Medicare

I think Hillary has blown it with her push for a socialist medical system in the USA.
Americans aren't driven by this subject.
Most, by far, don't have a problem with the system they have now.
Even those that don't have medical insurance, are extremely satisfied with their medical care.
There are big flaws when she suggests that medical insurance becomes mandatory, even to get a job.
She hasn't thought this out, because it doesn't address illegal immigrants.
You could drive ten trucks through the holes in her proposal.
But it doesn't matter to her.
She has to throw some red meat to the growing far left within her party.
She can't cut herself off from George Soros money, and she is even willing to throw a heroic general in front of the bus, in order for her to satisfy, the leftist extremists, in Moveon.Org and The Daily Kos.
America is still conservative, and I don't see them electing a female President, whom they don't like, who doesn't respect the military, has so much baggage, and now is trying to force them into socialized medicare like Fidel Castro and Kim Junk Ill force on their poor citizens.
She is also loose with the truth and seen as very manipulative.
I am happy to see her running for President and I hope she wins the nomination.

Nope n/bloom

Obama gets top billing - dynasties suck and hill is too tied to cash contributions from the old style gang.

If she wins - nothin' much happens. Obama wins...whole new ball game. And no first man nonsense either...Bill and Hill would be better off retired in Harlem ...but she has to have her innings so VP it is.

Quote:If she wins - nothin'

What are you basing that on - his militant posturings on Iran perhaps...?

Hillary is attempting to introduce a variant of universal health coverage. Imperfect, perhaps. But improvable, with time. It's a revolutionary precedent for the U.S. and a total departure from traditional conceptions of American society. Things don't have to always go "bang" to be revolutionary.

Mitt Romney is a Christian

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers . . Some accuse the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian theology more closely than other Christian denominations. Perhaps the reason the Evangelical preachers promote this mis-representation is to protect their flock (and their livlihood).

Hillary

She's simply same old, same old. Her fascination with money, influence and the same sort of celebrity BS that clouded Bill's presidency is in her genes.

Obama may still be co-opted - you're right, that's certainly a possibility - but Hillary's been part of the American money mess all her life. She was a Republican in College and she's been an elitist all her life.

Barack comes from the other side of the tracks and he knows it; he also appears not to be afraid to actually stand up and say it. He's the only candidate who speaks to 'all' Americans and particularly the most powerless ones in what I take to be an authentic way. He represents the ‘new’ America; the America of polyglot, of mixture; the America of speaking across communities not just to your own community, the America of possibility and reform, of turning back to what’s good and away from what pays, to recognizing the potential and not the threat of the immigrant. I could go on and he’ll probably disappoint – But Hillary already has…

If you didn't see the youtube clip of Hill pretending to 'talk' black on Martin Luther King day last year - you ought to - it was high farce delivered like a sermonette.

She's a phony - and a power grubbing one...The idea that a country of 300 million souls needs to find its modern leadership from a handful of professional political families over and over again is the MOST depressing thing about this.

What, exactly, has Hillary ever done to earn your respect?

Hillary is so concerned with parsing her views on the Iraq misadventure that she could double for doofuss John Kerry. Furthermore, she's trying too hard to 'appear' to be tough to have any credibility as a real reformer.

The recognition that someone needs to do 'something' about US health care isn't 'radical' it's obvious.

US politics....

Last presidental election in '04 someone asked me who I liked/would vote for. My answer was none of them. Then this person asked why and I told them "out of 300 million peple those are the best they could come up with". Fresh blood is definitely needed. Will it happen? not fricken likely.

Fear of Atheism

Its very interesting the fear of atheists mentioned at the bottom.

Americans would rather have a muslim, after all there charged-up fear and hate toward them since 9-11 (and before) than an atheist. They are that scared of atheism.

Not to mention that most polls also show that atheism is more prevalent with higher amounts of education. Thus America's biggest fear is those candidates that are likely the highest educated.

No wonder that country is so fucked.

Superficial nonsense

This article is illuminating in its vacuity. The US political process is driven by personality and image. No mention of policy by Canesco because the MSM clients of his polling employer aren't interested in that. Give them that old-time religion, throw in some racial profiling, add a soupcon of marital infidelity, and you have an election story. Voters in the US will debate whether a Mormom is a Christian or not; meanwhile, fewer and fewer of them have access to health care and the middle class is disappearing. But it works for the tiny proportion of people at the top--they're having a roaring success amassing millions!

Choosing a pres from Opinion polls

It seems ironic that the article on the new president focuses almost exclusively on what the polls way about the chances of each candidate - who would be willing to vote for a type of candidate!

Isn't the point of selecting a political leader the realization that their view of the world fits most closely with that of the voter? It is a sorry state of affairs when a person will not consider voting for a candidate because of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation - even should that person best represent their personal viewpoints.

That a person's traits define their winnability goes a long way in explaining why President Bush has seldom been called to account for his dangerous course - and why the next presidential campaign will not likely deal with the real problem in the United States - they have a democracy which is no longer democratic.

spindoctoring

Well, that is how it should be; still Gordo got re-elected even after he had showed his mean streak!

That pretty well proves that the average voter is swayed by the media instead of by facts!

NDP never fared well with a female leader, federally or provincially, so perhaps we also have a bias?

Uh oh

I complete agree with Gwest!

Hillary is a creature of the pharmaceutical industry, the notion of the professional political leader family is inherently gross and appalling, and nostalgia for the Clinton regime is, IMO, much more to do with fondness for an articulate, handsome sax-player in light of his successor's evident not-smartness, rather than a glowing assessment of that presidency, which bungled health reform and featured Clinton's curious re-enactment of Wag The Dog at the expense of the Sudan.

I like some of the things that John Edwards has to say. Kucinich also, but he might be too democratic for the Dems, in the same way that Ron Paul is way too conservative for the Republicans.

Obama/Edwards has a nice ring to it.

Yammer let bells ring out and banners fly!

I like Edwards too - my sense of it is that if Obama heads the ticket the Dems will give Hillary the booby prize...but Edwards would be a lot better.

really, anyone who looks at

really, anyone who looks at the current field on either side and sees anything "new" - besides kucinich and gravel - has their head up their arse. clinton really is the industrial military complex' frontwoman on the democratic ticket. if you want corporations to control america, vote clinton/giuliani.

one thing i noticed, living in the US, is how complacent a people they are. health care, even the best private health care, sucks. having heard my explanation of what health care is like in canada - warts and all - they cast down their eyes and kick the dirt: "oh, i wish we had that." i kept asking: "how do you guys live like this?"

the rub is, they can have whatever they want, but at every opportunity they refuse it. all they have to do is use their brains to pick the player with the solid, rational policy but they don't. they let the pundits lead them to the abattoir.

Pundits with an agenda!

I look at the words of oeanda and find myself agreeing with the sentiments.

Americans do seem to have a sense of believing their pundits, even when it seems apparent to those outside the country, that the pundits are on a mission of "dumbing down" the population. The level of perceived oppostion to policies is very low. This opposition seems remarkably less heard when it comes to issues of foreign policy and, yes, enemies (war).

I remember the "public opinion" programs of the early 90s, when even those who were soft on war could not bring themselves to ask when Kuwait had become democratic. The American government, in the end, seemed more intent on preserving oil reserves than in protecting the citizens of Kuwait.

Is Barack better or worse than Hillary? Do any of the potential nexr leaders of the most powerful nation on earth have anything more than different source of money to provide them with power?

How is it that the country which perceives itself as the champion of freedom seems so undemocratic?

Underneath the surface there is opposition, but it has a very limited voice. My guess is that none of the candidates seeking either parties' top positions is independent enough to be the breath of fresh air the Americans - and the rest of the world - deserve.

NO to WHO - or should that be WHAT

Rather than a NO to certain candidates, how about a NO to a political system which invites you to vote for an electoral college.

At least we are considering electoral reform in Canada. Now if only we can get over our fear of coanlitions and minority governments!