So, in these early stages, who're your horses for '08???

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:33 pm

I think it's officially five candidates (six if you want to include Mr. Edwards) in this race. Here's my opinions on each.

Edwards-Next

Clinton-Don't like her but, of the democrats, she's the one I like best.

Obama-Don't know anything about him. He doesn't seem to forward in answering questions, which raises immediate concern for me.

McCain-Used to like. His stance on the borders and the McCain-Feinhold thing soured me to him. I no longer like him. Don't ask me who I'd vote for between him and Clinton because, to be honest, I'm not sure.

Giuliani-Used to not like. He answered well the three concerns I had. 1) Abortion stance. He's pro-choice but anti late term abortions. That's okay for me. 2) Gun control. He said that he wouldn't apply the stringent laws of NYC onto the nation. That works for me, should he stick by this. 3) Gay rights. He's anti-gay marriage but pro-partnership. Works for me. I now like the guy. He's still #2 for me, though.

Romney-I like this guy. He's my fave candidate at this time. Yes, he's flipflopped a bit on his abortion stance, but then it was due to personal reasons. I'm not a Mormon, but won't hold it against him for his faith. I've heard he really did well for Massachusetts. Anybody have anything bad that you've heard about him?

Any other early opinions on the race?

Oh, and by the way, almost forgot.

Gingrich-Too polarizing and I really don't think he can/will win. I'm still not sure if I trust him. I'll take him over McCain and the Dems, but against Rudy and Romney, he takes third.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:54 am

You forgot Bill Richardson.

My order of preference would be...

Richardson- The single best resume of the lot with both executive and foreign policy credentials. As a bonus, he can also help to solidify the Democratic foothold in the southwest. He needs to get on the stick and fully declare before its too late. It's an uphill battle, but look for the mudslinging to bring down at least one front runner. That and a good early show in Iowa and New Hampshire could make it happen for him.

Edwards- The candidate who most reminds me of Bill Clinton IMO. Which both gives me hope and scares me. He's short on executive experience, but has the experience of being through a national campaign already. And he's so slick he could sell mvscal an NBA season ticket.

Clinton- I don't want another family dynasty. She's also too polarizing. Her executive experience is very limited and she appears to have the same problem disengaging from poor decisions as our current President (re: her vote on the war that she only recently has repudiated).

Obama- He's way too inexperienced at this time. In an ideal world, he would run a respectable 2nd or 3rd and throw his support to the front runner after the February primaries. Though I have to give his people props for their first skirmish with Hillary.

There is not a single Republican currently running who I would support. I would like to see Rudy get the nomination, only because it would indicate a complete and total collapse within the GOP.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:16 am

BSmack wrote:
My order of preference would be...

You realize everyone on your list is a troop-hating, abortion-forcing, prayer-banning Maoist?

But wait, there's more...hold on... I'm going through a tunnel...AM radio reception is...fading...

...crackle...crackle...fizzzz...bzzzz....crackle...

Okay, where was I? Oh yeah, they want to force Islamic education on public school children and teach them to put flavoured condoms on gay bananas...

...hold on...an underpass...

...crackle...crackle...fizzzz...bzzzz....crackle...

...and that's why Nancy Pelosi is an Osama loving Marxist.

:)

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:23 am

I really wish Bill Richardson would run. I haven't voted Democrat for years on a Presidential level (although on local I do quite often), and I would vote for him. I don't know if he has a chance against the folks that are more star-like in the Democratic category, but he should run anyway. He has a great record of making things work, the whole budget-tax balance in New Mexico, plus he has been on several national efforts on energy and the environment. I love the guy. However, he might actually be too nice a guy to run for President.

As for everyone else out there in the race, I'm open to see, hear, and read more. The most I've read about is Hillary Clinton, and to be quite honest, her record as a senator is impressive...or at least it is presented as so on her website. The woman works her ass off and has done a lot of bi-partisan bills. Thing is, I love her when I read about her, and hate her when I have to listen to her. I don't know that much at all about Obama. McCain is interesting to a point, but I wonder if there is still a there there. Giuliani is almost too shrewd to be President. To have someone like him in office immediately after W would just f-ing shock the world right out of their socks. That leaves Romney with the wonderful business and organization successes.

Obviously, I haven't done a lot of homework on this...but those are first impressions of the candidates from what I see and read regularly. I just thought when looking for typos that I left out John Edwards, and I think that the fact that I had to remember when proofing says enough on that.

Ang

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:07 pm

BSmack wrote:You forgot Bill Richardson.

My order of preference would be...

Richardson- The single best resume of the lot with both executive and foreign policy credentials. As a bonus, he can also help to solidify the Democratic foothold in the southwest. He needs to get on the stick and fully declare before its too late. It's an uphill battle, but look for the mudslinging to bring down at least one front runner. That and a good early show in Iowa and New Hampshire could make it happen for him.

Edwards- The candidate who most reminds me of Bill Clinton IMO. Which both gives me hope and scares me. He's short on executive experience, but has the experience of being through a national campaign already. And he's so slick he could sell mvscal an NBA season ticket.

Clinton- I don't want another family dynasty. She's also too polarizing. Her executive experience is very limited and she appears to have the same problem disengaging from poor decisions as our current President (re: her vote on the war that she only recently has repudiated).

Obama- He's way too inexperienced at this time. In an ideal world, he would run a respectable 2nd or 3rd and throw his support to the front runner after the February primaries. Though I have to give his people props for their first skirmish with Hillary.

There is not a single Republican currently running who I would support.

I'd pretty much agree with this, although I'd swap the order with respect to Obama and Hillary, and possibly with respect to Edwards and Richardson as well. Something tells me that Richardson isn't running, though. I suspect he'll wind up in the second slot on the Democratic ticket.

I would like to see Rudy get the nomination, only because it would indicate a complete and total collapse within the GOP.

But I don't think that'll happen. Once the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party hears buzzwords like "abortion" and "gay rights" associated with Rudy, they'll unite behind one of the other frontrunners.

Alternatively, I'd like to see Newt get the nomination, if only to further solidify the Republican Party's inevitable march toward its extreme right wing.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:14 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Once the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party hears buzzwords like "abortion"

Pretty sad comment. Pathetic.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:48 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Once the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party hears buzzwords like "abortion"

Pretty sad comment. Pathetic.

Pretty on-target comment.

Where's Biden?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:35 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Once the Deliverance wing of the Republican Party hears buzzwords like "abortion"

Pretty sad comment. Pathetic.
Pretty on-target comment.

Well that's what I meant. It's pretty sad and "on-target" that the in-bred fucks seem to be only ones disgusted by scrambling a baby's body "in utero" then sucking it out with a hoover.

Thank God you and I have passed that and are desensitized to it.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:05 pm

Can you squeal like a pig?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:07 pm

Mikey wrote:Can you squeal like a pig?

It's the inbred fucks that ask question in the movie. Are YOU an inbred fuck ?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:13 pm

Tom In VA wrote: Well that's what I meant. It's pretty sad and "on-target" that the in-bred fucks seem to be only ones disgusted by scrambling a baby's body "in utero" then sucking it out with a hoover.

Thank God you and I have passed that and are desensitized to it.

terrorist threat perceived
terrorist threats followed thru
insurmountable deficit
cost of health care

all these things are not as important as abortion, right?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:16 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Well that's what I meant. It's pretty sad and "on-target" that the in-bred fucks seem to be only ones disgusted by scrambling a baby's body "in utero" then sucking it out with a hoover.

Thank God you and I have passed that and are desensitized to it.

terrorist threat perceived
terrorist threats followed thru
insurmountable deficit
cost of health care

all these things are not as important as abortion, right?

Wow. Nice leap. Very nubile of you.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:23 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Well that's what I meant. It's pretty sad and "on-target" that the in-bred fucks seem to be only ones disgusted by scrambling a baby's body "in utero" then sucking it out with a hoover.

Thank God you and I have passed that and are desensitized to it.
terrorist threat perceived
terrorist threats followed thru
insurmountable deficit
cost of health care

all these things are not as important as abortion, right?
Wow. Nice leap. Very nubile of you.

You guys couldn't start a new thread for this?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:26 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Mikey wrote:Can you squeal like a pig?
It's the inbred fucks that ask question in the movie. Are YOU an inbred fuck ?

None of your business.

But you shore got a purrrty mouf.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm

Thanks Mikey.

Sorry BSmack.

I'm still a fan BizzaroFelice.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm

Tom In VA wrote: Very nubile of you.

You mean nimble?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:35 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Very nubile of you.
You mean nimble?

Either that or I was having a very rare homo moment.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:00 pm

I see you angling for the supple schlongage of the freaking gorgeous.

I wasn't saying you think abortion is most important, I was referring to the inbreds.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:25 pm

mvscal wrote: ........ Fred Thompson are the only two I would consider voting for should they choose to run.

I'd miss him filling in for Paul Harvey though. Fred Thompson strikes me as a kick ass, no bullshit type that I'd appreciate in da' hizzo.

Nice call.

Bizzaro,

Let's not pretend that "the other side" doesn't have mouthbreathers who would reject a good candidate opposed to abortion. That would not be honest.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:29 pm

mvscal wrote:At the moment, my vote goes to None of the Above.

Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson are the only two I would consider voting for should they choose to run.

I'd vote for Hunter Thompson before either of those guys.

Even though he's dead.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:02 pm

Mikey wrote:I'd vote for Hunter Thompson before either of those guys.

Even though he's dead.

Sometimes the dead person is the best alternative.

Sincerely,
voting Ashcroft out of office.

ElvisMonster · Post by **ElvisMonster** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:16 pm

I was really pro-McCain until he started slobbering on the penises of Robertson and the like. Big fan of his ideas about campaign finance reform.

If McCain gets the nod, I'd still have a hard time not voting for him, but Obama (and I admittedly don't know too much about him) seems to talk a good game. I need to know a little more about him before I would consider casting a vote for him. The devil you know, and all. But I guess I've got about a year and a half to do my homework.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:09 am

mvscal wrote:At the moment, my vote goes to None of the Above.

Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson are the only two I would consider voting for should they choose to run.

Duncan Hunter is running, last I heard anyway. Not that he has much of a chance.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:27 am

Neil Diamond in 08.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:30 am

He can't win. He's Jewish.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:56 am

I voted for Kerry and Edwards in 2004. The message they had was a friendlier one and more inclusive of all people. More respectful. I think George Bush is a good man, but he's got some people around him and in his ear that are negative people. Now thy are even attacking and harming other countries and the world view. That's not what I want to see.

I most like Edwards. He speaks well and looks the part too. But I don't know if he'll make it. I think right now McCain has the best chance.