Do we really have a choice in Presidential elections?

Question

Does the current field of Presidential candidates disappoint you? Do you see any real changes coming from anybody? Hillary? Rudy? I fail to see any leadership qualifications there. I certainly don't see any force for change. What do you think?

First off, I appreciate the really thoughtful responses. I'm not impressed by any of them, though Obama seems to be the most forthright.
As for you Hillary backers...she's my Senator and as far as I can tell, she's done nothing for the great state of New York. In fact, we're one of the highest (if not the highest) taxed states in the country.
And, if want to know what she's done in the year or so, I can tell you. She's campaigned for the Presidental nomination and effected absolutely no policy changes on a national level. She may have "experience" but it all relates to how to get elected and little in how to make things better.

Opps...my in my previous post I meant to say I appreciate all your thoughtful responses and I'm not impressed with any of the candidates (I do like the responses).

Answer 1

the only one that excites me is Ron Paul, all the others (both sides ) talk the same old tired crap . for the last 40 years there ideals and leadership( if you can call it that ) have FAILED. they hide the true debt by robbing future generations. it is time for a big change in this country

vote Libertarian

the only wasted vote is for the status quo

Answer 2

First of all, most anyone including Pee-Wee Herman would be better than the idiot Chimpanzee that has crippled this country.

Kucinich offers real change, but people don't want real change they vote for status quo, because change scares them and he has no chance of winning.
Obama offers the best chance for change that has the organization and money to win.
Edwards could change our political structure and give the corporate lobbyists a boot. However, it just seems something is missing and not Presidential. He's a great trial lawyer though.
Hillary would be a good President but she turned on her base, gave the war criminal President everything he asked for etc. I dont know, she's accepting a lot of lobbyist money.
Dobbs.. boring will never make it
Bill Richardson would run the country like Martin Sheen on west wing. I think he would be a great President, offering real compassion and careful change. and has extensive experience in foriegn affairs. He would be my first choice if I thought he could win.
Joe Biden is an idiot with a big mouth.. Everytime he would offer change he would sell out to the other side for one reason or the other.
Mike Gravel.. too grumpy but would offer a whole lot of change but he doesnt have a chance and not presidential.
Julliani.. Funny how he is running as the candidate to protect you from terrorists when his city was attacked twice now..
Romney.. Double talking narc-like Republican pig. If there were any change to make it would be to give the rich more
McCain.. Jumped on the Bush wagon and got run over.. Has an image of being old and worn out.. little change although he would pretend like he was making change
Ron Paul... Serious change.. a true Libertarian and I really like this guy. However, he would cut a lot of good programs and that could be a bad change. Overall he could lead this country if he had some type of balance to make careful change.
Huckabee... another BS Republican no change

To sum it up the only way we are going to get real change is to eliminate corporate lobbyist from contributing to candidates, make politicians accountable for earmarks, and eliminate health care insurance companies and replace them with a universal system.

Answer 3

I'm disappointed by the media coverage these candidates are receiving, I feel as though the winner will be whoever the media decides it wants to back because the other candidates won't get the coverage they deserve to get out what their views are anyway. I am so sick of Hillary and Obama, they are not the only candidates. Don't get me wrong, I think I will be supporting Obama and I still think the coverage is unfair.

Answer 4

In short, no.

I could write an encyclopedic article about why this is so, but the truth is that nothing is going to change as long as we have this damned two party system rigidly in place, and it will be in place so long as we allow our current system to rely on campaign money. Third party candidates or mainstream candidates who offer any kind of radical changes are mocked, belittled, and insulted. Look at Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. They scarcely get four minutes of airtime each during these 9-person debates, and are openly mocked by their fellow candidates. Regardless of your opinions about these two individuals, you can't deny that it is unfair to them and unfair to us that they are treated this way. Some might argue that Clinton and Obama are given more air time because they are the frontrunners, but shouldn't it be the opposite? And are they really getting so much air time because they are the frontrunners? Or are they the frontrunners because they get so much airtime? Or is it because they have their grubby mitts groping corporate pockets that other candidates don't have access to?

Michael Badnarik and the green party candidate (forget his name) were arrested in 2004 for protesting at the presidential debates. Didn't they have just as much of a right to be there as Bush and Kerry? Doesn't it bother anyone else that some other anonymous entity is controlling whose opinions we do and do not get to hear at these forums? It doesn't matter what you think of these candidates, but as a citizen I think I have the right to hear their messages and see what my options are without anyone else interfering.

Allowing third party candidates is also a way of forcing democrats and republicans to actually compete with IDEAS and not just with money, money, money. The only reason they continue to abuse their power is because they have power to abuse. Take it away. Make them sweat it out. I guarantee there will be a marked difference in how they conduct themselves. Until then, it's just more of the same lies and manipulation.

Third party candidates DO have some success at smaller levels of government. We need to support these people. If they are ever to rise to the top, they will need to start at the bottom.

Answer 5

NOT RUDY!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

You fail to see any leadership qualifications? What did Bush have? Governor of Texas?

Hillary is a 2 term senator and was first lady for 8 years. She won an Academy award and she was on a defense team, as an attorney, for battered children at Yale hospital! She knows almost every leader in the free world and is on a first-name basis with most. She is also well likes in other countries!

So Bush is an alcoholic, was convicted of possession of cocaine, since sealed, but his public service is a matter of record, convicted of DWI and got into the national guard to get out of Vietnam, assigned to a phased out aircraft, and decided he wasn't going to take a pee test (I wonder why?)so he put the million we spent on him teaching him to fly and flushed it down the toilet, deserting instead to work on a campaign in Alabama!!

The constitution says 35 and US Citizen. She's qualified!

Answer 6

Yes and No The president alone is not the sole power of the government it is also congress and the bureaucracy, not to mention the court system. In my opinion, anyone is better than Bush-Chenney, I rather vote for a 4 year old.

Answer 7

I really think a "straight-shooter" such as Fred Thompson could be a huge assest to the US. Unfortunately we have a large number of people in this nation that have forgotton the principles that this country was founded upon. One of these being that, if you must, you have to be willing to fight for what is yours.....point being OUR WAY OF LIFE. We are in a very critical national situation currently and I feel that a man w/ the integrity as Thompson could be very valuable.

Answer 8

check out Dennis Kucinich

and yes we do have a choice

Dennis Kucinich for president!

Answer 9

The liberal answers are sooooo funny ! you poor little brainless democrats,

Answer 10

NO