Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air for most Americans. He is honest and compassionate. When you listen to him you feel hope not despair. Most cannot say that about Hillary Clinton, Hillary would say anything to get a vote and elected. Nothing she says moves anyone and most women vote for her out of a sense of misguided loyalty as women.

Barack Obama will definitely bring change and hope to America, if given the chance. We love Barack Obama who took the chance to give Americans hope again at a time full of despair, Go Obama Go!

I agree. What's wrong with feeling hope? Cynicism does nothing good for us, and so many politicians already inspire that!

I like hope as much as the next person, but in a president I'd prefer a well defined set of programs rather than feel-good fluff.

But then, that's why I usually vote Republican.

"I like hope as much as the next person, but in a president I'd prefer a well defined set of programs rather than feel-good fluff. But then, that's why I usually vote Republican."

Really? Tax cuts good, gay marriage bad. That's usually the Republican platform and nothing else.

It was always the Democrats trotting out their 36 point plan to improve the air quality in the US which voters tuned out right after point 2.

trapdoor:

I like hope as much as the next person, but in a president I'd prefer a well defined set of programs rather than feel-good fluff.

But then, that's why I usually vote Republican.

Let me guess: you don't feel good about politics.

As for a "well-defined set of programs" politicians often push in their campaigns, how often are those actually implimented? Or when they are, how often do they actually turn out to be duds?

Yes. This is typical baying from a white NYC journalist who sees everyone east of the Hudson River as every variety of numbskull.

@trapdoor

Ha ha! What an edgy, ironic statement! Oh wait...

Yeah, that Austrian colonel had a well defined set of programs too.

Let's see, I've done a quick web search for important Austrian colonels and I can't find any. So I'm going to assume you mean "Austrian corporal," the rank achieved by Adolf Hitler while serving in World War I.

Lets do a test: Select your favorite candidate.

Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

I assume you'd pick Candidate B -- he hits most of the themes of the liberal movement in the United States today.

Candidate A is, of course, a composite of George Washington, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Candidate B, is of course, the "Austrian corporal."

QED.

"I'd prefer a well defined set of programs rather than feel-good fluff."

You left out that Candidate A penned the Declaration of Independence with all of that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" feel-good fluff. Pursuit of happiness!

Candidate B "believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

Umm... this doesn't support your argument as much as you think it does ;)

@trapdoor

Soybeans and tobacco were the root of Hitler's evil? Wow, I thought it was the way he usurped executive power, allowing him to invade countries preemptively and squash political opposition.

Kinda sounds more like the current occupant of the whitehouse to me.

Well, clearly you didn't actually read most of what the Austrian corporal stood for, versus most of what the composite founding fathers stood for.

The issue isn't whole versus white grain or soybeans, the issue is more (or less) authority for a central government that is authoritarian. Like it or not, it is the left portion of American politics that desires more and more government power and programs, and the right that desires less government and less intrusion by government. I just find it interesting that the crowning insult that liberals label conservatives with is "fascist" when in almost every way, the "progressive" movement mirrors the rhetoric actually used by the fascists -- more central government, gun control, government-provided social programs -- all these and several others were keynotes of the actual fascist movements in Germany and France. Mind you, I am not trying to insult liberals or say that they admire the vileness of the Nazis or the Facisti. I merely think that frequently they are unaware of the parallels between that which they like, and that which they reputedly hate.

I'm really not that big a fan of the current presidential administration, which has played fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution far too much to suit me. For the most part, however, its errors can be eliminated by an election - it hasn't made long-term changes to the actual structure of the U.S. government. That has happened a good deal across the aisle, where nothing is ever as effective as creating, and keeping in place in perpetuity, a new program to help, save or reform something.The federal budget is much larger in inflation adjusted dollars today than it was 50 years ago -- much of this driven by tacking on new programs and bureaus which have weak constitutional bases, or no constitutional authority at all. I believe in a doctrine of limited government, something the people who wrote the Constitution also believed in. I tend to vote for the party that at least pays lip service to that doctrine, even if it isn't always successful in pursuing it.

"This is typical baying from a white NYC journalist who sees everyone east of the Hudson River as every variety of numbskull."

I've never heard that New Yorkers look down on New Englanders more than they look down on, say, Southerners or Mid-Westerners.

psst...NYC is also east of the Hudson River. It was a joke.