Who gets your vote ?

Wow. If a hypothetical vote generated this much discussion, what are the months right before the election going to be like.... <runs, hides>

and I still think a Huck administration ahs more chances than an edwards one.. sad.. but true.

get ready for the emigration. Barcelona is a lovely place :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

agree 100% with the first part..can we sub the word 'parity' for 'dominance' in the second?

so over dominance...

if we do the first part, we will be a 'pull' force, and the 'pushy' era can be over.

The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.

In no way I am saying that there ar eno possibilities for soemthing good for the US and the rest of the world.. indeed there are.. I jut think they ahve a very low probability of happening.

I think you will ahve a clinton presidency, which will be half-decent for the US in the short-term adn quite good in the medium term but awful in the longt erm. The Clinton presidency will be particualrly awful for the rest of the world, specially in the medium term.

The secon possibility I see more likely is a giulani or Romeny presidency.. this will eb as awful for the rest of the world as Clinton but also awfu for the US.

The third possibility I see is a Huck presidency , whcih in my opinion will be excellent for the rest of the world and awful for the US (maybe even more than a giulani presidency)

The fourth possibility is a Mc cain or Obama presidency,w hich will be generally neutral for the rest of the world and a real question amrk nationally.

And finally the leas possible scenario I foresee is an Edwards presdiecny, probably very good for the US and slightly good for the rest of the world.

As you can imagine I think you know what I wish.. but I do not think is going to happen :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

Me?????

No My analysis was purely a description not a wishing.

it is obvious that I wish Kucinih or sometone further to the left to win in the US.. Ir eally wish the best for the US...

So nothing further from my desire.. I actually think the best thing which is slightly attaineable for both sides in the short term will be an Edwards presidency.. but I do not think it is going to happen...

When I describe I hardly ever make a judgement. i was merely describing.

ANd I do think that a Huck presidency will be very good for the long term European project...not as good as Kunicih, sure, and horrible for the US.. but I think my analysis is correct.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

It would be like me saying, "boy, Good thing old Franco won the civil war or Spain wouldn't be such a good place now."  "Sure it was tough on the Spanish, but, it was sure good for the rest of us".  First, its wrong, and second, its callous.

What we really have in 2008 is a chance to build a new, much more progressive majority coalition, not unlike what FDR was able to accomplish.  There's a good chunk of the Republican Party that has, put bluntly, had enough.  Independents have long since had enough.  We can win states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia with people like Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Biden.  We're far less likely to win those with Hillary.

I think Clinton is clearly the least progressive candidate as well as the least electable.  Edwards, Obama, Biden, Richardson would all make good presidents, based on my read of their records and my own thoughts on who they are as leaders.  Edwards, Obama and Biden are three who I sense have the potential to be great leaders, and so they would be my top three picks at a time when we really do need at least a better-than-good leader.

This is to say nothing of my belief that votes should have consequences.  Clinton voted for the war, and, unlike Edwards, refused to apologize for it.  We know she didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate before the vote, which should be grounds for a recall, in my opinion.  And she then voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution.

Votes need to have consequences.  I can forgive candidates for getting it wrong the first time, provided they acknowledge that they got it wrong.  I can even forgive voting wrong on smaller bills of less consequence.  But to continuously vote for war -- in the face of a party (and country) that is telling you, very clearly, No, you idiot, no -- and couple those votes with an incredibly offensive sense of entitlement to the nomination (based on her last name being Clinton) doesn't fly with me.

A candidate like that needs to be defeated.  No one's entitled to be president, and certainly not when a person has been so wrong on life and death issues.

All that, and I really can't explain how angry I was when the Clinton Machine launched the "crackdealer" and madrassa smears on Obama.  It was so racist and such a naked play to paranoia and bigotry that Clinton should never be elected to another office for the rest of her life as far as I'm concerned.  That behavior shouldn't have been tolerated from Daddy Bush when he launched the Willie Horton ad or from Junior when he launched his smear about McCain's adopted daughter in the 2000 South Carolina primary.  I don't tolerate it from the Reps, and I'll damned sure not tolerate it from my own party.

I don't see Clinton launching a new war with Iran, honestly.  My war-related fear with Clinton, as I've mentioned, is a fear that she'll not end the war in Iraq for fear of looking like a weak woman.  And that would be a catastrophic mistake on her part, not only because of the lives and treasure lost, but because it would be disastrous, electorally, for progressive causes.  The public hates this war.  It's that simple.  The public hates. this. war.  But Hillary doesn't seem to accept that.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

If McCain is the nominee, I may well go for Clinton for fear that His Holiness might actually get ahold of the military and go all Ike Turner on the Middle East.

But if Romney's the nominee, I may be comfortable enough with the fact that Romney is about as much a conservative as I am a fucking astronaut to vote third-party.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!