two things:

there will always be a point where a candidate has to shed some skin. Rev. Wright was a toss-up. I feel like wright took advantage of his 15 minutes and really hurt his parishoner. So long as Wright kept saying more rediculous things and pro-longing his psuedo-fame, Obama was more likely to distance himself. If I was running for president, I would throw my grandmother 'under the train' if she got louder about how much she dislikes jews (she's old-school catholic) etc...

As per the town-hall meetings, McCain was trying to strong-arm obama by setting the stage and declaring 10 townhalls. And strategically speaking, who can blame Obama for shutting him down? The underdog doesn't set the stage. I don't even think McCain was serious when he made that suggestion...he knew Obama wasn't going to accept, and figured he could gain some leverage himself by pointing out how obama doesn't want to 'talk to the small townfolk of America'.

That said, as a conservative, I would vote Obama in a heartbeat over McCain; I'm just that sick of neoliberalism that I couldn't stand another 4/8 years of Bush's doctrine of anti-reason.

That said, I'm also voting Barr.

Obama is Bill Clinton on steroids. He is the consumate politician. You don't go from junior senator from Illinois, to presidential frontrunner without being " Master of the Game ". You also can't defeat an opponent with such " breakfast table " name recognition without A staff of expert handlers. Which brings fourth the question, Who are his handlers, and What is thier agenda. Until theese issues are resolved to my satisfaction, or the Libertarians can manage to field A Viable Candidate, I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

There has never been a better time to vote libertarian than this election. The GOP has picked republicans who have moved left, and more leftward than the last canddiate. In 2012, I imagine they would pick Lieberman. This is the very reason Barr moved to the LP: because the GOP wasn't even on the right anymore. I held my nose in last election and voted Bush. But I still prefer the scent of freedom.

So long as people wait for the media to create a 'viable'(whatever that means) candidate, they might as well forget about the LP altogether.

As an outsider to your election, I'm finding it more & more amusing with each passing week.

First, of the 300+ Million people in the U.S., are these the two very best prospects for president that exist?

Second, have those people who adamantly support one candidate and are convinced the other is the devil ever received any credible psychological help?

Just askin'.

*As an outsider to your election, I'm finding it more & more amusing with each passing week.*

Considering that our Presidents have repeatedly attacked countries that never attacked us, I wouldn't get too amused about it.

Yeah, I'm talking to YOU, Luxembourg!

j.d. we might be fucked either way, but can you honestly tell me that you could live with yourself if you knew that your vote for Obama gave the Republic away in a single moment?

A man dies, and at his funeral the preacher addresses the assembled congregation, asking if someone will come to the podium and say something nice about the departed. No one in the congregation moves.
Again, the preacher asks for a volunteer to come forward and say something nice about this man, reminding the congregation that it is customary upon a persons death to memorialize them for their good deeds.
Again, no one stirs from the congregation.
So the preacher get sup and says, "someone out there has got to have at least one good thing to say about this man. And noone is leaving this church until somebody, anybody, gets up and does so."
For a long time, nobody moves. Finally an old man gets up and shuffles to the podium. Taking a deep breath, he says -
"His brother was worse."

Robert W. is absolutely correct. If these Jackasses are the best the two parties can come up with, its time the two parties go home.
I would have preferred Mary Ruwart to Bob Barr, but the Libertarians have nominated Bob Barr. Also, Ron Paul is still out there and may get my write in vote. So if you vote for one of these "more of the same" candidates to give us more of the same, don't say its because you had no choice.
Some say not voting at all is the only responsible choice, and I can't say I don't see their point. But Im not ready to give up just yet.
Vote Libertarian.

Nader, anyone?

I'd sooner crawl naked across broken glass to vote for Hillary.

I'd sooner crawl naked

Oh, baby!

I'd sooner crawl naked across broken glass to vote for Hillary.

Agreed. If you meant rather than vote for Nader lol. You night have been capping on my suggestions.

Yes, it was a "rather than" situation. Not a Hillary fan.

Bob Barr, maybe. Ron Paul? I'd rather vote Pat Buchanan for Führer than Ron Paul for anything.

Nader?

If Nader was the only choice, I'd eat a gun. If that man ever gets real power, the human race is utterly fucked.

So far, not being talked out of my vote for Obama. (And don't start on third parties, most elections I'm the one lecturing people on not being afraid to vote them but this season's crop are a sad sack of losers.) In fact, that may just be what this country fucking needs. Someone who can at least discern extremes. I rather like his middle road approach and wanting to unite rather than divide. Yes, I'm aware it may all be sound bites. But at least he has the sense to give lip service to it. At least, he's aware that we want change.

But change TO WHAT????

If you judge a man by the company he keeps, it's blaringly obvious that he's not interested in unity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he despises a large portion of the population of this land.

And I don't know where you're getting "middle of the road" from his hard-left socialist positions (for the few times he's actually elucidated a position, that is).

The man is naught more than a silver-tongued charlatan. I suspect he could talk a no-legged donkey into walking home.

Am I the only one who believes that all politicians are two-faced scoundrels, and that one should vote for the one who at least seems the most intelligent/pragmatic/nondestructive choice? Or did my poli sci classes just warp my brain?

Indeed, what hope is there for the country when someone says they are voting for Obama because he's "middle of the road."
Furthermore, people who want to "Unite" don't seek government power to coerce others to abide by their point of view. Putting guns to peoples heads in the form of laws and regulations does not unite people.

Haven't you heard? Obama is the not the devil but the antichrist.

www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com

Amy, if you wouldn't mind, could you post using Amy and a last name or an initial? And one other than Amy K., because an Amy K. already comments here. Thanks! Just want to make sure people don't mistake your comments for mine!

That was me. I forgot to add the "K" Sorry about that.

Glad you cleared that up, Amy K. Here was me thinking he was the Messiah.

Don't want to commit heresy here - his apostles are everywhere and can give any snake handling fundamentalist a run for their money in the blind faith and wanting-desperately-to-believe department, but could it be he's just another slick power hungry pol with a good line of b.s. and a lust for power?

Wolfman, umm, that's all that's gonna run. No one sane wants to be President. Power's the only motive for it. So what are you proposing? Anarchy?

Yeah, right. That's gonna work, given human nature. That's probably what led to governments in the first place. Because whenever a group of people band together for protection, they will necessarily also have to make certain agreements (rules) to live by and that's government, large or small. As little government as possible sounds nice but is wishful thinking, a libertarian pipe dream that I'm all for on the surface but I don't think will ever work out in reality. People being assholes.

Marion, guess I wasn't clear that I was agreeing with you but that Obama seems the most benign to me. I meant he gets my vote because he at least sees the middle between two extremes and not only sees it but seems to grasp the importance of making the two co-exist peacefully.

Brian, if you're referring to his preacher, gimme a break. How many morons sit there in church not hearing/reacting to what their moronic preacher says. It cannot be taken seriously as Obama's view unless you have further evidence that he's a racist, something I suspect with his genetics might be a little tough. While I'd like a nice Atheist President for four years to get a break from all this religiousity, ain't gonna happen any more than I'm going to hell for calling the fictional god a real cocksucker as depicted by damned near any sect. So you'll have to show me the company he keeps beyond his pastor I'm afraid.

Donna,

Just bored on a Friday afternoon and opened this up to see if there were any new comments. I decided to post a reply to compliment you - your prowess in battle against strawmen is considerable. Alas, it is only that - prowess against strawmen.
I didn't suggest anarchy or anything like it. I do support (I know, I know, this is a crazy idea) a constitutional republic with a central government with clearly defined and strictly limited powers. Maybe we could even write a constitution thingy. Then we could (here's the radical part) follow it. This would require even more radical changes, including, but not limited to -

1. people taking responsibility for their own lives.
2. Not voting for someone because you think he's good looking or will give you other peoples stuff.
3. Not settling for the bait and switch that has occurred, wherein two major parties put up candidates virtually indistinguishable from one another, secure in the knowledge that people will vote for one or the other because they think they "have to."

The parties have established a self perpetuating monopoly because people don't want to worry about the big picture. They just want to zone out, feel like they are participating, hold their noses and vote for "the lesser of two evils." The lesser of two evils is still evil. Either take a stand for real change, or shuffle to the polls and pull the lever for the next welfare-statist-in-chief. But Obama + Change? Puhleese.

Donna says:
As little government as possible sounds nice but is wishful thinking, a libertarian pipe dream that I'm all for on the surface but I don't think will ever work out in reality. People being assholes.

People being assholes? Or copping out?

But I'm with you on the race thing - just because his wife is a bigot, his pastor is a bigot, his associates are bigots and his peers are bigots, is no reflection on him.

Brian, if you're referring to his preacher, gimme a break. How many morons sit there in church not hearing/reacting to what their moronic preacher says. It cannot be taken seriously as Obama's view unless you have further evidence that he's a racist, something I suspect with his genetics might be a little tough. While I'd like a nice Atheist President for four years to get a break from all this religiousity, ain't gonna happen any more than I'm going to hell for calling the fictional god a real cocksucker as depicted by damned near any sect. So you'll have to show me the company he keeps beyond his pastor I'm afraid.

Ah, the old "blacks can't be racists because they lack the power to act out their racism" canard. The man is in contention to be the leader of the fucking free world. If that doesn't equate to power, I don't know what does.

As far as associations, well, we can start with his wife. Or the fact that he's been politically affiliated with known terrorists (Weathermen, to be precise). Or that his policies are basically a rehash of Jimmy Carter. Or his connections to the corrupt Chicago political machine.

The man has shown a tremendous antipathy to white people, and his wife is a seething pit of anti-white rage.

I'm not willing to put someone in power so he can enact some race-war revenge fantasy.