What the??? Is Every Candidate Already Accounted for in the 2008 Presidential Election???

Question

Ok, so each party apparently has three top-tier candidates at this point, and I have problems with all six of them.

Clinton: Too left and scary for me
Obama: A one term senator? C'mon... how can he be commander-in-chief?
Edwards: Somehow, I don't see this guys having the testicles to go after terrorists

McCain: Open mouth, insert foot... and I can't get over the what he did to his invalid wife and family.
Guiliani: Also lacks moral fiber, and only has mayoral-level experience... how can he be commander-in-chief?
Romney: A one term-governor? C'mon. Sure he has the business acumen, but how can he be commander-in-chief?

So, who do you like? and why should I vote for him/her? Is there somebody else you'd rather see announce a bid soon?

LeAnne: I like your comment that anyone with experience should no better than to want to be president. I like Douglas Adams' ("Hitchhikers' Guide" author) quote on the subject: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

GratefulDead: 10 years ago, I would've liked Ron Paul too, but like it or not, we've been driven into a war on terror, that I believe needs to be completed. I'm not sure that Paul is looking enough at our continued need for foreign policy. I'm not saying that the war in Iraq should continue... I never thought it was a good idea to begin with. However, I think we may be living in a new age of necessary heightened military... I've got to be thinking about a strong commander in chief, as well as someone who can solve domestic problems.

Rocker: Thanks for your great expose on the Dems. I, too, like Obama. I'd like to see him become our first black president, but probably not until 2016, when he has enough experience to make the most of his time in the oval office.

Answer 1

I can give you a Democratic standpoint.

I like Barack Obama's ideals, and he's a great speaker too... but he's a baby in politics so... maybe next term for him. He needs more experience under his belt... but he is on the right track!

Hillary is an extreme democrat, and I don't feel that I'm that party-affiliated to go with her. Besides... if she won, think about it. History will say that we elected Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton. Ha ha, I don't think we want to continue the pattern after the second Clinton then. I also don't like the fact that many are planning to vote for her just because she is a woman. I'm a woman too and I don't think that should be the basis for votes.

John Edwards is ready. Even with his wife battling cancer, he is pursuing his goals to the fullest and I believe he is the best candidate there is now. His main goal is to end the war (and about time too!) plus he's creating plans to eliminate poverty and strengthen the education system, as well as creating a system to make heatlh care more affordable... But as with any president, what they promise and what they actually do are two very different things. I feel he is the best (but think about it: if Bush promised us a war during his term, would he have gotten elected? Twice?)

But hey, my opinions are my own and I cannot and will not tell you whom to vote for. I've tried to offer some insight and I hope it helped.

Answer 2

I think you've pretty much summed up the whole lot. There's certainly not a whole lot of experience showing up at the debates - perhaps that's because anyone with any real experience in Washington knows better. Given the present world situation, I wouldn't want the job, that's for sure.
I'm still kind of hoping for a late entry - someone who can truly unite this country and provide some real solutions to the concerns presently facing this nation - we certainly don't need more of the same at this time, and, God forbid, we get some ultra-liberal pacifist in office who wants to negotiate, appease and heap a bunch of useless diplomacy onto the Islamic radicals.
Given the present lot, I'd say it's going to be another one of those elections where the winner is successful not because he/she is the popular choice - but because he/she is the best option given the two candidates who ultimately run.
I believe that's why Bush won the last election - Kerry simply was the worst of two choices.

Answer 3

Actually there are still some stragglers who might join the bandwagon. I'm hoping Fred Thompson will decide to run cause I'm not to happy with the line up right now. Romney is my pick right now. But I have to hand it to Guiliani, he did save New York from financial disaster which would come in handy and he can do the terrorist thing pretty good so I don't know I might give him the thumbs up. I don't care for his moral fiber but I don't know that thats been an issue for a few years.

Answer 4

I have problems with all of them as well, but not the same problems as yours. My problem is that theyre all typical politicians, slick vote-whores who only care about getting in power and staying there. They all dance around the issues and bullsh*t their way through their campaigns, and I think its pathetic.

I'm supporting former Sen. Mike Gravel. Honest, truthful, has REAL ideas for change and reform, no ego-trips, no politics-as-usual, etc. Not sure if youd like him, but you should at least check him out.

www.Gravel2008.us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20BAITNBMmY (Mike Gravel being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer)

Apart from Gravel, the only other candidate I would vote for is Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul.org

Answer 5

i might ought to vote not one of the above. yet, gun to my head with those 3 possibilities i might vote for McCain. i think of he's the fewer of those 3 evils. with the aid of the way, you're a suited female.

Answer 6

The "commander in chief" issue is only an issue if you expect to be at war.

I don't expect to be at war.

Romney is honest, and none of the rest of them are.

Answer 7

yes they all have been chosen sorry