Yes, we can.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I still believe that the majority of candidates from the DemocraticRepublicans are all the same and it doesn't matter much who wins. One side is good one way, one side is good the other way. Things have changed somewhat with the Bush administration so I'm thinking slightly differently, but in the long run they're two sides of the same coin.

It isn't my duty to do anything for or against the two corrupted useless parties that trade power every few years.

And yes, I'm aware Obama is a Democrat, and yes, I foolishly and idealistically have been caught up in his aura, and believe he may actually be different. Yes, you may point a finger at me if things go horribly wrong.

But I don't think they will....and even if they do, I think it would have been worse with any of the other candidates.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Green and Libertarian candidates have effectively zero national profile. Nader, for all his good work, was a celebrity candidate. Unless someone who identifies as Green or Libertarian is willing to devote all their free time to building the profile of these parties in the public consciousness, simply pulling the lever for them every four years is whiny "throw the bums out" stuff and is no better than staying home.

Fair enough. I'll admit, actually, that I was a very active Green member in college. I canvassed, I was vocal, I did my best to bring about change because I was disgusted in the two-party system and felt limited by their candidates. But when Gore lost (though, not in the states where I canvassed, heh) I changed my tune. My priorities changed. Because no, I don't see the two parties as identical. No parties, no candidates are ever going to match my beliefs 100%, but the Dems currently share my priorities of social programs and foreign policies and general liberal thought, while the Pubs rarely do.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Gotta love MSNBC

[innerSpaceman]

The more the Obama momentum picks up, the more I find it the most hollow, TV-centric, baseless "change" and "hope" substance-less but charming tripe-filled campaign.


It's begining to scare me that it's just going to be a jump-on-the-bandwagon ride to the presidency.

[Scrooge McSam]

Wow! Wish Chris had that kind of fire in 2000 and 2004.

This might be a very different world.

[scaeagles]

Chris just does what Bill and Hillary tell him to.

[SacTown Chronic]

Barack Obama's 2002 Iraq War speech.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

And here is a rebuttal from Clinton and McCain






Quite frankly, that's all the substance I need.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Chris just does what Bill and Hillary tell him to.

Previously it seemed to me that Chris Matthews was practically wetting himself in excitement over Obama's ascendancy. I thought he was about to break out in tears after Obama's Iowa victory speech.

[scaeagles]

I found his "makes a chill run up my leg" comment to be a little creepy.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I voted for Obama. However, I can't say I'm moved by the excited people behind him. Reminds me of the Ross Perot phenomenon. In general, there are too many people in this country who can't be "energized" to vote unless their candidate is "the next big thing" or they're being asked to "throw the bums out" in some term limits vote. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike, but there are meaningful differences. A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.

Actually, I supported Ross Perot because I liked what he had to say about his plans for the country. I liked the corporate approach, the pie charts, etc. I was sorely disappointed in him when he dropped out of the race because I thought he was on the right track.

I also don't think that voting Libertarian is a lazy whiny protest vote. I'm someone who would normally (and has in the past) vote for the Republican candidate. This time around, I may vote for the Democrat, and I may not, depending on the primary. But while I may or may not feel like "helping" the Democrat win (with the understanding that in a "decided" state like California my vote means very little anyway), I may also not feel like "helping" the Republican. By voting Libertarian, I can put the weight of my all-important "swing" vote behind what I believe in, because candidates who hope to gain my vote will have to appeal to that through their actions. The more of us who "throw away" our votes by voting for smaller parties, the more candidates will pay attention to that party's values in hopes of wooing us to vote for them.

The only way a person can get a politician's attention is through their vote. It is the politician's bread and butter. By being willing to vote for a team that cannot win rather than giving up and giving my vote to whoever I can settle for in the major parties, I make them work for my vote.