This is my bet. The democratic candidate will not be choosen from majority preference, (my bet Obama), rather she, (my bet Hilary) will be chosen by the super-(dooper-party-pooper)-candidates. So I´m betting that Hilary will run against McCain and we´ll have the first ever "first-man"!

McCain appeals to the independent voters, it seems, but needs to shake the old-guard image he carries. (Not everyone is in a 'camp'.) Obama seems the no-brainer, but I'm suspicious of his strategy. It's all BIG PRINT. Something's fishy about him in my mind. Just can't put my finger on it. As for Billary, too much old guard, different flag.

Come on, commit yourself!! Who do you recons gonna win?

Obama wins the nomination and I unfortunately still see Mccain winning the general. Why? I think the American public will once again be scared into voting for 'security' and Obama will be painted as such a huge liberal tax increase guy.

My hope is the social conservatives stay home (which they may be more likely to do with Obama than with their archenemy Clinton).

I heard a whisper from the states that if Hillary were to win the democratic candidacy, there would be a very wealthy New York business man who would fund Obama to run as an independent!

To me this plays straight into the hands of McCain, as the democrat vote would be split. It looks like its semantics now anyway as Obama is probably gonna take the nomination and hopefully get rid of the republicans.

probably a moot point now but I wouldn't see Obama accepting that... he would put a Republican in the White House and damage any future hope for himself as a Democrat. he is a young guy. If he loses, he is still around to fight another day.

Heck, if I could, it'd be for Snoopy:



No, not Snoop



---

How dirty is Hillary willing to fight?

Hillary Clinton engages in shameful fear-mongering offensive

So what are the opinions on Ralph Nader entering the race?


he is making Green my least favorite color

I don't see him having much impact at all this year, provided Clinton doesn't steal the Dem nomination somehow. He had virtually no impact in 2004 (as opposed to 2000) and with Obama being an exciting candidate who appeals to a wide variety of people (particularly on the left), I don't see many people wanting to make a "statement" this year. Most radical lefties learned their lesson after 2000.

I have no trust in the American electorate but I hope you are right

BTW I love your avatar

This is so true, it's embarrassing to be an American over here sometimes when it comes up with people from around the world. I have practiced my German response many times "Wir wünschen Änderung" (we want change - at least hopefully that's what it means!) and that seems to build more of a connection with the person. It's amazing to me how a president can seem to have such a negative international reputation. It's not popularity that counts of course, but it's the resulting lost opportunity for global influence and effectiveness that is so frustrating.

Yeah, we get quite enough of it all over here... Hopefully they won't find our Skype number! Hey, at least they are good at raising lots of money

I've caught up reading posts, and it's a good conversations. Some miscellaneous thoughts (many going back a few posts!)

1. The American Electoral College is antiquated and needs to be abolished, but unlike Super Delegates, it at least has an historical reason for existing- it pre-dates modern technology for travel and counting votes.
2. Each candidate is currently busy pandering to his/her party's base in order to secure the nomination. McCain, who earlier correctly identified the religious right as a threat to America, is now sucking up fiercely. This will be interesting, because he needs them to turn out in force in the general election as well. The question thus becomes would he, as president, deliver to them some of the draconian social policies they crave? Would he reject the theory of evolution? The theory of gravity? (Sorry, couldn't help myself there!) Clinton and Obama, however, who have previously supported free trade as a concept, are suddenly demonizing NAFTA, a trade initiative whose overall effect has been extremely positive for the US, though not without losers. Those losers, not coincidentally, are in states like Ohio. What will either of them do after the primary to not scare independent voters over to McCain?
3. Speaking of doing things, Obama has no track record. This criticism finds no traction, but is legitimate. I personally find his rhetoric very empty, which is frightening, and frankly hypocritical, which is just irritating. He talks about doing things a new way, but runs exactly the same kind of campaign as everyone else. What scares me most is that saying one thing while doing another and hoping the public doesn't notice is a hallmark of Karl Rove's strategy, and that it works.
4. He certainly isn't perfect, but for a TRULY refreshing view of politics, read Michael Bloomberg's Op-Ed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/op...409&ei=5087%0A
5. I find that the majority of Americans who travel outside the (slowly being fenced) borders of the country are not big fans of "W", regardless of political stripe. Anyone feel this is an inaccurate observation? I travel a fair bit, but not as extensively as many who read this post, I'm sure.
6. I'm curious about the opinion of those who live in parliamentary democracies on voting for a party, not the individual. I am often frustrated with the American system, what with only two parties, super delegates, arcane and absurd caucuses, and electoral colleges, but I like being able to vote for individuals, rather than a party. I don't really like either party, you see. I am aware of the limitations of how our votes are counted, but my interest is more on the view of voting for a party. I'm unused to that, and I would have serious trouble doing it in the US.

Thanks, sorry this got so long-winded! I'm procrastinating...

((I have not been following this thread, so I apologize in advance for any non sequiturs.))

Re your assertion that Obama has no track record, au contraire:
He not only served on the Illinois state legislature prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, he has a twenty-year-long record of public service, marked by his impressive ability to unite and inspire people of opposing camps. He has a special gift for oratory (not to be underestimated in gauging the effectiveness of a U.S. president). Clinton touts her "experience," most of which consists of being married to Bill, not to being an elected official; little of this is examined in the European press, not to mention the destructive shenanigans of both Clintons. There is a reason why the media dislikes them both, and Hillary is a highly polarizing figure.

The Washington Post and New York Times online (particularly Maureen Dowd's astute and wickedly humorous columns) are good sources to follow, as are blogs such as the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo.

I think as you have abundantly seen, the US voter is not qualified to elect an individual, deify him and give him that much power, then support the stupid s.o.b through thick and thin through some vicarious illusion of power, that of course the jerk reinforces with political cunning, because they won't admit their own stupidity nor allow their illusions of world domination to be questioned. Whatever.

The parliamentary system shares power, ideally in a manner that does not put excessive power in the hands of one person, and while the position of president is honorable, there is no idolizing. I can think of at least five Swiss presidents, male and female, that I have crossed paths with walking on the street, sitting back to back in a cafe or restaurant or standing next to me shopping. No security and no big deal, just people going about their business.

Perhaps man has not yet evolved enough to evolve an ideal political, or perhaps a system of government free of politics, but everybody has to start somewhere. Maybe take a look at this:

http://www.democracy-building.info/s...al-system.html

http://www.democracy-building.info/s...democracy.html

As to Obama's experience, for me his experience is not sufficiently relevant. I do not like the idea of him directing foreign policy, because his pronouncements are to my ears insanely naive. But you are right, he has been doing something the past 20 years. I don't agree with your dismissal of Clinton's experience, she has done some very good across the aisle work in the Senate. No I am not a supporter of hers- I'm unhappy with both of them!

Thanks for the reply on parliamentary systems. As to the power of the presidency, this has been abused terribly under the current administration, but the three branches of government there is a reasonable balance of power. The pendulum swings, it can be abused, but has so far self-corrected. And I seem to recall that under a parliamentary system Tony Blair managed to take a country into Iraq where public opinion opposed the action. Germany did not follow that course, much to the annoyance of GWB. I accept much of the criticism of the US position, but the response focused on what was wrong in the US, rather than talking about the concept of voting for the party. I do not read in the response how such a system avoids the problems of the US system.

I think this presidential race is going to be great, either we'll get a woman, African American, or moderate republican as US president, and best of all no more idiot bush (worst.....president.....ever), it's a win-win situation. I hope that idiot jeb bush doesn't run for president in the future, though I would not be surprised if he will... grrrr.

What system? Have you read the links?

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, "You can please all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't please all the people all the time." That said, you will have to decide for yourself what form of government:

- has checks and balances the prevent any individual or interest group from hijacking the government and nation.

- reflects the will of the people and is legally bound to serve the well-being of all the people.

Each must find his own satisfaction in this regard, or dissimilate and get lost in endless and heated "debate".

What about a McCain/Obama pairing as president/vice president? Or vice versa.

Discuss.

...umm don't think so.

Obama's strength is that he is the best antidote for the last decade of poison, his uprightness, forthrightness, freshness and resistance to being pulled down into the dirt. McCain, whatever his qualities, belongs to the old school and its might and fight solution to everything.

Secondly, who would they run against, Nader?