously, claiming 'experience' as her defining attribute would be like McCain claiming 'youth and vigor' as his.

Not to mention his years as a community organizer at the local level (Just thought I'd help you out..).  

I really do have a good laugh when I hear folks tout Hillary's so-called vastly superior level of "experience".  I suppose they take it seriously when some joked back in the 90's that Hillary was really the one running the show..  Or maybe they're just equating age with experience?

[ScutMonkey]

I've mentioned here before that I prefer Obama. I believe that what he lacks in experience he makes up for in his ability to inspire and motivate. The more people and members of congress get motivated, the more gets done. Plus from listening to him speak I Trust him to carry the will of the people. I believe that Hillary and McCain, like Bush, believe so blindly in their point of view that they will do what they want, and unless we support them...We The People just get in the way.
Granted I'm not always with Obama on the issues, which is why I will vote non-democrat in the next congressional elections. (to make them work together instead of bulldozing legislation as in the pre-06 Bush years, when both the congress and presidency were controlled by the Republicans)

Off Topic, @ Scut - With all the conservative hate for McCain, what do you think are the chances of GA going blue in the general election if Obama gets the nomination? I think its possible at this point in time, but with all the mudslinging of the general election to follow, only time will tell.

Edit: now I realize I went a bit past "Who would you like to see as president?" I guess I'll leave it though, to give people perspective.

It's really hard to say.  I was talking to Reflex in IM when Obama was winning Georgia in the primaries and telling him how it just wasn't shocking at all.  The thing to know about Georgia is that there are almost two states here.  There's the city of Atlanta and then the rest of the state.  Atlanta is over 60% African American, is completely run by Black Democrats, and Obama is truly a reflection in alot of ways of the Atlanta experience.  Ebony Magazine consistently lists Atlanta as the best place in the US for African Americans to live.  They are cosmopolitan, educated, and politically savvy.  However the rest of Georgia, including the suburbs, is very bible belt and die-hard Republican.  If Huckabee were to win the nomination, I can't see how the Republicans would lose a single state in the South (Florida is not considered "big S" Southern, btw).  However, if McCain wins the nomination then bible belt Republicans may just not show up at the polls and McCain could be in trouble.  

One of the biggest reasons why Gore and Kerry lost the last two elections is that they didn't excite their base.  People just looked at their candidate and said, "meh..."  Obama excites Democrats.  McCain will have an even worse problem than Kerry and Gore have.  His base is deliberately antagonistic.  He had better give his VP nomination some serious thought if he wants to win because he needs someone who's strong in faith and someone who appeals to Republicans and Conservatives.  He needs someone along side him who shores up his gaping holes within the party.

[Salamander]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJSESV1S_Dds&refer=home

Huckabee won Louisiana with 43 percent, compared with McCain who had 42 percent, Fox News Channel reported. In Washington, where counting was continuing, the Associated Press reported McCain led with 26 percent to Huckabee's 24 percent and 21 percent for Paul.

[Reflex]

Yes, Paul managed a reasonable amount of support in a few states, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming I believe.  However overall his impact has been insignificant, and he all but stated that he knows he has no chance today to his supporters.

[VorLonUK]

We'll have to agree to disagree Reflex,  because the way i see it Hilary hasn't been a mantlepiece first lady at all, let alone rubber stamped it. She's gone on in her own right to be a senator. Looking at her experience as a whole and in the areas that a very small minority experience (from 1st lady role that is), she most likely has more political experience that is simply eluding you.

Further more, i think the way you come across is you are one of the many yankees who has a problem with a female president. I wouldn't be surprised if that she had say a further 20+ years experience that you would still feel the same way.

Also in US history how many people (obviously only women - and that says something!) have gone from 1st lady into active politics in their own right???