Yes, we can.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What is implemented? Hope? Change? Promising everyone anything and everything under the sun?

I mostly like the idea of Iraq not becoming another Hundred Year's War. We all know how well that worked out for Europe.

It's Obama's idealism that I like. Sure, he may not get things done that he wants to do, but he's not the only ('Read my lips' ring a bell?) person to have ever made (gasp!) campaign promises that probably will never come to fruition. McCain, on the other hand, comes out as a tired, jaded old soldier- not that there's anything wrong with that, but hardly uplifting and inspirational.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

he's not the only ('Read my lips' ring a bell?) person to have ever made (gasp!) campaign promises that probably will never come to fruition.

If elected, I hope none of his campaign promises come to fruition.

[scaeagles]

That's a good point, Moon. While there are the Obama groupies, there are also those that don't want Clinton to be the nominee.

[Morrigoon]

Here's the problem: a vote for McCain is a vote for business as usual. Not that McCain is the same as Bush necessarily, but the party as a whole will view a vote for McCain as a vote for Republicans and a vote for continuing to do what they've been doing.

So maybe this year I'm an ABCotGOP

[Ghoulish Delight]

That can be said of any candidate. And some (I'd venture most, by virtue of party affiliation) would vote for Obama in a general election and some would vote for McCain. Likely balanced out by all of the "Anyone but Romney or Hucakbee" voters on the other side.

For what it's worth, Obama still holds a lead over McCain in national straw polls, while Clinton is now trailing.

[innerSpaceman]

i gotta admit: Clinton would bring out Republican voters, and Obama will not inspire that much vitriol. So far in the primaries, Democratic voters have vastly outnumbered Repulicans.

I'd hate to upset that particular apple cart. So on a strategical vote, I'd vote for Obama. On my equally non-substantive historical symbology vote, I'd vote for Clinton.

Many people will be voting for electoral strategy. Are those votes any more vapid than my gender-based vote?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Many people will be voting for electoral strategy. Are those votes any more vapid than my gender-based vote?

Agreed. I've always held that voting based on the pundit-defined notion of "electablilty" is not only patently lame, but ultimately self-sabotaging as it tends to lead to selecting the blandest candidate possible (John Kerry much?).

[Kevy Baby]

Had I been able to, I would have voted for Obama in the primaries. Primarily because of the Democratic choices, I felt he had the best promise to lead our country.

But secondarily because I think Clinton is dangerous. (I wasn't really well versed on the rest of the Democratic candidates.)

[Strangler Lewis]

With rare exceptions, I vote Democrat. Given the chance, I would have voted for Richardson in the primary. On merit alone, much as I like Obama, I probably would have preferred Clinton. Nonetheless, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if she is the nominee, we'll be fighting the Viet Nam War all over again with McCain on one side and Hillary and Bill on the "hippie side" (with Cheney, Rove, Gingrich and, yes, W.) Not a recipe for success.

We don't get that with Obama. Of course, we might get something else. The right wing operatives might run "Harold, call me" ads featuring clips or parodies of "Blazing Saddles" or "Mandingo." We'll see.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

The right wing operatives might run "Harold, call me" ads featuring clips or parodies of "Blazing Saddles" or "Mandingo." We'll see.

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.