I just do not think Obama has a chance. Period. I do not think people are ignorant. I think the Dems in particular want a winner. And really, I am not sure who from their camp that is right now, but its not Obama and I really do not think it is Hillary. I agree with your assesment of her however.

Obama has been in DC for two years. He was sworn into office January of 2005. Not 1996. That is when he was in the state house of Illinois, not the National Congress. Not much time to get into the national spotlight. He is a great figure head for the Dems to bring people more to the middle of the road, but he is all talk and no substance right now.

Edited January 22, 200718 yr by Kwing42

Obama is just an "appeal" candidate with no substance, no experience and no chance.

Edwards should be the front runner for the anti war group. Hilary is a Republican in Dem's skin.

It is interesting this time as we have BOTH parties with wide open races. It will be fun to watch that is for sure.

Are you saying he's simply appeal because of the color of his skin? Not bashing your views, I'm just curious what you meant by that statement...

It is a bit early to be saying who would be a good cadidate...but I'll have to weight what their goals are, and what they set forth to accomplish and what they believe in, how they are going to help make things a bit better.

I didnt want to say it, but that is what I was thinking. I dont like to jump to conclusions, but I would like to know Kwing, what your motivation for saying that was.

All I will say in additon on the subject is that I hope the Democrat party really tries to push the best person and not give into trying to make history with this election.

I think the Democrats are cocky enough to think that whoever they run will have the election sewn up because people are tired of Bush and the Republicans.

I like Obama but I do feel that against a more experienced Republican candidate he might be hurt. Hillary Clinton is not liked at all by many Republicans and Independants who might be on the fence. She is just not the type of candidate to pull swing votes IMO. She is definitely a party candidate. I think Obama or Edwards would have a better chance of pulling in some of those undecided votes or make Republicans switch sides for the election. Hillary would never do it.

My fear is that Democrats think they have it sewn up, and will decide to try to make history by putting the first African-American candidate or the first Woman in the office. And not look at what is best for the nation at this time. It definitely is not Hillary Clinton.

If it came down to Obama or Edwards I would weigh both candidates against the Republican & Independant candidate, but as I said before if it is Hillary that gets the nomination I and I know many others will automatically vote for whoever is running against her.

of the options up there, Obama gets my vote.

I don't think Clinton has the cojones (no pun intened) to be President it's a cruel world and other leaders of countries like the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans would have her head for breakfast.

The Dems need a better/stronger name on the ticket so far I am not impressed with what I have seen and heard.

I think it will be easier for the Republicans to get a strong brand name candidate.

Hillary '08'

I do not, repeat DO NOT base ANYTHING on the color of anyones skin. And I know you said you were not asking it to bash me, but I really hate when the race issue is always brought up. I do not care if it is a man or woman, white or black who runs for office. I vote for who I think is best.

Obama is a relative unknown. Outside of Illinois and those who are into politics (like watching the conventions) even know who he is. I am not saying an unknown can't win, but I do not think he has what it takes...yet.

The day he was elected I heard people mumbling that he would be our next President. WHAT? So thats why I call him an appeal candidate.

Well Obama has been introduced. After his speech a the the DNC, He began to show up on Various TV shows, promotiong John Kerry, and he also spoke of some things he was doing. Im not sure if everyone knows him, but enough know him not to get his name out there.

Again. My feeling is two years as a Senator does not a President make.

Thats my opinion. He will not be the Democratic nominee..and unless a miricle happens, I do not see him lasting the year. IF he actually runs. Right now its just in the early stages. I know of him because I watch alot of the news. But I just asked 10 people in my office and 3 knew him, 4 may have heard of him, 1 thought i was referring to Osama, and three had no idea.

Well I guess those Co-Workers are the people in this world who aren't politically educated and do not vote because anyone, republican or democrat, associated with the 2004 election know who he is. After that speech, he was everywhere. He is mentioned in the newspaper, so if any of these people keep up with their politics, they should know who he is.

And your math equals 11 people

Of these three choices, I would pick Edwards, then Obama, then HRC.

Despite the fact that I'm an African-American woman and supposedly a member of two of the key demographic groups that would favor either HRC or Obama, neither are on the top of my list in 2008. For one thing, I don't think that America is ready to elect either an African American or woman president. I'm not even sure that we're ready to elect a woman/minority vice president. This country is truly backwards. Most people that vote are elderly--50s, 60s and above. They make the largest voting bloc. These voters are just TOO conservative to vote for a novel candidate, even if HRC or Obama had loads of experience. I think it's particularly worse for a candidate like Obama--a member of a minority group. Look at it this way. There is only ONE African-American that serves in the Senate today and only ONE African-American that serves as Governor of a state--that's Governor Duval Patrick of Massachusetts. There's very little evidence that Americans are willing to vote for an African-American statewide let alone nation-wide. The evidence that the American public would accept a woman for president is a little brighter. There are many women governors and senators. We also now have a woman speaker of a House, Madam Speaker Pelosi. Over time maybe in another 10 years or so, Americans might be reconciled with the idea of a woman leading the nation. Not now, IMHO!! It's still too soon!!

Electability is a HUGE factor for my Democratic primary choice next year. I'm not going to waste my time with fantasies of the first woman/AA president. This next presidential election is too important. IMHO, I don't think that this country can afford to elect another Republican for president in 2008. God knows if we did, that person, most likely McCain, would think that we should overthrow the Iranian regime and who knows where next these warmongers would have us go. But again, I admit I'm highly partisan. Take my opinion as you will.

We're going to need someone who's experienced to take over this mess that George Bush '43 has created. The next president is going to need some experience in handling a VERY difficult world environment. By 2009, when the next president takes over, I predict the entire Middle East region will be destabilized. We could see $5, $10/gallon gas. We could see China deciding to call in the debt that we owe them, which would cause a MASSIVE interest rate hike should Pres. Bush or the other warmongers decide to attack Iran (China has oil contracts with Iran). It's going to be a thankless task for whomever becomes the next president. I don't know why any person would want to be our next president with the HUGE mess that George Bush has created. It's going to be hell!! I wouldn't wish the presidency in '09 on my worst enemy.

With that said, the next president will have to be able to take over the job on day 1. We're going to be in such dire straits that we just won't have time for someone who still has training wheels on. That's why I'm hoping/praying that Al Gore decides to get in the presidential race. I did not vote for him in 2000. I voted for Nader. I had some issues with him which is why I didn't vote for him in 2000. However, in these trying times, I think we're going to need someone like Gore with executive experience and has the respect of leaders around the world to get us out of this mess.

If Edwards, Obama or HRC got the Democratic nomination, then of course, I would vote for them. But I really hope that Gore gets into the race. If not Gore, then perhaps Richardson given his Cabinet-level and diplomatic experience (although just like Bill Clinton, Richardson has "women problems.")

I'd definitely like all 3. My first choice is Barack Obama. My 2nd is Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards 3rd of the choices given. But my real 3rd choice is Joe Biden.

Where do I start?

I will state these but won't discuss them. I have discussed them and listened to what so many have said about her but I do not like her at all.

I don't like her character. I feel that she is a crook. There are still so many suspicions about what she and Bill did with the Arkansas stuff. There is enough suspicion in my mind that I cannot trust her. I didn't care one thing about Bill having sex or oral sex with Monica Lewisnsky but all the crooked stuff I did. And Hillary was just as much involved in all that and the coverup. She is an opportunist. She used New York for her political advantage, and from following her record there I don't see she has done anything for the state at all.

Just as much as I have hated George Bush's tenure as President, I equally hated Bill & Hillary's tenure. Bill & Hillary's rise to power in the Democratic party is one of the reasons I no longer trust the Democrats at all. George Bush and many others are the reasons I no longer trust the Republican party.

I can't stand either party at all. Right now of the leading contenders Edwards and McCain are the ones I would like to see run. I don't like any of the front runner.

I no long associate with any party at all. I don't trust either party - one is as bad and crooked as the other. It used to not be that way. I don't vote in primaries anymore where you have to vote totally along party lines because I vote by the man and it is sad that many times it is no longer picking who the best person is but who is the lesser of 2 evils.

But as I said if it came down to Hillary Clinton and anyone else I would vote for the other person. I will never be part of putting another Clinton (esp. Hillary into office) or another Bush as far as that goes.

I am ready for a whole restructuring of our political system. Both parties need to be undone and new ones born. I don't think I will ever be able to call myself either a Republican or a Democrat again. I disassociated myself with both parties because of their behavior over the last two or 3 elections. It is shameful and totally disgraceful. As I said once before the last time I have been proud of our politicians was the day of the 9/11 attacks and they put aside party lines and stood together. There have always been party lines in politics but never like they are today. And there used to be a time when the politicians remembered who they were supposed to be serving, but that is not the case anymore.

Everyone of them is out for number one and pleasing the political "special interest groups" like the NRA etc. Whoever puts the most money into their pockets is who they serve. And to me back to the question that you ask, the Clintons have been far too guilty of that.

Hillary Clinton, nor Bill Clinton is a crook. Kenneth Starr and the neo-cons wasted millions of tax payers money to charge them with something from Arkansas, namely Whitewater, and they had no evidence to prove a damned thing. I love Hillary's character-----she's smart and I love what she stands up for. Bill NOR Hillary Clinton DID ANYTHING CROOKED. Hillary was NEVER President, and I resent when people say she was co-President (that's neo-con hate speak IMHO). Bill & Hillary's rise to power was one of the best things for the Democratic party and for America. Bill Clinton is the BEST President in my 37 years on this planet.

After the way the Republican party has ruined this country during W's reign and the Republicans leading the House and the Senate for the last 6 years (and the lousy Ernie Fletcher's reign of terror as Kentucky's Governor), I will definitley NEVER vote for a Republican for President, Senator, Representative or Governor.

And the CLintons have NOT been gulity of taken money from special interests, George W & Dick and the Neo-Con Republicnas are the ones who are very, very guilty of that. Banks, big oil, insurance companies, big corporations are all huge doners of money to Republicans and that's a fact, not rumors.

Obama is just an "appeal" candidate with no substance, no experience and no chance.

Edwards should be the front runner for the anti war group. Hilary is a Republican in Dem's skin.

It is interesting this time as we have BOTH parties with wide open races. It will be fun to watch that is for sure.

Obama "no chance" "no substance". Pure bullsh i t from a Republican, no surprise. Hillary a Republicans in Democrat's skin. What a load of f u c k i n g crap. I know you don' t believe such crap since you're a dye in the wool Republican.

Hillary Clinton, nor Bill Clinton is a crook. Kenneth Starr and the neo-cons wasted millions of tax payers money to charge them with something from Arkansas, namely Whitewater, and they had no evidence to prove a damned thing. I love Hillary's character-----she's smart and I love what she stands up for. Bill NOR Hillary Clinton DID ANYTHING CROOKED. Hillary was NEVER President, and I resent when people say she was co-President (that's neo-con hate speak IMHO). Bill & Hillary's rise to power was one of the best things for the Democratic party and for America. Bill Clinton is the BEST President in my 37 years on this planet.

After the way the Republican party has ruined this country during W's reign and the Republicans leading the House and the Senate for the last 6 years (and the lousy Ernie Fletcher's reign of terror as Kentucky's Governor), I will definitley NEVER vote for a Republican for President, Senator, Representative or Governor.

And the CLintons have NOT been gulity of taken money from special interests, George W & Dick and the Neo-Con Republicnas are the ones who are very, very guilty of that. Banks, big oil, insurance companies, big corporations are all huge doners of money to Republicans and that's a fact, not rumors.

It just goes to show you see things from one side and I see them from another. The stuff you have said is the same stuff that Democrats have used to defend Bill & Hillary for years. I never bought into it then and I still don't. Just like I don't believe that OJ is innocent, I will never believe that the Clintons were innocent of the things they did either.

As I said the stuff about Bill & Monica meant nothing to me. I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom, but I further lost respect for the man when he couldn't stand up and honestly admit he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Thst just proved to me that I couldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth. And further strengthened how I still feel about the man.

I could never call Bill Clinton's Presidency that great because it was under him that the level of parisanship that we have in this country now started. The sides were drawn and they have been there ever since. Before that there was always partisanship but the politicians weren't as ugly about it as they are today. And the Republicans were just as guilty as the Democrats, but to me the Clintons inspired it.

I have not liked a President at all since Reagan. I started out liking Clinton but turned so against him about midway during his tenure. And from that moment on I have been disgusted with politics in general.

I have voted Independant in the last 2 elections and will probably do so again this next election. I will still look at the candidates. Of these 3 I still stand by my vote as Edwards. After that it would be Obama and even if Hillary was the candidate I would not vote for her.

And you are right about the groups you said that contribute to the Republican party, but there are an equal amount of groups that are big contributors to the Democratic party. They are just a different group. It used to be that the Democrats were for the common folks but the Democratic party of old is gone. They are just as guilty of catering to the special interests groups as the Republican party is. That is just one of the reasons i can't stand either party anymore.