So...

I'm an undecided, independent American voter. I'm a busy guy, and haven't yet taken the time to learn much about any of the candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain). My question is, who would you like to see as the next President? This certainly isn't limited to Americans. I'd love to hear some international perspectives as well.

In a nutshell, this is as far as I've come in my thinking:

-I like McCain because he has a strong tradition of compromise and bipartisan accomplishments. He seems like a reasonable and intelligent person. On the down side, he's quite old (likley to die in office), is less likely to reach out to mend the international rifts the Bush administration has torn, and as a republican his enviromental policy will likely be terrible.

-I like Clinton because she is very smart and on top of the issues. On the other hand I don't fancy the idea of mandatory government run health care, and I'm against candidates from "political families" on principle. She's also been very impolite and overly aggressive during debates, which turns me off on a more personal level.

-I like Obama because he is a fresh, cheerful, and energetic. He has the charisma to be a great president, but I haven't seen that he has the substance and vision to back that up. And, really, I don't know much of anything about him.

Discuss.

I don't really know much about the American candidates. But I'd vote for Obama, followed by Clinton.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Right know my bigest concern is Iraq. Then the economy (witch is Iraq). Then avoiding government sponserd health care. Immigration. Then many other issues.

I will not vote for McCain because he said he would stay in Iraq for a 100 years if that what it takes. There is nothing to be gained by the dwindling middle class from staying in Iraq. And on the moral side: Even if democracy does spreed across the middle east (it wont) it wont stop the violence. instead of havening different rajeimes committing genocide on each other you would have different democratic states committing genocide against each other. Just because you have a democracy doesn't mean there will be peace. And most important of all, its not our business to police the world, let them kill each other. I could go on with other issues but...

I don't like Hillery because it's blatant how much she tries to pander to the audience. She even changes her aksent (spelling?) depending on wear she speaks. She says she is the democrat with the most experience but if you ask me, playing first lady for 2 terms isn't anything worth mentioning. Medical cost in this country are criminal but universal health care doesn't work. Canada is a example of how universal health care doesn't work, not how it does.

Of the democratic party Obama is my pic. He appears intelligent. He wants out of Iraq and his interest in universal health care seams like it could be forgotten after (if) he is elected. Evan if he does follow through with implementing universal heath care at least under his plan, unlike Hillerys, it won't be mandatory.

As for who i would vote for. If its a close race between McCain and Obama i will go and vote for Obama, but if Obama is in front by a healthy lead, I will vote for Ron Paul out of principle. I know he is not going to win but i would want him to be the president. Evan if you don't agree with him, he is the candidate with the most answers. I agree with most of what he says. Hear the first 3 youtube vids on him I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHKF0hcF5hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuTdbLV_sg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

EDIT:
Forgot to mention i would vote for anyone who promises to pursue Bush and Cheney for conviction and execution.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

What about Global Warming? Its a bit disappointing how the worlds largest super power is not interested in global warming . At least not under the current Bush administration.

---

Aaron's Stuff

What about Global Warming? Its a bit disappointing how the worlds largest super power is not interested in global warming . At least not under the current Bush administration.

Their is no money in going green. Your looking to the wrong country for support on that issue.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RedWood</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I will not vote for McCain because he said he would stay in Iraq for a 100 years if that what it takes. There is nothing to be gained by the dwindling middle class from staying in Iraq. And on the moral side: Even if democracy does spreed across the middle east (it wont) it wont stop the violence. instead of havening different rajeimes committing genocide on each other you would have different democratic states committing genocide against each other. Just because you have a democracy doesn't mean there will be peace. And most important of all, its not our business to police the world, let them kill each other. I could go on with other issues but... </DIV></DIV>

Democratic Peace Theory, look it up.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>As for who i would vote for. If its a close race between McCain and Obama i will go and vote for Obama, but if Obama is in front by a healthy lead, I will vote for Ron Paul out of principle. I know he is not going to win but i would want him to be the president. Evan if you don't agree with him, he is the candidate with the most answers. I agree with most of what he says. Hear the first 3 youtube vids on him I found. </DIV></DIV>

Ron Paul's 'answers' are incredibly stupid though. If you really think reinstating the gold standard is in any way helpful to the economy you need to take either a basic Economics course or learn some US history. Somebody who gets things so fundamentally wrong deserves no support whatsoever.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Forgot to mention i would vote for anyone who promises to pursue Bush and Cheney for conviction and execution.</DIV></DIV>

huh? Why exactly are they deserving of death again? Gulf War II was just cleaning up the mess left by Gulf War I, a mess caused by allowing the international community to dictate how it was carried out. Think of it as a much smaller and less 'glorious' WWII.

I don't see how all Americans seem to suddenly be experts on universal health care? If you live in Europe, it's such a basic thing. Without a doubt it's even more basic than compulsory education.

If you're really into not having health insurance, you can do that, even in Europe. It's very stupid, but you can avoid it some way. You can also choose the luxury, private insurance, if that gives your pleasure. But how can it be bad to have a system that keeps people from dying and having their life ruined by sicknesses that could hit any of us any time?

The only countries that don't have universal health care are some obscure third world countries and the US. And... did I just read that right... the US sponsors universal health care in the Iraq?!?

---

Why snark works.

There are pitfalls to universal health care, as demonstrated by the so called "postcode lotteries" where two houses separated by a few meters aren't entitled to the same cancer drugs because of a postal difference - also, having to cater for large number of economic migrants from Eastern and Central Europe has stretched our NHS and incurred significant costs for translation services (this extends to policing and schools too).

However, I resent the notion that a responsible government should be exonerated of providing healthcare for its citizens, especially those too poor - possibly already failed by poor social policy, to meet the financial demands of private health. As I understand it also, "universal health care" in Europe is actually a part payment system - ie funded by tax, with extra charges on top. Seems like it's only the UK where's it truly free.

The US elections - clearly there are some key differences between the candidates, which is refreshing to see in any stable democracy. I'm not aware of the policies each candidate espouses, but i'd look for someone who is willing to maintain a presence in Iraq - if the US leaves, the Iraqi government is more than likely woefully ill-equipped to deal with another large scale insurgency push. I didn't agree with the methods behind declaring war, or the truth when it appeared but I believe the US (and the UK, who are withdrawing) have a responsibility to ensure safety for all the citizens whose lives have been overturned by the invasion and subsequent occupation.

Aside from that, i'd probably look for a candidate who had realistic policies on reversing economic decline. Attracting manufacturing work or respecialising the economy in light of international economic transition, and hopefully ending recession in the process would be the big "tick".

Perhaps really what is needed is a candidate who is willing to step back and reassess the role of the United States in the international community.

The days of the sole American superpower are over. Belligerence on international issues or misguided foreign policy decisions only turns power over to emerging economies like China. China as the sole superpower of the world? I'm not a biggest fan of the US administration, but I know who i'd prefer. Trying to take on fights with everyone who puts the nose out of joint is bad for America - the middle east, Russia, large swathes of Europe, the leftist South Americans, Cuba - all are gunning for the US and the reality check is that you don't have the economic or miliary might to fight them all.

Bringing in the developing countries of Europe such as Poland, staging a new NATO/Comintern stand off via economic and "join our gang" incentives also pisses me off too. Russia might be an aging, slower bear still in slumber, but it holds the keys to a lot of European energy and logistical concerns. If the EU gets its house in order, it is perfectly capable of taming Russia itself, and we don't need the US antagonising it.

So yes to summarise, a US willing to engage in more constructive foreign policy. And one that looks after Iraq. And one which sorts out its economy.

Simple really.. now who do I vote for? Keeping in mind John McCain looks like a zombie.

? quote:What about Global Warming? Its a bit disappointing how the worlds largest super power is not interested in global warming . At least not under the current Bush administration. Their is no money in going green. Your looking to the wrong country for support on that issue.

But there is! If we're not the ones researching and developing the next phase of post-oil technology, it absolutely will affect our economy. All the promising small start-ups won't be here. The next Microsoft won't be American. It doesn't pay immediate dividends, but our economy thrives on the accomplishments of our engineers, scientists and innovators.

? quote:What about Global Warming? Its a bit disappointing how the worlds largest super power is not interested in global warming . At least not under the current Bush administration. Their is no money in going green. Your looking to the wrong country for support on that issue.

as an architect, i am bound to disagree, going green with buildings is an amazing economic step, i'm not just talking solar power, already architects are introducing mechanics into buildings that work on pure hydraulic power, there are many other advances i won't take the time to list, but solar power too has come a long way, it is much more affordable and much more sustainable

the main thing an architect who "thinks green" looks for though, is not necessarily energy savings, but sustainability: making sure a building will last, reusing other materials (i saw a lake house that's chimney was a piece from the Alaskan pipeline, they had managed to make it a structural support too, saving building costs/materials)

going green is much more foreseeable than some admit, i also know a college Engineering student who turned his Subaru Outback into a hybrid and has a lawnmower he converted to run off of tap water

wow that is possibly the longest post i have ever made on the pit, but I'm done with my rant. I might add though that I agree with the scientists that have realized global warming is very much a natural occurrence and has happened in the past[heard of the ice age :biggrin: ], however, we haven't done much to stop its advance

I'm done with my rant.

That you're calling a rant? :biggrin:

Interesting read, though.

EDIT:

"Flood control
You cannot post twice within 30 seconds- press refresh in 7 seconds to automatically resend your post"

Do we really need flood control for a nice and quiet place like this?

---

Why snark works.

:razz: If you're suggesting I get a change in code for a site that's being recoded anyway, you can think again!

? quoting RedWood
I will not vote for McCain because he said he would stay in Iraq for a 100 years if that what it takes. There is nothing to be gained by the dwindling middle class from staying in Iraq. And on the moral side: Even if democracy does spreed across the middle east (it wont) it wont stop the violence. instead of havening different rajeimes committing genocide on each other you would have different democratic states committing genocide against each other. Just because you have a democracy doesn't mean there will be peace. And most important of all, its not our business to police the world, let them kill each other. I could go on with other issues but...

Democratic Peace Theory, look it up.

? quote:
As for who i would vote for. If its a close race between McCain and Obama i will go and vote for Obama, but if Obama is in front by a healthy lead, I will vote for Ron Paul out of principle. I know he is not going to win but i would want him to be the president. Evan if you don't agree with him, he is the candidate with the most answers. I agree with most of what he says. Hear the first 3 youtube vids on him I found.

Ron Paul's 'answers' are incredibly stupid though. If you really think reinstating the gold standard is in any way helpful to the economy you need to take either a basic Economics course or learn some US history. Somebody who gets things so fundamentally wrong deserves no support whatsoever.

? quote:
Forgot to mention i would vote for anyone who promises to pursue Bush and Cheney for conviction and execution.

huh? Why exactly are they deserving of death again? Gulf War II was just cleaning up the mess left by Gulf War I, a mess caused by allowing the international community to dictate how it was carried out. Think of it as a much smaller and less 'glorious' WWII.

What do you think the odds are that the middle east will convert to a LIBERAL democracy with in the next 50 years? Especially with the death hold that their religion has on them.

1 They lie to us and tell us that Iraq has wmd's. (nothing i wouldn't expect from a politician but it is still worthy of a long prison term.)

2 They strong arm the rest of Washington along with the rest of the world in to joining the Iraq occupation. "your with us or your against us."

3 They push the patriot act. A direct contradiction to the constitution. (At this point they should have been convicted of treason.)

4 ect.

These weren't crimes committed against us by some yahoo in washington. They were perpetrated by the 2 people were supposed to trust. Two people who are supposed to act for the best interest of the people of the US. Those 2 deserve to die.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

The US elections - clearly there are some key differences between the candidates, which is refreshing to see in any stable democracy. I'm not aware of the policies each candidate espouses, but i'd look for someone who is willing to maintain a presence in Iraq - if the US leaves, the Iraqi government is more than likely woefully ill-equipped to deal with another large scale insurgency push. I didn't agree with the methods behind declaring war, or the truth when it appeared but I believe the US (and the UK, who are withdrawing) have a responsibility to ensure safety for all the citizens whose lives have been overturned by the invasion and subsequent occupation.

Morally, i agree with you. Now that we are actually in Iraq, it would be morally correct to stay until the job is done. Problem is that it would take generations to do. And after decades of occupation what would we actually accomplish?

Sorry for the double post.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RedWood</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>What do you think the odds are that the middle east will convert to a LIBERAL democracy with in the next 50 years? Especially with the death hold that their religion has on them.</DIV></DIV>

I don't know, probably not very good. However that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be attempted. It's not impossible, Turkey is a democracy and it's Muslim. There's Muslims in all the Western democracies and they seem to get by fine.

There are documentaries about the Iraq occupation already out that show that much of the problems we have been having are directly because of bungled policy decisions shortly after the fighting ended, not because of the people of Iraq being unable to live under a democracy. The first mistake was disbanding the regular military, a pillar of society that gave thousands of men stable jobs and could be used as a police force. Disbanding it threw those thousands of people with military training and weapons out on the street, surprise surprise armed resistance arose. The second was banning all Baathist party members from the new government, which eliminated all the experienced government workers and bureaucracy. This is dumb because to be in the Iraqi government they had to be party members, that doesn't mean they were hardcore about it. Much like in Nazi Germany, the rank and file were just trying to hold onto a job, not fervent believers.

Now I dunno how a forceful conversion to democracy will work, it worked in Japan after WWII but that was a different set of circumstances (unified culture and ethnic group, crushed in a war and forced into total surrender). Time will tell.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>1 They lie to us and tell us that Iraq has wmd's. (nothing i wouldn't expect from a politician but it is still worthy of a long prison term.) </DIV></DIV>

Politicians, lying?! Welcome to reality. In this case however I wouldn't say Iraq's possession of WMD was a lie at all. Iraq had and used them in the recent past, they were under UN inspections to monitor their access and development of said weapons, and we had a continued military presence in the surrounding countries and enforced embargos and no-fly zones because of them. Saddam kicked out the inspectors, which is reason enough to reinvade given past actions, investigators who could have told us the truth of the WMD situation if they hadn't been forceably removed.

It was found out after the invasion that the UN inspectors had succeeded in eliminating Iraq's WMD programs and prevented them from restarting, the very said inspectors that were removed. They were gone for years, which could have given Iraq enough time to restart the programs.

Incorrect yes, but not the bald lie people try to make it out as.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>2 They strong arm the rest of Washington along with the rest of the world in to joining the Iraq occupation. "your with us or your against us." </DIV></DIV>

So f**king what.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>3 They push the patriot act. A direct contradiction to the constitution. (At this point they should have been convicted of treason.)</DIV></DIV>

The Alien and Sedition Acts didn't lead to John Adams being hanged for treason. If you killed every lawmaker who proposed or passed unconstitutional laws we'd have no lawmakers. The constitution is up for debate and interpretation anyway, one man's treason is another man's... good thing?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>These weren't crimes committed against us by some yahoo in washington. They were perpetrated by the 2 people were supposed to trust. Two people who are supposed to act for the best interest of the people of the US. Those 2 deserve to die.</DIV></DIV>

:rolleyes:

I do think they knew they didn't have any wmd's. I think the governments intelligence is far more detailed and accurate then they let on. Witch, for them, would be the smart thing to do.

So f**king what. ...?
How can u say that?

I can't really comment on something that happened over 200 years agao, but yes, he probably should have been impeached after violating the FIRST amendment.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Simply put: I don't want to see another Clinton / Bush in office for a long time. If Hilliary gets elected, thats going to be.... 20+ years of Bushes / Clintons... And I do believe that its a fact (someone wanna tell me otherwise) that the Bush and Clinton families are friends - somethings going on there...and 20+ years of the same people / family.... thats not very democratic...thats more like...what do ya call it....?

Plus im democratic so mcain is out. I'm voting for obama.

---

Posting And You

Obama is the right guy for an image change. To have a multi-ethnic world traveled person like Obama in charge would do wonders for our standing in the global community. I've seen no solid plans from him (or anyone really) but I can see from his campaign that he listens to smart people, and that is very important.

Hillary has the know how, her years in the white house are very valid. What I fear is that she plays the political game too conservatively. She voted for the war, which troubles me because no one debated it! I don't want a president that votes down the party line every time or jumps into things like WAR without looking at the facts.

McCain, he would be the best R. candidate I could think of, he has a strong fair past BUT... he is a TOOL. Turn on the daily show and you will see video of McCain denouncing something 2 years ago and supporting it now. He is just an old husk that will do and say what ever it takes to get elected. So it is a toss up, is he just saying that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 more years? or does he mean it? I dunno.

Personaly I'm fed up with both parties. Republicans would walk in lock step right into a lava pit so ENRON ex-executives can afford another beach house. While Democrats run around like idiots throwing away a sure thing.

I think you're right, Gwil, when you bring up the point that we've more or less made it our responsibility to make Iraq stable. I can agree with that as a point of principle, a moral abstraction. The problem with that stance is that, though it's easily arrived at, it opens two much more serious and complicated questions. How could we make Iraq stable? And even if we had definite plans for it, would we have the means to execute them?

My thought is that we don't know whether the United States staying in Iraq would improve a thing. We don't have the first idea about how to turn a mess of ethnic and religious factions into a safe and democratic nation. And where are the resources coming from? There's talk of cutting taxes now -- now, when the government has had to intervene in several instances to help the economy, when we're fighting an enormously costly war that's doing for us (and for Iraq) exactly nothing.

John McCain actually attracted me in 2000 for his integrity. By all indications, that race taught him that speaking frankly about what you believe, even if you aren't making the right sounds for voters, is no way to win an election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&eurl=http://mccain.bravenewfilms.org/blog/574-john-mccain-vs-john-mccain

To any supporter of his, I say: enlist. If the army will take you, join it now. If it won't, go to aid Iraq in some civillian capacity. Drop whatever plans you may have for life in the States; go sustain a war demonstrably brought about by manipulation of the public. That's what a vote for John McCain asks of the military.

I don't have the same political views I had eight years ago. I wouldn't expect McCain to either. Changing your opinion on a political matter should only be hypocritical if in doing so you break promises. McCain was not elected in 2000, therefore a change in his views does not make him a hypocrite, it makes him human. And old.

In particular, his views on the war as presented in that video might have to do with when he supported the war initially, he was expecting Bush to follow Colin Powell's precedent of overwhelming force to minimize casualties and maximize success. Instead, we got the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which is pretty much it's polar opposite... sending in the least number of troops possible with the least amount of equipment. And since success is not a binary, you end up with the kind of quagmire we have now.

I don't think McCain's views have changed for the better, but I see no reason to bring him down because he changed them. I'd rather focus on the fact that I just plain don't agree with them.

It becomes hypocritical when he makes pretensions to never changing his positions. Consider his line that anyone who says he supported amnesty "is a liar," and compare it with his earlier declaration that "amnesty has to be an important part" of immigration reform.

I think you're right, Gwil, when you bring up the point that we've more or less made it our responsibility to make Iraq stable. I can agree with that as a point of principle, a moral abstraction. The problem with that stance is that, though it's easily arrived at, it opens two much more serious and complicated questions. How could we make Iraq stable? And even if we had definite plans for it, would we have the means to execute them?
My thought is that we don't know whether the United States staying in Iraq would improve a thing. We don't have the first idea about how to turn a mess of ethnic and religious factions into a safe and democratic nation. And where are the resources coming from? There's talk of cutting taxes now -- now, when the government has had to intervene in several instances to help the economy, when we're fighting an enormously costly war that's doing for us (and for Iraq) exactly nothing.
John McCain actually attracted me in 2000 for his integrity. By all indications, that race taught him that speaking frankly about what you believe, even if you aren't making the right sounds for voters, is no way to win an election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&eurl=http://mccain.bravenewfilms.org/blog/574-john-mccain-vs-john-mccain
To any supporter of his, I say: enlist. If the army will take you, join it now. If it won't, go to aid Iraq in some civillian capacity. Drop whatever plans you may have for life in the States; go sustain a war demonstrably brought about by manipulation of the public. That's what a vote for John McCain asks of the military.

You and me have arrived at the same conclusion. I wish i was able to better express myself through my writing. Sometimes it barely seams coherent from my end. I'd hate to see what its like from the other side.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

I voted for Paul in the primary, he got less than 5% in Texas which is disheartening. I guess Austin isn't a good representation for the rest of Texas, Ron Paul is pretty popular here.

Clinton won Texas, and I almost wish I had voted for Obama. Almost. This is more because McCain will likely beat Clinton nationally than any preference I have for one or the other of the democrat candidates. I honestly can't see a lot of difference between them, Obama might help improve the USA's international image though. I'm not in any way against a female president, but I've seen enough sequels lately.

f**k Rush Limbaugh.

I see the distinction between Republican and Democrat as a 'divide and conquer' out of the Nazi propaganda playbook. Substance > lip service. I haven't seen a whole lot of substance from the presidential office in my lifetime, in my opinion. Wealthy businessmen have too much power in this country, I have no fair idea of how to fix that.

---

o

Over the last few years, I regret to say that I've lost nearly all political drive. It's not fun to argue about this stuff anymore, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

I still find it interesting, though, that politics and world affairs haven't really changed all that much. The unknown factor here is technology. Our parents and grandparents were most likely just as divided and outspoken as we are now, but they didn't have the infinite and universally multi-biased memory of the internet to continually show them how petty we all really are.

We know that information, and more precisely control of the distribution of it, can be proportioned to power. These days, with that control in the hands of ordinary citizens and with imaginations and passions running at fever pitch, it's difficult to say what sort of effect the internet will have on the world stage.

The McCain video is a pretty good example: with a library of footage of public officials, it's not difficult to make them look however you want them to look. Don't take this as an attack on the Dems, it's a universal thing that serves to whip both sides into an immediate frenzy. Right now, it's not as big a deal because the percentage of the voting population that relies on the internet is still small. As our children grow and come to rely more and more on globally networked technology, something interesting could actually happen.

This also isn't doom and gloom. :razz: I just thing it will be interesting.

This is quite the thread. I am impressed with the amount of thought you younger fellows have put into this. My general opinions are as follows.

Obama. Not much experience, but ernest.
Clinton. Politics as usual, but if she were President, Bill would also be there, and I feel he was quite possibly the strongest leader we've had in the Whitehouse since Reagan. (Despite his personal leachery.)
McCain. Too old and quite possibly motivated by his days as a POW in Viet Nam with reguard to the war. I see this as a potential problem.

As for voting for third party candidates as a statement of protest, I feel like it's a vote thrown away. There are no viable third party runners, and so if 2 or 3 percent of the populace vote for someone who obviously has no chance of winning, it's a pointless statement(if there is such a thing). My wife voted for Perot in '96. I just laughed.

Iraq. That's a tough one. The Muslim religion is approximately 600 years behind Christianity in its evolution. What we are seeing is roughly the equivalent of a Spanish Inquisition I believe. Religious cleansing. People doing all sorts of horrible things in the name of a God is nothing new. No matter what the rest of the world does, the people there are going to have to evolve religiously and politically at the same pace as the rest of humanity. No amount of military intervention is going to speed things up. I believe it will be several decades before we see a change in this area.

Also, let's not forget that this is just as much about oil as it is about spreading Democracy. We need to ride out the Bush presidency and let the dust settle so we can start taking corrective measures, both economically, and internationally.

So who am I voting for?
I think I will vote Democratic party, no mattter who wins the nomination.

My view is simple, It cannot get worse than the mess Bush has created.

My vote is: Its time for the females to try their hand at it.

I refuse to vote for anyone Bush endorses: Translation, If Bush likes him, there has got to be something wrong with him. McClain= No!

Obama? If he could figure out that he is neither White, NOR Black but an American, then he would possibly have my vote. BUT as it stands, one week he is black and the next White. My head spins with his constant swaying from side to side.

So, we are left with the female persuasion. Let her have a chance. shrugs It cannot be any worse.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.