God help me, I am completely politically lost. I trust my opinions on Scotland (or, say, Pakistan) a lot more than I trust my opinion about anything going on in the United States.

That said, all I care about is A Democrat, please. And a Dem Congress. Give money, give time, give energy. I worked for Nader and Kucinich in my day, and I have no idea what I would do now. I just want to sit in a corner and make websites.

Al Gore.

Mayor McCheese / Shark Blimp 2008

Joe Quimby

I loooove this election -- it's like some crazy opera!!

I'd like to vote for Edwards based on his positions (not for actually being in the White House). Between Obama and Hilary I think either one would be a good president. Hilary seems more practical and pragmatic to me.

Barak & Hillary. As Copilots. Seriously - I'd like them both in the White House as P & VP & I dont' care which is which.

I loooove this election -- it's like some crazy opera!!

It's better than the last one, which seemed like a nightmare. Not only are there no Bushes running, but there are actually *exciting* candidates this time who are capable of inspiring hope in people. This is important. Americans are bred-in-the-bone optimists, and they will vote for the most positive candidate.

Oh, and supposing the Republicans win again, though I'm really not expecting that, who is your best case scenario there?

Hillary Clinton is my candidate. I don't dislike Obama in the least. I will admit that I am mesmerized by his speeches, and when his young family is on the stage I can identify with him. I wouldn't mind if he won the election, I agree with most of his philosophies, but I believe Clinton is the most qualified. The "Who Should I Vote For?" quizzes place me with Kucinich, Biden, Clinton, then, Obama. I'm rooting and voting for Clinton since she is a viable candidate. I've liked Clinton from the start and judge her on her own merits. I won't lie; I would love to see a woman in the White House. I've never been so excited about a candidate.

For some reason Edwards doesn't thrill my soul. If I hear about that damn mill one more time, I'll spit. I do appreciate his determination and fight. He's not a quitter. The same with McCain. I have to respect the fact that he keeps coming back. It's not easy.

If the Democrats can't win, I'd prefer McCain to be president over Huckabee or Romney. I think McCain is the most qualified, and the most sensible, on the Republican side.

Clinton for P, Obama for VP.

Obama or Clinton, for different reasons. Both are capable of leadership, but their priorities differ. Clinton's an adept strategist and incredibly competent and knowledgeable. Obama's got something no amount of experience will provide: exceptional judgement. I'd love to see them share a ticket. Barring that, any Dem over any Republican, and if I had no choice, I see McCain as the only sane Republican candidate.

i hope that whoever gets elected has the good sense to appoint mike gravel as secretary of MAAAAAT-LOOOOOCK!!!

At this point, I'd be perfectly happy with either Obama or Clinton (though I'd probably pick Edwards if I had my druthers). But I'm really interested in how the VP selection pans out. Given the changes Cheney has brought to that office, it'll be interesting to see how the Dems approach it.

And I still think there's a credible chance that Bloomberg enters the race if Clinton wins the nomination.

I'm also on the clueless train. Seriously. I have no idea what's going on.


Therefore, I'm voting for Kang until things improve.

I really, really, really liked Mike Gravel and I wish he was being taken seriously. And this is not just because I work for a rock museum and I could so totally have gone four years making bad puns about gravel. And then, even though I don't personally like Kucinich much - he gives me the creeps - well, I agree with him on almost everything. And the more I hear from Edwards, the better I like him, so he's my third place candidate. But I am a dead yellow dog Democrat, so I will be out there voting and working for any Dem candidate, even though a) I wish the 2 party system would be abolished and b) I would also like to abolish the Electoral College and c) I am if anything a socialist in fact and at heart and nothing in this country is ever left enough for me.

That's a good subquestion: where does Bloomberg fit into your preference ordering? Below all the Democrats (or all the Republicans if you're that way inclined)? I don't have a vote, but if I did I think I might be quite keen on him. I'm probably more sympathetic to managerialistic technocrats, and less interested in rhetoric and single issues, than the average voter, so I probably can't judge the likelihood of a President Bloomberg accurately.

mygothlaundry, I really admire your sense of political realism. When election day rolls around, people who find the mainstream candidates should remember the razor thin margins of recent contests. When you get down to it, either the Republican or the Democratic candidate will be the next president, so you'd better vote for the one you'd most prefer/least cringe to see in office. Those Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000 have my everlasting ire.

As for me, I'll say Edwards/Obama.

Bloomberg said he supported the Iraq war and, according to Wikipedia, he criticized the idea of a timetable for withdraw. So that's a negative, but I do like the idea of a 'managerial technocrat' and his independent streak. Though, really, I probably have a positive bias because he comes from my industry and has liberal social ideas. Ideologically, I think his administration would be similar to a Clinton administration, except he won't be hounded by the opposition the way Clinton would. And I'd certainly prefer him to any of the Republicans. But the best thing about a Bloomberg administration would be the shake-up that it would cause among the two major parties.

Well, I'd love to see Gore as pres, and either Gravel and Richardson as veep, with the other one getting a major Cabinet post.

But when it comes time to vote, I'll be holding my nose and voting for the Democrat, no matter who it is. Well, actually, I'll be paying attention to polls in my state, and, if it looks like the Dems have a lock on it, I'll go for a third-party candidate.

I remember watching both Clintons being interviewed during the 1992 primary season and both my (then)wife and and I said at the same time, "I wish that she was running instead of him". It's 16 years later and I can finally vote for her. But, now I like Obama as much or more than her. I'd be more conflicted about it if I lived in a state where it mattered but since the nomination will surely be decided by the time it gets around to PA, I'll just watch the show.

*big thumbs up to box and his strategic voting*

Best scenario? *I* become President.

As I said on another thread, my fantasy is that Hillary and Barack have a secret agreement that whoever comes in second, between them, becomes the VP nominee.

I can't see that ticket losing.

But, alas, I fear there is to much ambition and bad blood there. . .plus, for any of us, 4 years at VP would be a groovy gig, but anyone who actually gets to where they are is probably pathologically ambitious.

Wouldn't four years of Hillary or Obama as VP be quite a waste of their talents? No offense to the office, but what can a VP really do? (unless they're Cheney, who I suppose is sort of a spokesperson for a certain subset of the population)

Well yeah. Gore seemed to do OK in it, and of course he SHOULD have gone on to the White House from there. But that's the exception.

But, usually, considering that the president is not a witless tool, there is probably not enough for a VP to do.

Best case scenario? Why, me, of course. Or Kucinich; we're both about as likely to make it.

Really, though, Obama or Edwards, or some combination thereof.

The prospect of Clinton as Democratic nominee makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. The Right is divided and confused at the moment; Hillary would provide them with the focus they need. I'm not saying that she wouldn't make an OK president, but I can't think of a more divisive candidate.

Utopically? Whoever's the Libertarian Party nominee. Except if they cave in to the hype and draft Ron Paul (who I recently discovered is more of a "states rights totalitarian" than a libertarian with all his "supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill of rights in individual states" crap).

For reals, between a police-state/christian-theocracy and a nanny-state, I'll pick the lesser evils. In order of preference: Clinton, Edwards, Romney-or-Obama-or-Giuliani (I refuse to consider the scenario where I have to choose between these unless it actually happens), then I don't give a crap anymore.

I was hoping that Gore would run, and I think he'd win if he ran. (Nixon lost a very close election in 1960 as a sitting vice president and won in 1968.)

I'm a single-issue voter this election: the next president will determine the makeup of the Supreme Court for decades, since all of the liberal Supreme Court justices are over retirement age and Justice Stevens is 87. Since I don't want any more conservatives on the court, I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is and doing what I can to help them get elected.

I think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the next president (I like Edwards OK, but I don't think he'll get the nomination). It's great that they're both well qualified on their own merits, and either one would be a historic development. We're way overdue for a woman president, and electing a black person would be a major healing step considering the history of the United States.

So far Democrats seem much more energized and excited about the election than the Republicans do. Both Clinton and Obama got more votes than any of the Republican candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Senator Clinton could win a close election. Yes, she's divisive, but she's a known quantity and people already know if they like her, don't like her, or could live with her. The Republicans will try to slime her, and she'll smack that shit down (unlike Kerry's wimpy response to the Swift Boaters). I think she's learned from the last two elections that you only need ~50.1% to win, and she's tough enough to win that way. I also think that there are millions of American women that are very excited about voting for a woman, and those votes might be a surprise because some of them may tell pollsters/significant others one thing and vote for Clinton in the voting booth.

Senator Obama has the potential to win by a broader margin and appeal to more Americans, and that would be better for the country. (Two of President Bush major failures are not unifying the country after the bitterly-contested 2000 election, and intentionally dividing a unified country after the 9/11 attacks.) Obama's message is inspiring, and his hope-themed campaign will crush the fear-based campaign the Republicans are running. A positive-themed, forward-looking message usually beats a downbeat one (see Reagan's 1980 "Morning in America").

I don't think Senator McCain would win if he were the Republican nominee. He betrayed the integrity that won him his maverick reputation in 2000 by sucking up to President Bush and Jerry Falwell, and he would be the oldest person to ever become president. The last time we tried that, the president was senile years before he left office. If he's the nominee and the Democrats don't include this picture in every ad I'll be disappointed.

I really, really liked that the press/polls said that Hillary needed to get a campaign makeover to win in New Hampshire, and that she stuck to her orginal platform and won. Don't underestimate her.

What do you think about Bloomberg, kirkaracha? I think he'd do okay in your Supreme Court appointment test.

Also, what about Gore as VP again? I know it's a shitty consolation prize, but I think it makes sense for a couple reasons:

1. It makes any ticket unbeatable, IMO. He brings as much 'statesmen' cred as any other potential VP--and that's something I think an Obama ticket would really need. And unlike other statesperson-like VP candidates, he actually brings more excitement to the ticket rather than being a downer (like, say Wesley Clark would be). A Clinton ticket doesn't really need a VP to bring experience, but I think she could use a shot in the arm excitement-wise. The downside is that the right-wing nutcase will howl--but they're gonna do that with Clinton anyway.

2. The downside of Cheney's power grab could be flipped around as a positive--Gore in a more powerful VP role could be very interesting.

3. And perhaps that new VP role would be enough to attract Gore to the job. What other job (aside from President, of course) would give Gore more opportunity to get things done?

Fred Thompson.

(No I didn't say Huckabee, believe it or not.)

But the dream, she is a pipe one.

I'll be in my bunker if you need me. ;-)

I'm so with you on McCain, Kirkaracha.

My choice is Bill Richardson for Pres. Smart, experienced, social progressive, financially realistic, and speaks Spanish. I love Kucinich's ideals, but I don't think he could do the job. Clinton, Obama, or Edwards would be great. It's an uncommonly good candidate group. They're all really smart, and that's what we need.

Oh, and a Democrat, of course. Huckabee's religious fervor scares me. Romney is a slick, rich, self-serving white guy. Turns out it's harder to buy a presidential election than you thought, eh Mitt? I'm no fan of libertarianism, so Ron Paul isn't my choice, although he's a fun addition. Maybe he can be the Republicans' Ralph Nader.

As I just posted in the other thread, it is my understanding that for reasons unknown to me, most people of even moderately right of center have formed the belief that Hillary is evil and vice incarnate - all the more confounding due to my perception of her as a rather bland political figure.

I still have no explanation for this phenomenon.

I would love to see a woman as president, but not Hillary. Too center/right for my taste. Plus anybody who voted for the war is either an idiot or a scumbag, there is no excuse. I don't actually agree with any of the candidates except Kucinich. If I have to pick, I'll take Obama over Clinton, but only because I think he might be slightly less compromised.

Word on the ground from friends who've spent the past week volunteering in NH is that Clinton and McCain like and respect each other a great deal. Each was not-so-secretly pulling for the other, because they trust each other to be civil and substantive.

Which to me speaks volumes for both of them.

Incidentally, it bugs me a little when people say "Hillary" but use surnames for all the male candidates -- but I guess there's a reasonable case that it's just disambiguation.

most people of even moderately right of center have formed the belief that Hillary is evil and vice incarnate

Too center/right for my taste.

I could probably write a Master's thesis on the perceptions of Sen. Clinton in the media and on the internet. It's fascinating how more right-of-center commentators latch on to her domestic policy and label her "pinko commie" and more left-of-center commentators look at her foreign policy and label her "closet conservative".

but I guess there's a reasonable case that it's just disambiguation.

"Senator Clinton" is sufficiently disambiguous, I think.

tangerine: Yeah, I caught myself yesterday using Hillary and then surnames for the other candidates. I wasn't too happy with myself and I tried to justify it by telling myself I was just disambiguating from Bill. But that just isn't true. I think thread I went with Clinton and I feel better about that.

Though, to be fair, her campaign logo says "Hillary for President."

I thinkIn this thread I went with Clinton and I feel better about that.

Hillary is the brand name for the product.

Incidentally, it bugs me a little when people say "Hillary" but use surnames for all the male candidates -- but I guess there's a reasonable case that it's just disambiguation.

As someone who has at least twice taken my lumps on Mefi for complaining about this exact same irritant, thanks for saying it. I was thinking about raising the issue again in a recent thread, but, you know. (I believe I have noticed a slight shift towards calling her "Clinton" rather than "Hillary" now that the primaries are underway. And that she's won one, as well.)

From my Canadian perspective, the leftier the better for President, even though "left" in America means "pretty much dead in the centre" in Canada. So wherever that would leave me... being a democratic socialist, who would I vote for, if I were American? I'm not sure. Is there anyone?

The Republican candidates though... holy crap, what a bunch of barrel scraping the party is doing, no?

Yeah, and as far as disambiguation goes... how many Clintons are running for the nomination? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out which Clinton is being talked about.

I am very sympathetic to disliking the non-parallel refernce to "Hillary" as such rather than "Clinton," and had a bunch of conversations about it last fall. But I stopped feeling bad about using it, because it's very clear that her campaign prefers it that way. She's been branded as "Hillary;" it's what her logos say, it's what her campaign signs say, it's what her headquarters office sign says, and it's what her website says.

She has a problem with no simple solution: just "Clinton" risks confusion with her husband, and also has the feel of elections gone by. If she insisted on "Senator Clinton" it would be so formal that we'd then have to have "Senator Obama," "Governor Huckabee," "Former Mayor Guiliani," and the like, which would get pretty stilted. And if she's just "Hillary," there's an impression that she doesn't have to be taken seriously.

I think the identification of her as Hillary was a choice she made with her campaign advisers, so I accept it. Also, a lot of Obama supporters call him Barack, and Rudy Guiliani's local campaigners, signs, and HQs call him just "Rudy," so it really seems like there's more going on than just not according her enough respect. IT's a branding thing.

Let's split the difference: from now on we should only refer to her as "Rodham".

Point taken.

To be fair, I've never liked referring to any political figures by their first names; to me it sounds falsely intimate if the speaker's a supporter, and patronizing if it's coming from an opponent. But I guess the false intimacy is exactly what some campaign strategists are aiming for.

And in this case there are obviously some special circumstances.

Well, I'm going to go on calling her Hillary, because in my mind, the signifier Hillary is attached to Hillary Clinton and the signifier Clinton is attached to Bill Clinton. Until someone goes in there and rearranges my brain, I will continue... And insisting on "Sentator Clinton"? Could one be any more prissy? Ick.

What do you think about Bloomberg, kirkaracha? I think he'd do okay in your Supreme Court appointment test.

I don't the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy. He's changed from Democrat to Republican to Independent, which is too opportunistic for me. He's said multiple times that he isn't running, as recently as last week I think, so running would mean his word's no good. I also don't like egomaniacal bazillionares running ego-stroking campaigns. (Mitt Romney has some of the same strikes against him.)

I'd like to see a third- or multi-party system, but don't think an ego campaign is the right way to get there.

My choice is Bill Richardson for Pres. Smart, experienced, social progressive, financially realistic, and speaks Spanish.

Those things are all true, but it's a popularity contest and he's boring. He'd make an excellent Secretary of State. (And a competent one for a change.)

My choice is Bill Richardson for Pres. Smart, experienced, social progressive, financially realistic, and speaks Spanish.

Also, no longer running, apparently.

I'm an Obama man at the moment, although I'll vote for whoever the Dems nominate. I think that Obama should offer Edwards a cabinet position maybe, since I like him, too.

One more thing about Senator Clinton: her response to the "likability question" in the recent debate shows self-deprecating humor and charm that's more approachable and likable than the caricatures about her.

I hadn't seriously considered how I feel about the Republican ticket before, but I think the only one I could live with would probably be McCain. It really bothers me that he spent the last 8 years sucking up to Bush, but the rest of those hacks they're running would be intolerable, except by comparison to the current president.

Kinky Friedman for President.

Nobody who is actually running has made me want to vote for them and I don't really care at this point.

Best case: The election is suspended, a stand-off begins between protesters and military, some members of the previous administration are caught by protestors and lynched, the democrat leadership throws in its lot with its persecuted fellow-oligarchs, then there's a military-supported coup and a new constitutional convention.

Ha ha pompom. The loss of human life is never something to be celebrated. Social unrest disrupts the economy, and the poor suffer the most. Get real.

pi - I'm pretty sure pompomtom was alluding to political "democracies" elsewhere in the world. Not a celebration, or even a joke really. Is satirical the right word? I don't know.

I am very much for Obama right now - to think we could have someone like him after eight years of Bush is incredible. I'm also strong for Hillary, but am very put off by her machinations and negativity.

Of course, the best case is that all of America wakes up tomorrow and realizes that voting for Lumberg (Romney) and Gomer Pyle (Huckabee) is a national embarrassment, and the GOP dissolves entirely.

I honestly cannot believe anyone in their right mind would find either Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson anything but absolutely fucking laughable. I give McCain a slight pass because he comes off as something of a politician.

Yeah, Lipstick Thespian - Fred Thompson?! I've got news for any Americans who would consider voting for him. The intelligence he shows as a DA on Law & Order is scripted.

He doesn't have a hope in hell though.

The loss of human life is never something to be celebrated.

Moral absolutes should always be treated with suspicion.

Well, I long ago decided on Edwards as my favorite, although it's quite possibly a meaningless choice depending on how things go.

I find Obama inspiring and intelligent as hell. I also find Hillary Clinton smart and capable and more electable than some people think, and she's done well in eliminating reservations I may have had about her in the past. But she's so much less of a natural than her husband that it shows, painfully, time and again. I must say she handled that "likable" question quite well (and obviously with preparation).

I still like Gore in principle, but I don't think he'll ever consider running again. He's found a new life outside of electoral politics and seems to feel he's getting more done there.

I have always said that the door is open to any Republican who's better than the Democratic nominee, but it's never happened in my lifetime. The third party guys -- Perot, Nader, etc. -- have always been just too compromisingly weird in one way or another. (I was eligible about three weeks too late for the 1980 election, but I might have voted for John Anderson in that one.) Bloomberg is a bit inoffensive (standard-issue liberal Northeastern Republican) but he'd have to have some really spanking awesome ideas to get my vote.

McCain I could live with, I guess, except he'd stay in Iraq for 100 years. Huckabee is sort of the outsider version of Bush -- a could-be inoffensive/tolerant evangelical. Giuliani is scary material. Decent mayor, but what a fucking nutjob. Romney is like the Stepford candidate or something.

I wouldn't wish being VP on my worst friend ("a warm bucket of piss" being the all-time apt quote), but it's a better job since Reagan started using Bush as an all-around right-hand-man. We'd have to cleanse it of its shadow-presidency Cheneyisms, though. I think that any of the three Dem frontrunners would work well with the other (though electorally they have different prospects), and be a decent back up in case of ... you know.

Best case? There won't be a White House in 2009.