Democratic Candidates
 

Kucinich is the man. http://www.kucinich.us

Hilary has such a generic left-wing feminist agenda and Obama supports invading Iran.

Belinda Stronach FTW!!

I'm really not sure why, but I would bang her

I'm also not sure why it's relavent because I'm Canadian

Ben, if Kucinich doesn't get in then do you think he'd be interested in running for Prime Minister over here? All of our candidates are useless. If the system doesn't allow for it I could try organising some kind of military coup... my department is a minutes walk from a gun factory so that's a start.

If he did, I'll be your new neighbor.

Also, it may seem foreign (pun intended) to most Americans that Kucinich would actually like to LISTEN TO and USE the United Nations in his plan to withdraw from Iraq, when it is what we should've done in the first place. I can only hope that if he takes office he charges Bush and Cheney for high crimes against humanity. I just find it unbelievable that so many news sources call him marginalized and don't cover him when he is obviously looking out for the people rather than his own agendas.

This guy is way better than Hilary and Obama, but as of right now I'm supporting Ron Paul: Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He wants to abolish income tax and deport all illegal immigrants and HUCK HUCK... BUILD A BIG OL' FENCE BETWEEN US AND MEHICO!

Needless to say, he probably supports trickle-down economics (which doesn't work due to human greed - much like Communism), that only creates greater class segregation. The proper thing to do would be to repeal the tax breaks to the upper 1% (thanks to that moron GW), reintroduce the estate tax, and restore the middle class while bringing up the lower classes by raising minimum wage and creating more viable jobs.

On top of that, millions of illegals not only do the jobs that most people don't want, they pay for social security as well as file income taxes. So basically, he would be giving our economy a one-two punch that would thoroughly fuck America over. The only leverage he has is voting against the war. Far right at its worst.

That does not say that he wants to ship them all back over merely that they become citizens. However, I don't like the fence bit at all, that wasn't there when i read this a couple of months ago. Most illegals do not pay an income tax or social security as the majority of them are payed under the table. I agree that they do jobs that we don't want to and that need to be done, but they could do the same job, get payed a bit more and actually pay taxes and such.

I think that abolishing the income would work well, there really is no need for it. Plus, he wants to get rid of the National bank/Federal bank:

And he supports Free Trade and pulling our troops out.

But yeah, I agree with you on the immigration part, the fence thing is dumb and illegals to provide a service for us but they could provide an even bigger service by being citizens. I don't know all of that you mean by the "trickle down" part, but I'll look in to it.

Kucinich seems like a fairly strong choice. His views on pretty much everything (from economy to the war) are agreeable and I (personally) find his speeches to be rather powerful and charismatic. He's got my vote as of right now, but there are a few choices I need to look a little further into before making up my mind.

Yeah, Kucinich is by far my favorite candidate at this point. I don't know how much of a chance he has, though. Its too bad most people in the US are stupid. I'm glad I get to vote this time around.

Close to none. Lack of coverage and exposure early on will prevent him for being a contender later on.

The main three democrats are awful. I'm hoping for a Gore candidacy or at least some smart vice presidential maneuvering. Why Bill Richardson isn't getting the shot he deserves is beyond me. And if the democrats don't pick him up their completely ****ed.

If the main three you are talking about are Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, I agree. They are hypocritical corporate whores.

We should probably just accept the fact that the United States will never have a real President again. And I'm too young to even say if we ever even have.

I'd say doing that would be admitting defeat to a corrupt political system, but I just realized that I'll be doing the same thing when I vote for the whoever's the Democratic candidate in 2008 because some of the more qualified candidates have no chance of winning.

Kucinich is gaining steam as far as I can tell. I'm going to ask him to come speak at James Madison University in the fall when I write my appreciation letter to him.

He will definitely come speak, but he's not gaining steam.

I cannot deal with another crappy election. Ever since Al Gore lost, it's been getting worse and worse.

Well my boy, Dennis is not your answer. If you want to ensure a Republican loss, you'd best start writing to Chuck Hagel and convince that guy to run with bloomberg so they siphon off the already dwindling republican votes that Romeny was going to have to pick up.

Haha, I think it's been downhill for quite a while longer, but yeah, every single C.E. after Bill Clinton has been horrible.
Still, I think it would be good for Hilary Clinton to get elected, women need to even out in America.

Politics don't work like that.

Yes they do, most public figureheads are politicians, therefore they are seen by the populace as a representation of the times in society.

If what you're thinking is I said when Clinton is elected she'll pass a bunch of womens' rights laws, no, that's not what I meant.
I was merely saying it'd be good for her to get elected to show Americans that women are capable of filling "men's shoes": almost all American women are given salaries an average of 20% lower than their male counterparts, so it's no surprise that millions of Americans don't think women are as intelligent or efficient as men.
Some of these stereotypes would surely be changed, especially if a superpower like the United States was seen to have a woman representative.
Even though Sarcozy (sp?) won in France, there's still hope for Clinton.

I wonder if the voting rate will be higher for 2008 elections, seeing as how there is both a black candidate and a woman candidate.

Except Hilary has been a total hypocrite, still funding the war while proposing exit strategies, just like her unexperienced war-mongering counterpart Barack Obama who is quoted as saying "All options are on the table for Iran" (or something close to it).

Not only is Hilary known to sell bullshit to the voters like it's her job, she's also (same with Obama, once again) a slave to the corporations; a person who would sell out her people for a higher bidder.

No argument from me against that.

Excellent point, Ben,

On top of that, showing women can fill mens shoes is a terrible way to look at the situation for three reasons:

1. This isn't a high school student body we're running, its a massive country with multiple important issues going on at once. You don't say "its time for a woman" you say "we need a leader." Gender should be irrelevent and frankly I don't give a **** if a woman is never elected. It would be nice, but who care? Aren't there a million other more pressing more legitimate issues we could be dealing with? Will Hillary erase the corporate glass ceiling? Will rape stop, will it solve domestic abuse? No, it won't and lets look at it from the converse of your liberal idealistic position. We had a woman governor here in Mass and it was celebrated by all the lefties that thought this was just the greatest thing ever. She ****ed up so bad that it set back women in politics here for 20 odd years. Its not all peaches and cream in the shark tank, this is politics not candy land.

2. how do you want these shoes filled? Just in the position? Because what you get with Hillary is business as usual. She's not just going to be in the position, shes going to act as if any other 50+ white male got into the position. And as I said before, that is going to completely **** woman in politics. Can you imagine if Hillary goes the way of the last 3 to 4 presidents? Just look at any administration and think what it would be like if they could tack on "and shes a woman" to any of those arguments?

"read my lips, no new taxes"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (easy MJ)

"Mission Accomplished"

At least if you had a woman who did something different and got chastised, it would be a case for a "grass is always greener" approach, but Hillary is set to pull the same ol' ****, and frankly its not going to look good for your Netherlands utopia.

3. This might be a conglomerate but what i find most times when a group (usually the democrats) say "we need a [minority/woman/homosexual/alien] to step up and take charge", they rarely give a **** how qualified the person is, they just what that statistic up there, and theres terrible all over the place. Not only will the same situation happen as I mentioned before, but what kind of faith is that in a candidate? We don't care what you think, or what your message is, just lob yourself up there and smile pretty so that we can all feel good about ourselves and lose some white guilt. Its ****ing bull****.

If you want a woman to take office, have her be a woman second, and qualified for the office first. If you truly want some equality, perhaps you shouldn't pay as much mind to the gender or color of a candidate.

Oh and Ben, keep in mind Obama knows rhetoric, and the "all options on the table" maneuver is most assuredly stated to show that he's not weak. The democrats are fighting to get back their strong stance on National Defense that they had prior to the Carter administration. It was reinforced when during the debate, Obama had to back pedal after Biden and Richardson gave tougher stances on how they'd handle a terrorist attack.

The democrats are in the unique position of having locked up their base already due to GW being in office. Can you imagine any democrat voting republican? Probably not. This may be the primaries but their already swinging for the Midwestern swing voter. I had some other point I wanted to make but its gone...damn. Anyway, that might be enough for now.

I think that just goes to show how inexperienced Obama is to come out and say something as stupid as "all options are on the table". Not only is he cutting out his anti-war base (at least the ones paying attention, there are so many liberal sheep out there), but also alienating active duty and reserve soldiers who in all likelihood DO NOT want to go back to the Middle East after their jobs are done.

I agree with the statements about Obama, before he was completely advocating an end to the war, that was definitely not a good move.

For Clinton, a lot of what Big3 said is true.
Still, if she:
1. Gets higher approval ratings than GWB.
2. Is in office when the war ends.
3. Acts the same as those 50+ white male Presidents who were all corporate whores, and manages not to **** up too bad.

It would show America that some sexism could be cut back.

Big3, you saying this isn't a student body is partially true, but comparing how many view the President as a figurehead to how many actually note everything they're doing for the country is ridiculously outnumbered.
Besides, how many Presidents actually tackle everything that needs to be accomplished in America while they're in the White House?

I'm not saying you should just tack on "she's a woman" to any statement, all I'm saying is that she is definitely a major candidate in the election.
And, with the Democratic party supporting an end to the war in Iraq, and her being seen as a lesser evil, if she doesn't screw up if elected, then it will definitely be good for women in America.

Overall, my stance on the 2008 election is anything that gets GWB the **** out of D.C. is for the common good.

I also won't be able to vote in 2008 by a month.
:(

That's such an Americanized attitude in itself. Picking the one who won't suck as bad (thanks 2-party system), when perfectly viable (and better) candidates are left out to dry is ridiculous. Its not even like she is any different than a Republican candidate. She will bolster big business, **** over middle class, and still continue to destroy America's image and economy.

The Americanized attitude is not my fault; do you think I would willingly admit to better candidates being lost in the flood of the race? No, that's ridiculous.
Chastizing me just because I'm picking the lesser of two evils is ridiculous, and frankly, I think you're a bitch for it.
America's elections (especially Presidential) are completely reliant on corporate funding, the Republican Party's main sponsor being Walmart, (the biggest whore out our employees and leave them stranded just make money company) and even though there are better candidates every election, they are always overshadowed by the two main party candidates.
This irony almost parallels the definition of separation of church and state, so why would you meet my logic with malice after I am only thinking in accordance to the way it is?
I'd like to be more idealistic Ben, but that's outside of political elections, not political debate, just elections.
When it comes down to it in elections, especially Presidential, it's the lesser of two evils, not going to change in the near future.
Besides, just because Clinton bolsters big business, it doesn't mean she'll destroy America's image.
An end of the war is where the Democratic party is headed, that's better than where George Bush's veto ended up.
But I agree with her not being ideal, the economy will still be in an even greater recession if she is elected.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif
Halliburton Watch

I mean seriously. Which senator(s) running for democratic nomination do you think helped that one out?

As Kucinich has put it MANY times "The democrats have the power to end this war right now."

They choose not to.

A Democrat is certainly going to be elected 2008, don't you think they're going to be stonewalled into ending the war based on their political mission statement to do so?

Just out of curiosity, how could the Democrats end the war right now? Even with some Republicans against the war, I doubt that they could get enough votes to overturn Bush's inevitable veto of such a bill. Otherwise they would have overturned the veto of the Iraq spending bill.

I'm not saying its not true, because I guess it could be, but I'm just wondering why he thinks they can.

Well congress, in the words of Hamilton, Controls the purse. If they don't give him money, what can he do?

I find it funny that in all this woman/political speak, Condaleeza Rice hasn't got a mention yet. I know she's not running, but I think it's because we all know she used to be a man.

They already tried to do that in a half-assed way by tying funds to a timetable for withdrawal, but Bush just vetoed it. The Democrats really can't do anything that Bush doesn't want them to, since they don't have enough of a majority to overturn a veto.

Politics is a giant chess game. Their forcing alliances with the president. Then in the midterms they will use it against those same reps.

Least thats what i'm going with.

I like Obama.

I enjoy the fact that he actually had to pay back his student loans, and that he even had to have student loans.

I think he's articulate and intelligent and would be an excellent person to help repair the bad opinion people have of the United States.

I think Hillary Clinton is simply the same thing that has been shoved down our throats for years and years, only in a skirt instead of slacks.