Almost Election time....are you registered to vote?

[Govinda]

I'm speaking on behalf of my boyfriend, who is an American citizen and has an overseas vote registered in FL. I myself like to keep abreast of American political news also, since my government likes to fellate your government and therefore your choice of leader exerts influence upon my life.

Obama/Biden is an excellent ticket. Obama's ideas are music to my ears; an American politician using the words 'nuclear' and 'disarmament' in the same sentence, while avoiding the word 'unilateral'? Do my ears decieve me, or is that just so ****ing good? Jesus, this guy might have a brain.

To myself and Voting Boyfriend, America's potential foreign policy is naturally the most important thing. Obama will want to talk, not shoot; and Biden's experience is the perfect platform for making that happen without starting a war.

McCain just looks like another Bush. He'll want to have a go at Iran, he really will not help the Russia situation, and then there's 'WOOHOO LET'S DIG UP ALASKA AND THEN GO HUNTING, WE CAN ATTEND MY DAUGHTER'S SHOTGUN WEDDING ON THE WAY HOME' Palin. If McCain, an elderly man and cancer survivor, were to die in office, that woman would be in charge of the USA. Christ. At least if something happens to Obama, Biden will be there to take over (that, sadly, seems likely).

Bush said he was a 'war president'. I get the feeling that McCain would be too. Palin might have the George Dubya Funny Factor, but she's also frightening.

If the rest of the world were registered to vote in America, Obama would win a landslide. If he then decided to relocate to the Rest of the World his chances of getting shot would go down too. But such is life when another country is the hegemon. I hope you guys understand just how ****ing frustrating it is for us. This election will impact on our lives in so many ways, and all we can do is watch and hope you vote well. The last two times...the last time Bush won, the UK's biggest paper ran with the headline 'HOW CAN 154 MILLION PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?'

So, uh, yes, my boyfriend would like you know that he is registered to vote and that he hopes his vote will actually get counted this time (most if not all international ballots were disqualified last time, including boyfriend's, his father's, and his sister's votes.)

[Zell Dincht]

The last two times...the last time Bush won, the UK's biggest paper ran with the headline 'HOW CAN 154 MILLION PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?'

So, I have been having a very stressful day... just now reading this line, I laughed so hard and feel much better. Thank you for that. Its good to know headlines like that get ran.

As far as just what will happen to this country... oiy oiy. It makes my head hurt with intense pains. Very intense pains if McCain wins.

[Sasquatch]

I'm not registered to vote yet, but I'll do just like I did last year and register as an Independent. Contrary to what some people may think, I'm not a Republican, I'm more of a Libertarian.

Obama/Biden is an excellent ticket. Obama's ideas are music to my ears; an American politician using the words 'nuclear' and 'disarmament' in the same sentence, while avoiding the word 'unilateral'? Do my ears decieve me, or is that just so ****ing good? Jesus, this guy might have a brain.

Obama's got a lot of "good" ideas. He just has no ideas on how to go about actually doing anything, because he's done absolute NOTHING in his political career, except advance. He's like the kid at school who goes to the next grade every year, but never does any work.

Obama will want to talk, not shoot; and Biden's experience is the perfect platform for making that happen without starting a war.

Obama will want to talk when we need to talk, and talk when we need to shoot. That's the problem many people have with him.

He'll want to have a go at Iran ...

He mentioned bombing Iran once in a joke -- and that was in reference to Iran funding Iraqi insurgents. Obama has mentioned, seriously, invading Pakistan -- an ally of the United States.

he really will not help the Russia situation

There's not much the U.S. can or will do to affect the Russia situation. Neither candidate has said much about it.

and then there's 'WOOHOO LET'S DIG UP ALASKA AND THEN GO HUNTING, WE CAN ATTEND MY DAUGHTER'S SHOTGUN WEDDING ON THE WAY HOME' Palin.

That statement isn't ignorantly prejudiced and a personal attack at all, is it? How about "YO YO, LET'S GO CAP A PIG, SMOKE SOME CRACK, GET MY BABY-MAMA AN ABORTION, AND EAT SOME CHITLINS" Obama?

Sarah Palin protects Constitutional firearm rights (good), supports drilling for oil in Alaska (good), and has a pregnant daughter (who cares?). Plus, she' hot. What's not to like?

If McCain, an elderly man and cancer survivor, were to die in office, that woman would be in charge of the USA.

Not until this election -- and not until Palin was announced -- did I ever hear any liberal asking whether or not a VP or VP nominee was qualified enough to hold the office of President.

Christ. At least if something happens to Obama, Biden will be there to take over (that, sadly, seems likely).

The sad thing is that many people who support Obama completely ignore his total and complete lack of executive experience and instead focus on Sarah Palin's decent, or even mediocre amount of executve experience.

If the rest of the world were registered to vote in America, Obama would win a landslide.

If the rest of the world were registered to vote in America, the United States wouldn't be a superpower. Americans are GLAD the rest of the world doesn't control American politics.

If he then decided to relocate to the Rest of the World his chances of getting shot would go down too.

Please don't tell me you think he's likely to get assassinated because of the color of his skin. It's because of the color of his skin that he's in the position he is now.

the last time Bush won, the UK's biggest paper ran with the headline 'HOW CAN 154 MILLION PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?'

Bush's opposition was John Kerry, and they called Americans dumb for voting for Bush. See, THIS is why Americans are glad they're not controlled by the rest of the world.

So, uh, yes, my boyfriend would like you know that he is registered to vote and that he hopes his vote will actually get counted this time (most if not all international ballots were disqualified last time, including boyfriend's, his father's, and his sister's votes.)

Not last time, that was the time before, and Gore was trying to get them disqualified. Because most international votes are from U.S. military stationed overseas, and the military votes overwhelmingly Republican.

Now, as far as Republicans go ... McCain's not a conservative, but Palin was an excellent pick for him. Not only does she draw Hillary supporters away from Obama, she's also conservative enough to draw in former Republicans who think McCain is too liberal. Not only that, she will also help to shut people up if McCain wins, because you KNOW some people will talk about how he only won because America's prejudiced and Obama's black.

[Koda]

Now, as far as Republicans go ... McCain's not a conservative, but Palin was an excellent pick for him. Not only does she draw Hillary supporters away from Obama, she's also conservative enough to draw in former Republicans who think McCain is too liberal. Not only that, she will also help to shut people up if McCain wins, because you KNOW some people will talk about how he only won because America's prejudiced and Obama's black.

I agree with most of what you have said in this paragraph with the exception of the Hillary supporters. Palin is an excellent speaker, and yes, I agree that she has done wonderful things for Alaska. However, that in itself is not going to sway my vote to McCain. Last night I watched McCain accept the Presidential Nomination and listened to all I could take in his speech.

Palin stated the other night that Obama said he was going to raise the middle class American's taxes as well as the small business owners. That is not what he said. He did say he was going to start taxing the wealthy and the big corporate businesses and give the middle class, lower income, and small businesses a break.

Personally I believe that McCain is balancing his campaign on his P.O.W. past. He has agreed with Bush 90% of the time, and last night he even said he was proud of how Bush has ran the country since 9-11 !! That statement right there was outragous! Statistically there are only 32% of the American public that thinks George W. Bush is doing a good job. Apparently, McCain is now one of those 32%. But during the primaries, it was a differnt story.

Thousands have died because of Bush declaring war in Iraq. A war we should not even be in, in my opinion. So I think he definitly helped make my decision last night. Obama may not have years and years of experience behind him, but he does have the American peoples best interest in mind. And with Biden there with him who does have many years experience, I think they will make an outstanding team in the White House.

As far as the 'black' comment. I would certainly hope that we as a country have gotten past that. Yes there are those that are extremely ignorant when it comes to equality of all races, but if you watched the Democratic Convention, all three nights, there were more whites there than blacks supporting him. That should say a lot to many. And personally, I'm not opposed to having a black person, hispanic, white, or purple person as President as long as they can run the country and do what's best for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy.

I agree, eight years is enough, it is time for a change.

[Clint]

Now, as far as Republicans go ... McCain's not a conservative, but Palin was an excellent pick for him. Not only does she draw Hillary supporters away from Obama, she's also conservative enough to draw in former Republicans who think McCain is too liberal. Not only that, she will also help to shut people up if McCain wins, because you KNOW some people will talk about how he only won because America's prejudiced and Obama's black.

Seriously, Palin doesn't draw Hilliary supporters. Now, I'm not an American, so I don't know much about it, but I did see some of the Democratic National Convention, and Hilliary praised Obama and told her supporters to support him. So if they truly support her, they will go by her word and her judgment, and support Obama. They're not going to support a radical republican with views practically the exact opposite of Hilliary's views, just because she's a woman.

[Sarah]

They're not going to support a radical republican with views practically the exact opposite of Hilliary's views, just because she's a woman.

Never underestimate the power of American stupidity. There are numerous amounts of people who don't pay attention to or understand what the policies and ideas presented to them are and just vote based on appearance and charisma. Even worse are those who vote under a certain party just to be a part of it. There's a lot of that here in Massachusetts, where everyone votes democrat because the people they know are doing it.

I am currently registered as independent. I could technically be called a centrist, but I have a strong leaning toward libertarian.

Personally, I am completely unhappy with the lack of choices for candidates. I hate how the media always whittles away all of the good candidates by completely ignoring them. I'm inclined to still vote for Ron Paul, even if he did drop out, since there is no choice for a vote of "lack of confidence in presented candidates." I suppose I could write that in, if I wanted to, like I am with Ron Paul. It really doesn't matter anyhow, with the way the votes are counted. Massachusetts will always be counted as democrat. Plus, votes don't technically count. Everything is ultimately up to the electoral college. (If you remember, they have screwed us over before.) I have principles I need to stand for, though. I'm too proud to concede to the lack of choices presented to me.


*sigh* My biggest fear is McCain getting elected. While I think both candidates will continue to run our country bankrupt, I think McCain will do it much more quickly.

[Sasquatch]

I agree with most of what you have said in this paragraph with the exception of the Hillary supporters.

As has been said, never underestimate stupidity. Just like there are people who would vote for or against somebody because they're black, there are people who would vote for or against somebody because they're a woman.

Palin stated the other night that Obama said he was going to raise the middle class American's taxes as well as the small business owners. That is not what he said. He did say he was going to start taxing the wealthy and the big corporate businesses and give the middle class, lower income, and small businesses a break.

Many, many small businesses gross more than $250,000 a year (before expenditures), and Obama would raise their taxes. Besides, taxing the wealthy isn't right either. This is Capitalism, not Socialism -- when people make more money, they get to keep it. It doesn't matter if you think they have enough or not.

Taxing the "rich" instead of taxing the middle class is a political ploy anyway. Gas prices are high -- do you think they'll go down if Obama gets in and makes oil companies pay even more in taxes?

Let's say they tax Wal-Mart. Of course, huge income, huge expenses. Instead of taxing the people who shop at Wal-Mart, Obama taxes Wal-Mart. What does Wal-Mart do? Raise their prices. Tell me, how does that help the average middle-class Wal-Mart shopper? They're still paying more, and their money is still going to the government, it's just not direct. They get upset at the evil corporations and not the politicians who are sucking money from them.

Personally I believe that McCain is balancing his campaign on his P.O.W. past. He has agreed with Bush 90% of the time, and last night he even said he was proud of how Bush has ran the country since 9-11 !!

The first time I ran the 300m Intermediate Hurdles in high school, I barely made it through them. I don't have much for running endurance, but I started sprinting out of the blocks. Bad idea. Out of ten hurdles, I tipped #7, ran into #8 and pushed it over, cleared #9, and tripped myself up on the last one, sending me face-down into the track. It was rubber and not asphalt, but I still ended up with pieces of rubber embedded into my hands and knees.

But I tried. I had never done it before, but I gave it my all coming out of the blocks. Sure, I screwed up. Sure, the only reason I didn't come in last was that I accidentally kicked that last hurdle into the next lane, tripping the only guy that was still behind me. But I picked myself up and finished.

My girlfriend, my girlfriend's mother, my girlfriend's sister, and two track coaches told me they were proud of me.

Are you getting the point of the story, here?

Thousands have died because of Bush declaring war in Iraq.

The President can't declare war. And Congress authorized the troops.

Obama may not have years and years of experience behind him, but he does have the American peoples best interest in mind.

Obama has accomplished exactly nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch in his political career, except for advancing in political position. Not a damn thing. He has absolutely NOTHING of any impact on his resumé. Why do you think he has America's best interests in mind if he's only had his own interests in mind since he became a politician?

I agree, eight years is enough, it is time for a change.

One of the biggest problems with Bush is that he has increased spending and increased the size of government. The only "change" Obama would offer is an increase in the speed of the problems.

Plus, votes don't technically count. Everything is ultimately up to the electoral college. (If you remember, they have screwed us over before.)

Of course they count. Electoral votes are the ones that make the real difference, but the popular vote controls the electoral vote.

I especially wouldn't say that the Electoral vote "screwed us" out of Gore. To that, I would say, "Kudos, Electoral College!"

I have principles I need to stand for, though. I'm too proud to concede to the lack of choices presented to me.

True, that does suck. The way I figure, there are three reasons to vote for Candidate A. One, obviously, is that you like Candidate A better than Candidates B-Z. Two is that you only kinda like Candidate A, but you know that your favorite candidate, Candidate C, has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. (This is most people's reasoning, including mine.) And three is that you absolutely hate Candidate B -- who is the only other candidate with a chance of winning -- and that Candidate A is their only competition. (This is what happened during the last two presidential elections.)

*sigh* My biggest fear is McCain getting elected. While I think both candidates will continue to run our country bankrupt, I think McCain will do it much more quickly.

McCain won't expand government nearly as much as Obama will, and all of his tax cut proposals have been paired with spending cut proposals. That's one of the few things I like about him. Typically, Democrats are for taxing more and spending more, and Republicans are (or were, at least) for taxing less and spending less. Bush taxed less and spent more. McCain, as liberal as he is on some issues, plans to tax less and spend less.

[T.G. Oskar]

Alright, I don't have the right to vote for the Presidential Candidate for the United States, but the decision right there is crucial, VERY crucial for me. You see, where I live, the decisions of Congress rule out, but we have no representation save for a guy who can scream all he wants, and sadly has no vote over there. So we need a President that's willing to consider us part of the States, or give us the help to achieve our complete liberation from the disguised direct control the US has over us.

And I don't think McCain is the right choice.

First, I'd have to deal with the War on Iraq. That war was completely needless, and for many reasons. First, it was proven and pretty much accepted by President Bush that there was no immediate threat to the United States by their armament, even though several visits from the UN were at first accepted and then rejected. You can let the police search your house with a warrant, and maybe you can hide some stuff, but when you see the police several times looking for the same thing, right or no, you have a right to be pissed off. Second, Saddam wasn't exactly a saint, but he held the reigns of Iraq. At his command, the various factions over there were under control, with a system that would make the Russian Intelligence agencies green of envy. Yet, instead of making an intelligent decision, they showed full force and deposed him, failing to realize the immediate repercussions that made. I don't place Saddam in a good light, nor I intend to, but one thing is certain: they had to think more of "how to keep that control over the radical factions and prevent great losses" than "get Saddam and dance over his remains". Honestly, we've lost a great deal of information and artifacts of ancient Persia because of the little coup. And apparently they still aren't capable of holding the peace out there; otherwise, they'd already leave town and return home.

I know some people around here don't like what Clinton did as a president, but I always remember how he handled the Kosovo situation. It was a definite menace to the peace of Europe, but he worked with the situation. About 3-4 months later, all of the deployed units were either already home or about to return. Comparing Kosovo to Iraq and/or Afghanistan may seem a bit off, but it tells a lot about presidential decisions. The world saw Bush as a complete moron; how they'll think of McCain, who seems to support Bush's decisions?

Third, and I dunno if you share this idea, but the US has been one of the reasons oil prices soared to the points they have reached. One of the reasons seems to be the inefficient ways to prevent the fall of the dollar currency to the Euro, while another seems to stem from the decisions at Iraq, and the threats to Syria and Lebanon. There are other reasons, I'm sure of that, but there should not be doubt about the US as a main reason for the sudden price spikes. Heck, this would have been prevented if the countries of the world shifted their efforts to more effective forms of energy production. But, the world still depends on petroleum, and because of that, prices spike. And there ARE already pretty effective ways to harness and PRODUCE (note the captions in this word) the necessary fuels to produce this energy...I mean, the shuttles use a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to lift off, right? Why then can't we shift some of that production into hydrogen fuel cell production, and slowly stop our dependence on oil? At least the car industry would see a flourish, even if it's a long-term process. Now, would I trust a man who seems to support the decisions of an oil tycoon, or the decisions of a Chicago suburb man who found a way to reach his position as candidate for presidency, proving that not all black people have to be thugs or junkies, nor fall upon ridiculous stereotypes?

At least on the area of energy, I'd rather trust the Chicago man. I can't trust a party that placed an poorly efficient president twice. One of them stolen, no matter what the Supreme Court says since they pretty much were proven wrong; the reason Bush remained was because Gore realized it was better to stop that, and refuse to defy the Supreme Court of his own country. Gutless or not, that was a wise decision, for it would have been terrible to see a good president being hunted by the Supreme Court in vendetta. And don't tell me the US wouldn't be willing to persecute a man in courts for personal vendettas: right here where I live, that's pretty much proven.

I must admit, I really wanted Hillary Clinton to win. She seemed a woman with reasonable points, plus with the support of a husband that happened to be a former president. And a good former president, as well, regardless of what he did with his personal life (and let's not talk about Bush, he has proven to be a bad president with a bad past behind him. I recall he dropped the National Guard in a shady incident, am I right?) I must admit that Obama looks to me like a Manchurian candidate, and the looks of Joe Biden do nothing to dispel that vision; yet, compared to McCain and Mrs. Palin, I think it's better to take the risk. Really, if McCain wanted to choose a female candidate of which no one save Alaskans have heard of until now, just to appease the Clinton voters, that was a bad choice. And if he really thought he could choose a MILF to get the young and inexperienced voters attention, I want what McCain smokes, 'cause it must be good. Not that I'm a smoker of any sort, just using the symbolic expression. Bible-thumper or not, she's of the ultra-conservative sort that we cannot afford to have at any position of supreme importance without a balancing act that I fear McCain can't provide. He's proven to be weak-willed despite his proud claims of being a soldier, given that he retracted from his views at Iraq after a visit there? Either what he saw was what Bush wanted to see (in which case he proves to be malleable to the interests of people, as he can't seem to request a further investigation by his own means and outside the views of his party), or he always thought of it that way (which proves that he's not the right person to balance the ultra-conservative views of Mrs. Palin, and that may place the Congress and the Executive Office in a constant state of warfare), or he genuinely made a decision to change his views after what he saw, which proves that Bush made a hasty decision and that he must make a stronger decision or face the watchful eye of Americans wanting solid responses, not conjectures or "hunches".

Now, I must admit that Honey's European view of things strikes me as deeply interesting. She seems very well informed about what happens at the United States, and compliments it with her point of view from the European front, namely the United Kingdom front (how's it now that Blair is no longer in power?)

Honestly, I've been always attracted by the main goals of the Democratic Party, and a bit sad by their perception of the media as weak, as if the voters were guided by a form of Social Darwinism where being weak but focused on guaranteeing the well-being of the common man pales at being the strong guy that leans for the rich class and their gross expenditures. Now they have a guy that has a degree of charisma unlike his predecessors, with a good vision of what he plans to do (yet not the actual look to support that), and it's sad to see the Great Old (Proud and Bastard) Party wants to chafe him as "elitist white wannabe with a sleek tongue but no actual commitment". It's bad to judge a book by it's cover.

But it's worse when McCain blew the cover and provided an abstract of his work. It doesn't attract me, were I to have the chance to vote.

[Sasquatch]

First, I'd have to deal with the War on Iraq. That war was completely needless, and for many reasons. First, it was proven and pretty much accepted by President Bush that there was no immediate threat to the United States by their armament ...

It was never a war against Iraq, it was a war against terrorism. Saddam funded, equipped, and trained terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist himself. Are you trying to say that the U.S. has never been under terrorist threat? Or that terrorists weren't a bigger threat with a leader of a country as a buddy on speed-dial?

... even though several visits from the UN were at first accepted and then rejected. You can let the police search your house with a warrant, and maybe you can hide some stuff, but when you see the police several times looking for the same thing, right or no, you have a right to be pissed off.

The UN botched Iraq through and through. And Saddam never give them complete access, even after being threatened with military action. It would be like the police searching your home, but you telling them that they can't look in your bedroom. The next time they come, they can't look in your bathroom. The next time they come, they can't look in your living room. Should they REALLY think you're not hiding anything?

Second, Saddam wasn't exactly a saint, but he held the reigns of Iraq. At his command, the various factions over there were under control, with a system that would make the Russian Intelligence agencies green of envy.

You're giving him kudos for the torture, rape, and slaughter he used to control the population? Are you serious?

Yet, instead of making an intelligent decision, they showed full force and deposed him, failing to realize the immediate repercussions that made.

I guess a year and a half of diplomacy -- after ten years of diplomacy -- was a "rush to war".

I don't place Saddam in a good light, nor I intend to, but one thing is certain: they had to think more of "how to keep that control over the radical factions and prevent great losses" than "get Saddam and dance over his remains".

Granted, the possibility of as much violence without Saddam as there was with Saddam wasn't a high priority. The priority was to take out a big friend of terrorists.

Honestly, we've lost a great deal of information and artifacts of ancient Persia because of the little coup.

We lost information and artifacts because of looters and terrorists. Would you rather some of them be lost or all of them be kept for Saddam's personal use?

And apparently they still aren't capable of holding the peace out there; otherwise, they'd already leave town and return home.

It takes time. Taking out Saddam was the easy part, the hard part is rebuilding the country so it can survive without a tyrannical dictatorship.

I know some people around here don't like what Clinton did as a president, but I always remember how he handled the Kosovo situation.

He didn't handle the Kosovo situation, NATO and the UN did. If you want something Clinton "handled", look at the Battle of Mogadishu.

The world saw Bush as a complete moron; how they'll think of McCain, who seems to support Bush's decisions?

Any clue on how much Obama has supported Bush's decisions, or how often Obama "voted with Bush"? Why should we care how "the world sees us" anyway?

Third, and I dunno if you share this idea, but the US has been one of the reasons oil prices soared to the points they have reached. One of the reasons seems to be the inefficient ways to prevent the fall of the dollar currency to the Euro ...

And you think that the recession Clinton cause and passed on, coupled with a larger recession as a result of terrorist attacks (that might not have happened if Clinton didn't gut the military and intelligence complexes) might have something to do with the bad economy?

... while another seems to stem from the decisions at Iraq, and the threats to Syria and Lebanon.

How much oil do Syria and Lebanon produce?

There are other reasons, I'm sure of that, but there should not be doubt about the US as a main reason for the sudden price spikes. Heck, this would have been prevented if the countries of the world shifted their efforts to more effective forms of energy production.

Bush has devoted more money to research "alternative energy" than all other Presidents combined, and plenty more than any other country. The problem, as of yet, is that there are no more effective forms of energy production.

But, the world still depends on petroleum, and because of that, prices spike. And there ARE already pretty effective ways to harness and PRODUCE (note the captions in this word) the necessary fuels to produce this energy...I mean, the shuttles use a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to lift off, right?

They burn liquid hydrogen and use liquid oxygen because things need oxygen to burn. Shuttles also use huge rockets that are extremely inefficeint, not small engines.

Why then can't we shift some of that production into hydrogen fuel cell production, and slowly stop our dependence on oil?

Because it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than we can get out of it. The most common form is electrolysis through water (usually seawater, because the salt and mineral contents make it a better conductor), but, obviously, electrolysis takes electricity. Basically, it costs more than it's worth. We put more into it than we get out of it. If we can find a better way to get Hydrogen -- and find a better way to use it -- fuel cells would go mainstream. Until then, it's a nice idea, but not much more.

At least the car industry would see a flourish, even if it's a long-term process.

Exactly. I've maintained many times that private industry will lead the way. There's no need for the government to pass laws that set fuel mileage standards, because companies give people what they want. If people want cars with better mileage, car companies will make cars with better mileage, period.

Now, would I trust a man who seems to support the decisions of an oil tycoon, or the decisions of a Chicago suburb man who found a way to reach his position as candidate for presidency, proving that not all black people have to be thugs or junkies, nor fall upon ridiculous stereotypes?

First, McCain has repeatedly discussed alternative energy research, he just realizes that it will take a long while, and that drilling our own oil will relieve the country's reliance on foreign oil, create jobs and boost our own economy, and bring down fuel prices.

And second, are you honestly giving support to Obama because he's black, but not a stereotypical black? That's what it sounds like, with the idea that he "proved" that not all black people are stereotypical (like there haven't been successful black people before).

I can't trust a party that placed an poorly efficient president twice. One of them stolen, no matter what the Supreme Court says since they pretty much were proven wrong; the reason Bush remained was because Gore realized it was better to stop that, and refuse to defy the Supreme Court of his own country. Gutless or not, that was a wise decision, for it would have been terrible to see a good president being hunted by the Supreme Court in vendetta.

Holy hell, get off the idea that the election was "stolen" in any way, shape, or form. Honestly, if you actually knew what happened, you would realize how moronic this idea is. Florida was a close state, and Gore decided he wanted certain areas recounted. Not the entire state, just the heavily Democratic parts. What happens with every recount? More votes. What does that mean for areas that are highly Democratic? A few more Republican votes and a lot more Democratic votes.

The Supreme Court finally said that it was going to be a recount of the entire state or no recount at all. Gore could have had the entire state recounted. He didn't stop because he "refuse[d] to defy the Supreme Court of his own country". He stopped because he knew that recounting the entire state wouldn't give the same results as only recounting highly Democratic areas.

And a good former president, as well, regardless of what he did with his personal life

He depleted the country's defenses, ignored or empowered our enemies, caused a recession, pushed companies out of the country, abused his authority, and -- the least of the "wrong" things he did -- lied under oath. I don't care if he slept with every woman in DC, even if infidelity is illegal for the President -- hell, kudos to JFK for bagging Marilyn Monroe (and let's face it, if you were married to Hillary, you'd be looking for something else, anything else too) -- but if the guy's dishonest and untrustworthy, he's dishonest and untrustworthy. It would have blown over (no pun intended) if he'd just fessed up when he needed to. He wasn't impeaced for having an affair, he was impeached for lying under oath.

(and let's not talk about Bush, he has proven to be a bad president with a bad past behind him. I recall he dropped the National Guard in a shady incident, am I right?)

Ummm, no, you're not right. The only thing "shady" about Bush's National Guard service is the accusations of AWOL, which were completely untrue, even with the admittedly fabricated "documents".

Bible-thumper or not, she's of the ultra-conservative sort that we cannot afford to have at any position of supreme importance without a balancing act that I fear McCain can't provide.

McCain's big problem with Republican voters is that he's a RINO -- Republican In Name Only. For a Republican, he's very liberal. Palin, a conservative, helps McCain draw in the typically Republican voters who are pushed away by McCain's liberalism.

He's proven to be weak-willed despite his proud claims of being a soldier, given that he retracted from his views at Iraq after a visit there? Either what he saw was what Bush wanted to see (in which case he proves to be malleable to the interests of people, as he can't seem to request a further investigation by his own means and outside the views of his party), or he always thought of it that way (which proves that he's not the right person to balance the ultra-conservative views of Mrs. Palin, and that may place the Congress and the Executive Office in a constant state of warfare), or he genuinely made a decision to change his views after what he saw, which proves that Bush made a hasty decision and that he must make a stronger decision or face the watchful eye of Americans wanting solid responses, not conjectures or "hunches".

I'm not sure what "views" you're referring to here, but I'm gathering that if he agrees with Bush and disagrees with you, he's wrong. If he always disagreed with you, he's wrong. If he saw what was going on and then started disagreeing with you, he's wrong. So, in other words, if he disagrees with you, he's wrong. Or are you trying to say something else?

Now they have a guy that has a degree of charisma unlike his predecessors, with a good vision of what he plans to do (yet not the actual look to support that), and it's sad to see the Great Old (Proud and Bastard) Party wants to chafe him as "elitist white wannabe with a sleek tongue but no actual commitment".

Clinton had "charisma" too. Some women admit voting for Clinton because he was physically attractive. Obama might have "vision", but he has no plans, no structure, absolutely nothing to back up his claims of what he will actually do. He has done nothing in his political career except advance his political career, and everybody he started out drawing to him to make him look like the average American -- family members, friends, his pastor -- he is now pushing away.

It's bad to judge a book by it's cover.

Though that's easy to do with Obama, considering that he's written two memoirs but has an extreme lack of experience.