Thanks for encouraging people to vote their conscience...and their dreams, to not just settle. They need to get involved well BEFORE the primaries to give a candidate who isn't bought and paid for already by big business and big government the support he/she needs to stay in the race.

It's not my intent to pry into your business to learn the name of your candidate. You've only given us one hint. I have already chosen my preferred candidate and while I know him to be just a man, I believe that he is a clear step in the right direction. So, it isn't Hillary.

Well, there is another hint: Our criminal justice system has locked away two million citizens, many for victimless crimes. Ron Paul wants to end the wasteful and unfair War on Drugs.

Psst--Irene. He's backing Obama. So am I. So are a large block of people craving change.

I'm swinging towards Obama, also. I think he's smart and knows how to use his smarts. Maybe he's even wise, that rarest of all candidate attributes.

What change are you looking for, and if the choice in the general election is between Obama and Paul (and I hope it is!) which of the two is more likely to make it happen?

Ron Paul's voting record over the last 10 terms reveals that he's been true to his convictions:
* get out of the Iraq War now, not "the end of 'next' year,"--"next" having been defined for the last several years as "the current year plus one"--and don't start any more pre-emptive wars
* cease execution of imperialistic goals as expressed, for example, by the Project for a New American Century which had plans to attack Iraq in 1997 --several years before the 911 attack on America
*end the War on Drugs (i.e. the victimless criminal incarceration plan),
*restore civil liberties removed by such monstrosities as the Patriot Act.

Obama is against neither pre-emptive strikes nor imperialism, as evidenced in remarks made in his 1997 address to the elite Chicago Convention on Foreign Affairs. "...we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good...after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs. I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make ... No President should ever hesitate to use force--unilaterally if necessary--to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others..."

In 2006 Obama claimed, "We cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now. 9/11 showed us that try as we might to ignore the rest of the world, our enemies will no longer ignore us." How does Obama know that, when America hasn't had a policy of isolationism for decades? Say what you will about what made the free world targets for terrorism, it most certainly was not American isolationism!

Certainly a plan for change in the economy is in order. Congressman Paul, ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology already has a plan for a major overhaul to stimulate the US economy.

What everyone seems to be failing to see is that we're NOT electing a president-we're electing a personality and a bunch of qualified advisors.

With Hillary, we know who she's bringing with her and pretty much how her administration will react to any given problem.

With O'bama it's a fool's guess.

The trouble with electing Bush was that he got too head stong and tried to take the reihns himself without the slightest idea what he was doing over the wishes of his military and intelligence advisors. That and a bunch of church-schooled fools that he called "advisors".

"With Hillary, we know who she's bringing with her and pretty much how her administration will react to any given problem."

Best reason in the world NOT to vote for them.

Especially after the bullshit they've been pulling on Obama the last few weeks.

Clavos, you're beginning to sound like an old LP stuck in a groove. Time to lift the needle and try another song...

Alex Hutchinson seems to have easily cut through all of the B.S. and asked a question of us that, in today's world, we may be too uncomfortable to honestly answer. And although I don't necessarily agree with his choice of candidates, (for reasons listed on snopes.com)I think he is 1000% correct in stating this country needs a change.
Having said that, the "next" generation vote doesn't even count, not yet anyway. The baby-boomer generation STILL controls the vote- it's a sheer matter of numbers. So regardless of what their children and grandchildren want for the future of this country, it is their legacy to leave. Yes, they've cared for us our entire lives and most have succeeded in making good decisions with our lives and our future. But will they this time? Who knows?! It is frightening to think that way, but I do not believe it will be doomsday for us (as the media has us believing). We'll go on, this country will prevail because we all believe in the fundementals that brought it together in the first place. The only unclear part is the unknown cost... que sarrah.

I can agree with this but I honestly do not think that our current electoral system is one that will allow any candidate to reach the presidency that does not further the agenda of those who are in control. Election results can be falsified, it happens more than you may think. Also, if one who didnt further the agenda were to somehow get in to the presidential office that president would be assasinated. I am sure of it.

Well, my man dropped out of the race. I was supporting Dennis Kucinich becuase he was the only Dem candidate that was saying things like "repeal the Patriot Act" and "stop funding the war and bring the troops home now."

I looked into Dennis' long 40 year history in politics and I saw that he was always willing to truly put his money where his mouth was and carry out his duties to look after the good of the people, even if it meant great cost to himself or his office. He didn't play around. For example, he refused to allow electricity to become privatized in Cleveland because he knew that if it was privatized, the prices would jump. It cost him the election, but he was right in the long run.

I don't understand why the Republican party was willing to demand Ron Paul be in the debates, but the Dems, including Obama, ignored Dennis Kucinich.

Does anyone even realize that NBC went to court to make sure that Dennis was not allowed to debate in Las Vegas? If ANY of these Dem candidates REALLY GAVE A SHIT about justice, why were they not raising nine kinds of hell and demanding that Kucinich be included?

This election is being decided by corporate media (and by that I mean MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the likes), NOT by open, honest debate.

I have no idea what I'm going to do come November. Obama wants to drop bombs on brown people, something that white America has been very good at for quite a long time. Hillary wants to drop bombs on brown people. John Edwards wants to drop bombs on brown people AND he's one of the authors of the hated Patriot Act.

I guess I'll have to write Dennis in.

Also: I don't trust these voting machines. I used a paper ballot when I voted, but since it is scanned by an electronic reader, I don't trust that either. There is a movie called "Hacking Democracy" that anyone can view on YouTube in 9 parts, that shows how these machines have an exe file that counts votes wrong.

Our elections need to go back to nonelectronic ballots. I'd be willing to do it caucus style if necessary. I don't care, so long as the votes are tallied honestly.

Remember that Josef Stalin once said, "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes."

Obama: "No President should ever hesitate to use force--unilaterally if necessary--to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened."

Translation in a hypothetical situation: "Oooh! Those poor brown people over there LOOK threatening! They MIGHT have the information to build a bomb! Let's get 'em!!"

::blows small Middle Eastern nation off the map::

I mean, haven't we learned yet??

I don't agree at all that the media is directing this election. Does it have an influence? Certainly. So, too, do a number of other interested parties including various corporate interests and others who wield power because they have money and positions of influence. As things are in this country, and have been for some time, the power brokers do have (undue?) influence over politics and government. The media is simply one of those brokers.

Ultimately, the main voice that we as individuals have is when we enter the voting booth. Only there can we definitively influence the results. I know that sounds a bit naive, but that does not diminish the truth of it.

We certainly can and should involve ourselves in the process at a grass roots level. We can become active in local politics as volunteers. We can become active in any number of interest groups.

It is sadly true that most of these groups aren't nearly as anxious to get your time as they are to get your money. Apparently, it's far easier to get people to do the work than it is to get the money necessary to finance it. But I'd guess that if one is persistent, he or she can find a niche to get themselves involved. And, yes, it might help to grease the slide if you pass them a little green.

Often, we too easily shake our heads and walk away in the belief that the power brokers call all the shots. I'd say realistically, they call a lot of them, but not all of them. We DO have a voice. We just have to shout louder to be heard over the din.

B-tone

It's not every election year so many people get to vote a candidate without holding their nose or gritting their teeth. Obama supporters are doing that. We are campaigning and voting because we believe he is the best candidate, not simply the better of two evil or the best to weasel an agenda through Washington.

He speaks strongly to the causes I believe in. As a member of a multi-cultural, multi-racial family, I know what it's like to have people try to squeeze us into boxes that we don't fit in. It is refreshing to have a candidate who is fighting to not be marginalized based on preconceived notions of who he should be or what he should believe in. I believe strongly that justice demands we see people as individuals and he is making people take a look at him as a person, making them move beyond his race and his family name. Whether or not they like what they see is irrelevant to the fact that he is making them look at him and he is not afraid of what they will see. Anyone who has ever been marginalized in our society knows the courage and conviction that requires.

I agree that we know what to expect with Hillary, but this year, I will not vote for the devil I know, because I believe the opposition has the best interest of the American people at heart and will be a good steward of the public trust. Sure, it is a gamble. It's a gamble with any of them, but imo, Obama is a gamble worth taking!!!

Good post - but easier said than done. Often times people don't vote for their candidate, because they don't identify with any of the candidates.

This year, you'll see that big time on the GOP side, where every candidate can satisfy 3/4 of the base and alienate 1/4.

The Democrats seem to be more unified, but when it comes to a national stage, I doubt we'll see a candidate garner a majority.

Jet: With O'bama it's a fool's guess.

Huh. He's Kenyan, he's American, he's Indonesian... now he's Irish?!?!?

That's not what I meant Doc. I meant it's a fools guess as to who and what kind of cabinet and advisors he'll bring to influence his decisions.

That's right, it's time to look PAST policy details. What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that policy details are a distraction from the big picture or something? Boy, it must be a real bonus that Obama is so utterly clueless about the specifics then.

Let me tell you about vision. HRC addressed her graduating class at Wellesley about her vision for the future, about how young people need to engage and be active in making the world what it can be. And then she spent more than thirty years doing that by working on a grassroots and on a federal level to promote women's rights, children's rights, HUMAN rights. Obama talks the talk, but what the hell has he done to really Make the difference that he's looking for? He played dirty Chicago-style politics. He denigrates the work of the people who Have been making a difference. He fails to use the opportunities he's been given (The Subcommittee on Europe, anyone?), and he's a hypocrite about what other people do (He hit Hillary on Kyl-Lieberman after he had already sponsored Kyl-Lieberman with teeth- the Iran Counter Proliferation Act of 2007).

Here's the long and the short of it: Obama talks a good game. Hillary has been playing it for decades.

Partisanship is not evil, and only the extremely short-sighted think that it is. Bipartisan pandering will lose women access to reproductive rights. It will destroy our economy. It will get American soldiers and middle eastern civilians killed. Partisanship just means standing up for real progressive values, something that Obama knows Nothing about.

As I've said before, Barak Husein Obama gives s great "Martin Luther King" impression, but when he's done with the serman and rabble rousing, you realize you've been blinded by personality, but don't really know what his answer or solution to a problem was.

"it must be a real bonus that Obama is so utterly clueless about the specifics then."

"but when he's done with the serman (sic) and rabble rousing, you realize you've been blinded by personality, but don't really know what his answer or solution to a problem was."

Not only does he talk about his plans and policies in his stump speeches, they are also completely spelled out in great detail here. Check it out.

The myth that he has no platform or ideas on the issues is bullshit propagated by his opponents and the MSM.

And it's a lie.

As you all spin your wheels, in the great charade called the Presidential Primary, I wonder what you would do, if you were to realize as I have, that it is all for naught. Everyone clamoring for their candidate, arguing various positions on the issues of the day. Such a commotion, such drama!

I do however suggest to those of you that are interested in politics and "electing a president" that you go about the business at hand. What perchance is that? Do I have to spell it out for ya?

The game is rigged, the machines are invisible for a reason, your vote quite frankly is meaningless. Oh you can go on kidding yourself, and occasionally proclaiming "hey I dont like paperless voting machines either", as if you have to live with them. As long as people in this country do not rise up in vehement indignation over this issue, all the hoopla in the world, isn't gonna change the outcome. And those people that have rigged said machines are having a field day laughing at you, all the way to the proverbial bank.

It is a show put on for you and me nothing more, to make you feel as if you are in a participatory democracy. You are not. Do you really think that they made invisible (but hackable) voting machines as an accident? I frankly believe they did it to see how much of this bs you would swallow. Did it ever occur to you that all of this talk among the various voting machine vendors about source code being so proprietary, is absurd on its face. How complicated is it really in computerese to make a program that tallies votes? Yes or no, him or her, its about that simple. As simple as the most elementary form of binary code.

So keep on what your doing folks, talk about the candidates, and who you like and why, and argue through the night about this or that, it all means nothing, unless the vote counts, and we the people know that our vote counts, frankly NONE of you know this now. That is the problem and most of you are not able to face up to this obvious fact.

Actually, I think it's true of all the candidates to one degree or another. HRC has a lot of detail about her agenda at her WEB site as does Obama. I have perused McCain's and Romney's internet offerings. They both have a good deal of detail. It's just a question of whether you like those details.

But Obama has at least as much detail concerning the pertinent issues as anyone. Add his eloquence and it makes for a pretty good package. The fact that Obama is a good communicator is important to the office of president. GW is NOT a communicator. He has been characterized as devoid of curiosity and rarely asks questions.

Obama looks to be one who WILL seek knowledge and will keep the lines of communications open with his people. I don't believe that Barack will be our deliverance, but he may bring a breath of fresh air to the stale battened down mind set that has prevailed in DC for may years.

While I still support HRC, I will not be at all dismayed by an Obama nomination, and/or an Obama presidency.

B-tone

Jet, I wasn't trying to throw in any Irish stereotypes. I was making fun of you because of the apostrophe you inserted into the name Obama...!

Oh........welllll......my bad

Hey, Doc,

I had a professor at Indiana University many years ago named Eugene Oyang. Of course, he was NOT Irish. He was Chinese and taught oriental poetry and fiction. He was excellent, but most people assumed he was of the blarney when I told them his name thinking it odd that he taught things oriental (I know, it's not PC now to use the term "oriental," but that was the name of the courses he taught back in the early 1970s.)

B-tone

Well, if you can just point in the direction to find out what each canidate thinks about shipping and the Jones Act...

IMHO, the point of the article was to do exactly the opposite of what is happening in these responses.

Hutchinson deliberately didn't mention his candidate of choice in his article. This is because he didn't want to debate over who should win. All he said was to search our own hearts and those of the candidates. The idea was not to vote for someone based on political party or popular opinion, but on dignity and strong character.

I won't get into the name chanting, but there is one candidate mentioned frequently on this page who is a well-documented double talker and hypocrite. This is what Hutchinson was talking about. Do the research, and, if your candidate is in fact a flip-flopping, spineless, stereotypical politician, don't vote for him/her EVEN IF HE/SHE IS YOUR PARTY'S CANDIDATE.

Honestly, I'm still in this process. I've heard so much negative about all of the candidates, that it is truly taking awhile to sort through it all. But, I can assure you that I could care less to which party the candidate belongs.

Partisan politics is inherently bad for the country. If you blindly vote for either party, you're hurting the country. That reduces politics to two drunken idiots yelling at each other in a bar about whose football team is better. Your self-worth is not aligned to your political party. Your self-worth is attached to the decisions you make and how you treat those around you. Voting blindly, as either party's sheep, might hurt your own self-worth. Ever wonder why people get so hotly angry over politics? It's because they see their self-worth in their party, which is honestly as ridiculous as getting into a fight in a bar because your sports team lost a game. If you do anything less than vote blind to party, the election is a huge popularity contest, a conformity convention. You might as well be arguing over your favorite tv show or which starlet is the hottest.

I echo the same sentiment as the article; leave race, sex, and political party at the door. Vote for the person whom you honestly believe will do the best job.

I bet you five bucks that within five more posts this conversation will revert to the mindless name chanting again, despite it being in complete contradiction to the article's message.