Originally Posted By inlandemporer I see a lot of "I don't like this guy" around here, but not much "I'm excited to vote for this guy." I understand. I'm the same. I'm an independent and proud moderate who has voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life, by probably about 3 to 2. I've voted for plenty of both in about 25 years of voting, because I vote for the person rather than the party, which probably puts me in the minority around here. I lurk in World Events more than I post, but don't confuse my current disgust and disappointment with Bush, who I'm sorry to say I voted for the first time, with my general political leanings, which if anything run Libertarian. So who to vote for this time? I'm considering Guiliani, but I have some problems with him. I'm considering Clinton, but I have some problems with her. McCain I like in some ways, but he's dead wrong on the war. Obama doesn't have enough experience for me. Romney comes across to me as a big phony, and Edwards almost as much. The only two at this point I think I could vote for without holding my nose too tight would be two who supposedly don't have a prayer, Ron Paul and Bill Richardson. If Michael Bloomberg actually ran as an independent, I'd strongly consider him. He seems competent and moderate, which is just what we need now. But I think I heard that he had ruled out running. So none of the crop that's running excites me. How about the rest of you? Is anyone excited by anyone? We've heard plenty of "I couldn't vote for him/her..." around here. Does anyone feel positively about anyone running?
Originally Posted By sherrytodd I haven't seen a candidate yet that I'd want to vote for. I made a comment to my husband this weekend that it feels like the parties are just playing a joke right now with the candidates they have out front and I keep waiting for them to say, "April Fools! OK, here's our real candidates."
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Nobody has stepped forward for me. I'm probably morphing into a left leaning Republican and would vote across party lines if I felt it was prudent. I don't see anyone on either side of the asile that makes my hair stand up. It isn't that I don't want to. They just all seem so "vanilla" to me.
Originally Posted By utahjosh If Romney's only fault for you is coming across as phony, then he's your man. He's the real deal. Ron Paul has some great ideas, and seems like a great guy, though, too...but there are few things that make me not want to vote for him.
Originally Posted By DAR Simple answer: No In depth answer: No I'm not excited about any of the potential candidates. Some of it might be because I don't know much about a Bill Richardson or a Mike Huckabee. When it comes to November 4, 2008 I will still make my way into a voting booth. No matter I think that voting is the most important thing we as American citizens do. I've heard several people regret voting for President Bush, that's fine, but it also gives you more of a right to voice your dissatisfaction with how things are. If you don't participate in elections, then I believe you lose the right to voice any displeasure with the way things are.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. I don't see anyone willing to take on or even discuss any of the problems that is affecting the people of this country.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "If Romney's only fault for you is coming across as phony, then he's your man. He's the real deal." Is he? He seems to have changed an awful lot of his positions in order to appeal to the "base" in the primaries. But more than that, it's just a general feeling. Perhaps it's not even correct. But remember how Bill Clinton just had that "feeling" of Slick Willy about him? I just get a feeling of "phony" with Romney, and Edwards too. Having said that, Clinton wasn't a bad president. But the Slick Willy label fit him anyway, and I definitely get the phony vibe from Romney. Remember the whole claiming to be a hunter thing and how he twisted himself in a new direction every day for 4 or 5 days straight? Why couldn't he just say "look, I'm not much of a hunter myself, but I support your right to do it." Why do these guys always pretend to be something they're not?
Originally Posted By DAR I will say this about Clinton, nobody was ever better at campaigning then he was.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes. It is. I see no one who will do any better a job at it running right now, and a few, such as Obama, who will do markedly worse. It appears others are starting to realize this too, and he's starting to fade in the polls, and is pulling back a bit on his campaign.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Passable these days could pass for great, boy that's pathetic.<< Maybe that's why I'm actually excited for '08. I'm not "excited" for any of them, but they all seem "passable" which after the last 6 years, sounds absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic to me. Few of them actually scare me - and none that have a chance of winning. I think the front runners all seem competent. None of them looks like if they win that they'll believe God made them President - that's a step up right there. Take Romney. Sure he's a shameless panderer who would say his own father was a front for Al Qaeada if he thought it would get him elected. But he actually has a track record of tackling big problems and fixing them. And that track record also shows someone who really doesn't get obsessed about the culture war issues. So while I'll never, ever vote for him, if he wins, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Same goes for Hilary, Obama, or Guiliani. I'll probably end up voting for the Democratic candidate, but it all depends on how it plays out.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm actually excited about the prospect of being able to vote for Hillary Clinton. But of course you already knew that... ;-)
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Wouldn't this be great: Bush VP Bush VP Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush (Laura/Jeb) Bush (*/*). Not!
Originally Posted By jonvn You know when Clinton ran against Bush in 1992, the main reason I voted for Clinton was because I would have done Hillary, and not Barbara. I would had rather had done Pat Nixon, and she was already dead at the time. So this is why I'm going to vote for Hillary now. Because there is no other candidate running who I would enjoy such activities with. Otherwise, they're all kind of the same.
Originally Posted By Elderp "If Romney's only fault for you is coming across as phony, then he's your man. He's the real deal." Is he? He seems to have changed an awful lot of his positions in order to appeal to the "base" in the primaries." Couldn't agree with you more. I haven't been excited for a Presidential canidate since Reagan. That unfortunately was a LONG time ago. All the canidates right now seem so wishy washy. I think society is wishy washy so that is the way it is going to be. Oh well.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think society is wishy washy at all. I think the candidates are driven more today by pollsters, media consultants, etc than their own good conscience. They are constantly being told what to say, to whom and with what intensity. They are, for a lack of a better term, puppets and they come off as such. Like it or not, Reagan said what he thought..often times to the chagrin of the people around him. As much as I didn't care for Clinton's positions, I saw some of that in him too...which is admirable. The reason Jesse Ventura got elected in Minnesota was because people were fed up with the establishment and Ventura came in and wowed everyone by saying what was on his mind. If any of today's candidates had that free wheeling spirit I would be the first to line up behind him/her. Alas I fear that won't happen this time around.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice In a word... No. I'd be happy if we end up with someone - from ANY party - who can save this country from going to you-know-where in a handbasket. I'm not counting on it. Sign me (when it comes to anything concering politics), Negative Nelly
