Why Neither Field is Set »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 2 months ago in NewsWe don't need to dig deep into American political history to see why the 2008 presidential field is anything but set at the present moment.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it.. All welcome!!! ;~]
Add your ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 47
-
-
0%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
I don't believe that one half of democrats are 'unhappy with the choices.' I do believe that many are undecided. I've been voting for 43 years, & have picked the democratic choice all but one time. Without a doubt, I'm going to say that the problem lies in the good choices democrats have that fuels their indecision. IMO, it's a three way race, and the pick will be close. (Dennis Kuchinich (sp) is also a good choice, but I think Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have the edge). And I think so far, that the one candidate who can take on the CONS with ease, is Hillary Clinton.
Reply-
0%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
no, in 2003, half of democrats were unhappy... if you read to the end of the article, it says that 73% of Democrats ARE happy.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Punchkin1 year, 2 months ago
I dunno.. Would JFK, Teddy, and Abe have been the same people we know them to be if they'd had to deal with the same media circus that's constantly running around these candidates? I love them, too, but people look different and act different when they're constantly under the microscope and having to pay out the nose to keep their name in bold print on the front page...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
0gramstransfat1 year, 2 months ago
After much disgust and researching the "alternative" American political parties out there, I have recently changed my party affiliation to one more in line with what I believe a government should/could be. Corporate America and the economy has too much of an influence on the front runners.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
I'm leaning toward Barak Obama because he's refused to take money from the Political Action Committees and big corporate donors.
I'd go third party too, but realistically, given the current design of the Electoral College system and state-by-state restrictions on getting a name on the ballot, that's pretty much throwing your vote away. If enough progressives do that, the rabid right will rule wrongly for 8 more years.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
getreal11 year, 2 months ago
We have seen both sides of the parties take and do the opposite of what they say. We have seen both sides of the parties fight off the logical things that they should have fought for. We The average Worker are treated as just a vote and nothing more. Still we will vote. We have also seen that twisted twice noticed. We The People had better see different this time.
Reply -
-
0%
Locky121 year, 2 months ago
Of course the field isn't set. It's the first time in a long time that a VP isn't running.
We'll see what Fred Thompson does when he gets going.
Giuliani and Hillary are two sides of the same coin-- not really caring about America but for their own thirst for power.
As for Obama, I dunno. He did miss the John Doe anonymous vote in the senate that would have protected us from being sued if we reported imams acting suspiciously on an aircraft. He was handing out condoms to five year olds. Real presidential material there.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 2 months ago
I'm not thrilled with the whole field period, maybe I'm being pessimistic, leary , and uptight about the situation, while I should be happy Bush/Cheney will be gone. I just don't want to make the wrong choice.
Reply -
0%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
He missed the John Doe anonymous vote that would have protected the racist who got all the brown-skinned people kicked off the plane from getting sued? (Yes, that protection would also have been granted by the act -- maybe he felt that he had a conflict of interest being a brown-skinned person himself.)
And I don't think he was handing out condoms to 5 year olds... he just wanted to. And it wasn't his idea either, he just supported it when someone else brought it up. No wait - the idea wasn't to give condoms to five-year-olds, it was to protect them from child molesters... oh well, it all equates to the same thing.
(Isn't it interesting how you can tell an irrational argument by the way it's twisted and exaggerated into what WOULD be a rational argument before being used?)
Reply -
0%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
I think voting on the side of controversy once in a while (rather than sticking to the straight and easy path) is an admirable quality and SHOULD be sought after in a president.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
aniokly1 year, 2 months ago
My Grandaughter volunteered to work in her community for Barak Hussein Obama until they were caught taking Corporate donations. They tried to explain how it is important that he win if he is to do his good works, and sometimes that means taking corporate money. Then they made a big deal about giving some back, only they kept more. She quit.
Reply -
0%
aniokly1 year, 2 months ago
I am sure it will come out as Barak Hussein Obama gets close to Hillary in the polls. She will never concede her place in the sun. There is nothing she won't do to secure that nomination. Nothing. I would bet she knows more about what is happening in Obams headquarters then he does. Besides in the last two debates he has made a couple serious Foreign policy flubs. He isn't really going anywhere.
Reply -
-
0%
sezwho1 year, 2 months ago
No one seems to be discussing the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans have no one person who is electable, presidential material. The only positive note in this election cycle comes from the fact that for the first time a woman and a black actually have a chance of being elected president. Sadly whether or not they are qualified to be president will have no bearing on the outcome.
Reply -
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
pcknowledge1 year, 2 months ago
One negative aspect in this upcoming election is that (so far) there is no Candidate that possesses the leadership qualities needed in the White House to deal with Iraq & other issues in foreign policies/politics, domestic problems.
One positive aspect is just about anyone has potential to do a better job then Bush has done in these past yrs.
That gives me a sense of hope, eager anticipation, & a feeling of great relief.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
0%
aniokly1 year, 2 months ago
One of the reasons the field is incomplete is because for the first time in 83 years there is no imcumbent running. So many sandidates are available. Another reason is no one wants to listen to politicians for 22 months. We are tired of the ones that started campaigning in January, and we want new ones.
Reply-
0%
Skeptic1 year, 2 months ago
Don't forget LBJ in 1968. He could have run as an incumbent but chose not to seek the party nomination. He blamed the Viet Nam war, but I think his decision really was driven by the popularity of Robert Kennedy. And if Kennedy had not been assainated in CA, I think he could have won the general election against Nixon.
Reply
-
-
0%
Locky121 year, 2 months ago
Just wait 'til a year from now. We are all going to be so tired of the presidential race that if a dark horse clown throws his hat in the ring, he'll be a shoe-in. We'll be so sick of everybody else.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.