Informal Democrat Poll

Stacy, you're a breath of fresh air! I'll support either democratic candidate in the November election as well. I don't want our next president to be republican.

Here's a side note about the economy and what might be coming in the future, I read this book last summer titled "THE GREAT BUST AHEAD". I'm a highly optimistic guy, but this book made me opt for more conservative personal financial decisions and strategies going forward. Check out the website. The author makes some compelling points to support his economic theories.

THE GREAT BUST AHEAD

Experience in gov't is not all it is cracked up to be. Keep in mind that President Bush has allowed his VP and his cabinet run the country and the war to a much higher degree than any other president.

Also consider that the VP and the Cabinet are full of some of the most experienced men in the country who have worked for every Republican administration since Nixon. Look where it got us.

If experience means Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc, then no thank you. I will take inexperience in the White House this time.

i meant opposing as in the canidate going against the republican nominee.


seriously! our next president can NOT be republican. look what their party has done to the US economy! plus the rest of the world hates us for the ridiculous policies the bush administration has enforced. don't even get me started on college tuition, gas prices, and "universal" health care!

even though i do respect john mccain more than i respect bush, i don't feel as though he would make a positive change if he were elected in to office. it's time for a change, and i mean a change for the better! the US prides itself as being "ahead of the times," and if we are what we say we are, let's hope our next president can prove this to be true!

I still haven't heard a single action item from any of these 3 candidates that instills any confidence ? I think the next 4 years are going to be eerily similar to Daddy Bush's term after the 2 Reagan terms of the 80's and 90's. To be honest, Obama vocally sounds too much like John Kerry at this stage during the 2004 primaries/election process. Clinton, she's only as strong as she is because of the connections and money, other than that, I wouldn't encourage her to think her ideas are anything worthy of paying her $ 400K a year for.

Hey, btw, anyone ever hear anything more out of Bush's Freedom Corps ?

Yes and ALL of the president's men have been in and out of government for many many presidents dating back to Nixon. They had experience all right. They knew EXACTLY how to use the government in breathtaking ways to gain power and money for themsleves and their friends. That's the kind of experience we got and that's the kind we don't need.

They knew exactly how to use the Justice Department to go after Democrats. How to use the EPA to relax rules for environmental offenders. How to use the Defense Department to whack poor defenseless countries. How to use the office of the president to please the religious kooks with its Office of Faith Based Initiatives. How to use the FDA to ban the morning after pill again to please the religious kooks. How to use the Park Service to push creationism. How to use the Supreme Court to turn back consumer protection. How to use the rules of the House and the Senate to make sure the Democrats didn't get in their way. How to muzzle scientists at NASA who didn't agree with global warming adminsitration critics.

Oh yes THEY HAD EXPERIENCE. They knew exactly how to use goverment. But not for the people.

i see where you're coming from and i do understand what you mean. however, it's not just the economic issues that i'm concerned about. it's also about the morals and values that each candiate holds. i mean, the republicans are a known conservative group... most, but not all, are against important issues, like gay marriage and/or abortion and a woman's right to choose. (remember when bush tried to pass an amendment that marriage could only be between a man and a woman?) democrats, on the other hand, have usually been more supportive and willing to fight for laws that favor these groups. both clinton and obama are supporters of gay rights and women's rights, and to me that is just as important as electing an official who wants to improve the economy.

I'm from Iowa and have made phone calls, gave rides to the caucuses in January, etc. I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but, his lack of experience scares me. It kills me that the American people voted for "change." Whatever "change" is. Every candidate not in office in my life time have run on "change." This includes Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, etc. It is so meaningless but people buy it everytime.

Duh, I'm pretty sure I have an internet connection, otherwise I'm typing on this keyboard for nothing. Yep, yep, I can read. Obama doesn't bring his ideas for change to his speeches because he will then have to explain them fully in an open forum. He will have to field questions and inform the public at what he might deem an impromptu moment. It's one thing to sit at one's desk and put down on paper what you feel might be an adequate solution to a problem, and a totally different situation to have someone throw a wrench into your carefully planned thought with a question you might not have ever anticipated. A presidential candidate must be willing and able to openly discuss his/her ideas for change, and be willing to adapt his solutions for change if there is a better option offered.
As far as I know, we are having an open discussion on a subject, exchanging our ideas and opinions freely. There is no room here for attitudes like yours, just because we disagree on some issues. I'm sure we both want what we feel is best for the future of our country at a crucial point in history.
What most people seem to forget is, what a thorn John McCain has been in the side of the present administration. Bush certainly loathes McCain, and that to me, is a good thing. It shows how much McCain has gotten under his skin by opposing his administration. There is no love lost between these two men.

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. He doesn't talk about issues as much in his speeches simply because he doesn't have to. He knows he can get votes through his emotional/idealistic appeal. EVERY politican does that if they can. Ronald Reagan ran a similar campaign. He talked about less government, lower taxes, and a strong defense, but those things are just as vague and meaningless as what you'd find in an Obama speech. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992. In fact I'd be willing to bet that he used the words "hope" and "change" far more than Obama has. He took the word "change" all the way to his first inaugural address.

http://images.politico.com/global/clinton-gore%2092.jpg

Obama is simply following a rule in politics that was set long ago. You'll hear plenty more debate on the issues when the general election rolls around, but right now there is no reason to expect it. He has just as much substance as the next guy.

I do not disagree with you here. Like I said, I will vote for either Democrat - not just because they aren't Republicans, but because they are so similar on the issues that there's no reason to support one and refuse to support the other. I don't vote on character, as they are all politicians in the end. But I don't buy this Democratic party line of "another Bush term" if McCain wins. There are certain things I really admire about McCain and would like to see in a presidency - first and foremost I'd like to see a president who would actually line-item-veto all earmarks, which he has pledged to do. I loathe earmarks and I can't wait to see them as footnotes in history. In contrast, Bush has done nothing to control the runaway spending under his own party's rule up to 2006. In fact, earmarks and budget deficits were never a real problem to Bush until Democrats took control of Congress, and now it's obviously the fault of the "tax and spend" so-called "liberals" (who I will take any day over the "borrow and spend" so-called "conservatives").

McCain is a true fiscal conservative as far as spending goes, and I admire that a lot. I'd love to vote for one, as it has been a long time since I've seen one become the nominee of either party. It's unfortunate that he has to be on the wrong side of important issues like foreign policy, judicial appointments and the rest of the economy - not to mention the insane amount of pandering he's done to the far right wing of his base - the same sect of social neocons that he opposed in 2000. But is he as bad as Bush? Not even close. But I still think either of the Democrats would be much better.

I don't see how he could ever contain spending, push the Iraq War, push war with Iran AND cut taxes. How is that gonna work? It didn't under Bush and it won't work under any president. The US government finances continues it's march toward insolvency.

McCain promises to make the President's tax cuts permanent, pledges not to raise any new taxes and said he'd pay for it all with pork barrel spending reform. McCain's approach just won't work. As the Senate Budget Office recently reported, extending the Bush tax cuts and continuing the war is a recipe for a $6 trillion dollar deficit, something McCain can't possibly pay for by reducing $35 billion in earmarks and pork spending.

I agree with that. That's why I'm not voting for McCain. I just wish we had an option this year for a president who would push for a responsible economic policy AND cutting the crap on earmarks. But since I can only choose one, I'll take the responsible economic policy any day. We can't afford to become China's slave because of this disastrous foreign policy budget.

Seven some years ago I said to people please don't do this but they did. Second time around I said please don't do this but they did. All I got to say was I TOLD YOU SO. Please I don't want to say it again. But I will

I have been a big Hillary supporter from the start. I am disappointed that my fellow Democrats have saddled me with Obama, but I will vote for him nonetheless. Vote for McSame? NEVER.