These are not true liberals with the exception of Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson. Clinton and Obama are moderate Republicans, and even worse, Obama is an evangelical. Great, we've seen how that one turns out.
2007-06-20 17:06:48 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
"I'm a Republican so I don't give a f*ck" ... Way to be a real patriot there, pal.
You are allowed to answer the question as an American and not a mindless Republidrone.
I'm for Kucinich all the way! Like you said, he's the only true liberal up there.
However, I am hoping for a last minute "Gore Surprise"!!! I WILL QUIT MY JOB AND DEDICATE MY TIME TO HIS CAMPAIGN! Hell yes.
2007-06-20 17:13:50 · answer #1 · answered by Sangria 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Not at all. The problems I--and most Americans--have is with the extreme right, not moderates. I haveequally little use for those on the far left who think that anyone who doesn't adhere to their notion of "liberal" is somehow a Republican. That sort of narrow-minded intolerance is jsut as bad wherther the person is a right-wing extremist or a left-wing extremist. Both are bigots.
As for Obama--he belongs to an evangelical church--there's nothing wrong with that. Despite the fact that many of the religious fanatics pretend to be Evangelicals, that s not a fair characterization. Many of the religious fanatics belong to other churches. And many evangelicals are not in the least fanatical--or right-wing. Again, stereotyping an individual is simply bigotry.
2007-06-21 00:24:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Aside from Hillary, no. The rest you mentioned are sure candidates while the others will fade off. As in, only three out of ten will win the primaries and be nominated, etc.
I dislike some of Hillary's politics, but the whole Hillary's a Republican mantra is getting a little redundant. She's a centrist. Centrists/moderates get a lot of flack for that because to some, to have against/for mentality is being a flip-flopper. It's called having different ideas.
2007-06-21 00:40:21 · answer #3 · answered by Quonx. 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am saddened by the BIPARTISAN hierarchy. Also it bothers me that Americans would have to feel that they need to be REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT to be effective. For the last few decades, it seems that these parties are more interested in their OWN personal agendas and NOT what the American people want.
I NO LONGER look at party affiliation. I look at the CANDIDATE as a whole and how they will be representing the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and not just their OWN party affiliation and interests.
You can argue that the Democrats have no morals and that the Republican have no scruples. (That would be too stereotypical to generalize in such a way.) I am beginning to think that American citizens are being made to believe that party affiliation is the MOST important thing. WRONG!!! We have had "Bozos" and "Week Leaders" from BOTH sides!
There is nothing wrong with the various parties. Also LIBERAL is not a dirty word. (Have you ever heard of "Conservative Arts?" or "Moderate Arts?"). Also being "Conservative" shouldn't put a person into being RIGID and UNYIELDING. (That's foolishness.) It saddens me that Americans have been kept in the dark and fearful. It places us in a position as SHEEP that can be guided one direction or another. "God Forbid" if we start thinking for ourselves and see these people for who they REALLY are! (And if they are HUMAN, then does that make them WEAK?) **Get Real!**
I say...STOP voting by affiliation and START voting for people who will take care of America AS A WHOLE. "When the American people LEAD, the LEADERS must FOLLOW" So vote for AMERICA (and it's people).
[Okay... I'm getting off my Soap Box now...]
P.S. God Bless America... (Somebody needs to.)
2007-06-21 00:36:14 · answer #4 · answered by dustytymes 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, I'm completely happy with Hillary Clinton. I'm a moderate Independent though, not a liberal or Democrat. You are right that she is a moderate, but she's not a Republican. Being a Democrat does not mean one has to be a liberal. In fact, truly liberal Democrats don't do very well in Presidential elections, the moderates do.
2007-06-21 00:28:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Every candidate running seems(to me anyways, and aside from Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel) to be for someone else...they are all down with lobbyists(aside from the mentioned), and are not what America needs right now...(aside from the mentioned)...
Vote Ron Paul
Vote Kucinich
Vote Gravel
just don't vote for any of those other pieces of fecal matter
2007-06-21 00:23:14 · answer #6 · answered by MekTekPhil 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I was not aware that they have anyone worthwhile to offer, so I have no problem with any of them, any more than I would with any communist.
Though I prefer Howard Dean. He could be very entertaining at times. His scream would have be highly prized in the days of old Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Sit back and relax. Gonna be a long ride...
2007-06-21 00:16:41 · answer #7 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
None of these people are worthy. Democrat or Republican. So far neither party has provided a legitimate candidate worth voting for.
2007-06-21 00:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by krollohare2 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's extremely scary that you consider Hillary and Obama as moderate Republicans.
You seriously need to reconsider the balance in your political opinion.
2007-06-21 00:15:04 · answer #9 · answered by Don 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
How the hell is Clinton a republican? Obama is an evangelical? What the hell does it matter anyway; a huge amount of this country is republican and we all see where the idiots have led us...we're all doomed ;-(
2007-06-21 00:11:18 · answer #10 · answered by amandamoose 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋