Newt says: Clinton/Obama. Your thoughts?

It frustrates me that the focus is always on the frontrunners. We are supposed to be voting for candidates based on who puts forth the best policy, not who is most likely to win. Democracy cracks its head against the wall when people don't even recognize the names of other candidates such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. The reason people don't recognize these names is because the main media outlets don't let us hear them. People aren't even aware of their existence until they get on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Candidates often joke after they go on these shows that they are relieved by new polling results when their margin of errors don't overlap zero.

People like to be spoon fed. Infotainment is better than opening a book or doing a little research. Then there are the people who back said little known candidates and know little of their background or beliefs and are shocked when they find out otherwise. I know several of the candidates were huge "net" wonders until people started seeing their votes on things and realizing that maybe they aren't really all that people claim they are. IE: Someone sent me a article pointing out how we should pay attention to women's rights then said VOTE XYZ and I pointed out that XYZ was furthest from a women's rights champion voting in several instances against them and I thought they would have known that simply by looking at a site like OnTheIssues.org to find out. From my experience people are bandwagoners and followers more than they are leaders and researchers. It's my hope that TheRealNews can change that!

Obama is the last I'd vote for. His foreign policy is a little confused to say the least. This guy is prepared to hit targets in Pakistan without their consent, who the hell does he think he is ? Is this idiot trying to court Republican support, trying to play the tough guy, my opinion of Mr. Obama has taken a serious nose dive.

I don't quite get this. The current administration bombed two countries into oblivion based on (at the very least) extremely questionable evidence linking the regimes with Bin Laden and Bin Laden with 911. But in the hypothetical situation presented that there would be "actionable" intelligence allowing the capture or killing of Bin Laden, Pakistan not doing anything, the US should just ignore it ?

Clinton will probably win the nomination but I would not predict she will choose Barack as her running mate. Joe Biden is a much more likely choice. He looks presidential, he is experienced, and people would trust him to do a reasonable job if someone targeted Hillary with a bullet. Another interesting VP choice would be Barbara Boxer, for a geographic balance, but I doubt she would choose another woman for the ticket. Barbara is more likely to be head of the EPA.

To respond to the reply by Aaron, I agree with him, but realistically Kucinich and Gravel don't look very presidential, which is crucial to win. I would love to see a candidate that exudes credibility and charisma that espouses more radical and truthful views.

I've liked Biden's straight-forward attitude from the beginning so you're probably right-on target. He's no-holds-barred and doesn't beat around the bush and really presents his ideas very well.

I'm still not quite so sure it's some presidential look that's keeping Kucinich and Gravel out of the race. Between the two, I think Kucinich is more articulate in his answers during debate while still being challenging. They both have similar policy although Kucinich is clearer. This still goes back to media coverage, I think. U.S. Society as a whole appears to be primed for these leading candidates. The question becomes are these candidates getting so much media coverage because they're leading in the polls or are they leading in the polls because they're getting so much media coverage?

When I ask the average person who they're voting for among the democrats they normally tell me Obama or Clinton. When I ask why not Kucinich, the response is, "who's Kucinich?" This speaks more to media coverage than presidential attractiveness. I'd like to see a random polling to find out who can even name all the candidates running, republican and democrat.

There are several "comparison" tests that allow you to put in your views and see who would be best for you and every one that I've taken to compare says Kucinich is #1: 83% for me. Middle ground candidates are getting the most attention and from the looks of it, these two are right in the middle.

Here's the Survey to Compare is here: http://www.dehp.net/candidate. It does list in a link once you're done where the candidates stand.

It's not an exact science but a yes or no is sufficient to get the point.

Nice test. I liked it. It matched me with Kucinich as well. I don't know about it's validity though on at least one point. I've heard the republican Ron Paul say t he's for gay marriage and on there it says he's against it. The other thing was it didn't discern between private and socialized universal healthcare. Other than that I liked it.

Sorry, Ron Paul believes it's a state decision for gay marriage. The site does a nice job getting the general impression, but you have to look up the nuances for yourself it looks like.

The 'media' and its controling forces WANT Hillary and Obama. They are two people who would bring every rightwing extremest out of the woodworkds to vote against them. Most republicans I know, dont just dislike Hillary, they HATE HER. And with Obama, racism is still a huge issue across america. Not only because of his race, but of the religion he was born into. The misinformed voters will believe what the media tells them.

Most of the democrats are falling into the media's hands, and supporting their 'frontrunners'.

Look at the cnn/youtube debates. The time given to the canidates was not equal, and they focused only on the three. Some questions, like the one given to gravel, were set ups, intended on making them look bad. The debates were not debates at all.. it was just alot of pretty pictures and well rehersed clips.

Aside from the issue of race and gender, those two are not the most qualified. They do not have a strong enough record of doing what is right for our country. They have never shown leadership.

Hillary has too many questionable things in her past, and has too many ties to various 'secret' organizations such as the clintion's ties to the illuminiti bloodlines. (As does Bush.) Much of Hill's foreign policy does not look that much different than Bush's. She has alot of the same supporters Bush had, including Rupert Murdoch. Her agenda will continue us closer to a New World Order. She will not stop the North American Union. She has no plans on restoring our freedoms and constitutional rights.

I would prefer Bill Richardson, Ron Paul or Mike Gravel to either of those two, but they do not have the corporate sponsorship like Clinton & Obama. Do we really want the one with the largest corporate sponsorship to be our president? If I had to pick between Obama and Clinton, I would pick Obama with Bill Richardson as runningmate. You would have a ticket capable of obtaining a large portion of the minority vote, and with richardson on the ticket, democrats might be able to get some of the hispanic votes away from the republicans.

Bill Richardson has a great track record, and has done many positive things in his state and would make a good Vice to anyone, and future president. It seems hes too far behind in the 'polls' to make a good running. (what ever polls that may be)

I look at Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Those two should team up. They have a history of doing what is right for our country. For standing up to the constitution and the corrupt powers behind our government. They could get the support of those wishing to end the corruption, and to restore our freedoms.

As a European, I must say that the non-interventionist foreign policy that Ron Paul advocates would have gained popularity in many countries in Europe, if it was not for the systematic non-presentation of certain political figures and deliberate misinformation, such as saying - and I quote - "none of the ten republican presidential candidates oppose the war in Iraq". This is exactly the reason why there are numerous countries, not only the U.S. that need to absorb news like theRealNews

The Europeans may like Ron Paul because he will surely keep America's nose out of Europe's affairs. The problem is, being an American Libertarian, he'll keep America's nose out of America's affairs. He believes in laissez-faire in the extreme, minimal government services, maximum privatization. If we governed under his philosophy we would be paying subscriptions for the privilege of driving on private roads, paying monthly bill to private companies for schools for our kids, health care (no difference there), mail delivery, fire protection etc. All the services our taxes pay for now will be new markets for entrepreneurs. Competition is a good for toothpaste and cars, but I like the idea that the police will treat people the same regardless of their relative wealth and not if you're able to afford the basic or deluxe service plans. Many Americans and more Europeans every day think this is a better way to run a country. Fine until they let their fire protection subscription laps and their house in on fire.

Smart call. After seeing how chummy they were during the CNN/YouTube debates, this was exactly the thought I had, or at least: the one who gets nominated will choose the other as their running mate, barring a scandal or Dean-esque 'slip-up'.
From an objective POV It's a fairly smart move on the Democrats' behalf, as the Obama fans & Hillary haters (or vice versa)will probably settle for VP as a consolation prize and still give them the vote.

Personally I am not enthused about any of the party leaders, I'm hoping for a Kerry-esque leap ahead by either Ron Paul or Kucinich. Hey, I can dream.

I'm disturbed by Hillary Clinton's recent defense of (some?) lobbyists as "representing real Americans." She had an opportunity to address one of the most important issues in the U.S., moneyed interests' control of government, and she did not.

I also question her commitment to universal health care.

I think that for Obama to join her, he'd have to either sacrifice some of his values (as perhaps Hillary did while Bill was President), or he'd have to get her to change.

Personally, Dennis Kucinich best represents my views, but he's already been labeled an "extremeist" and thrown away by the mainstream media. Ask the average person on the street what they know about him; most would say "who is he" while the rest would say something like "isn't he a vegetarian?"

Its really a shame the US election system makes it basically impossible for third party candidates (or third parties for that matter) to achieve anything. I only recently 'discovered' Ralph Nader after someone gave me the DVD "An unreasonable man" , and I am thoroughly impressed by him. Granted, he is a bit weird, but I have yet to hear him say something I do not agree 100% with. He's the best chance for democracy, but he'll never ever make it to the whitehouse. I still hope he runs to spice up the debates and bring the real issues forward.

Don't know enough yet about Bloomberg, I may not like him at all (dont know) but I hope he will run anyway as we need more voices in the election, real debate, people who can and dare speak their minds independantly from lobbyists. Not those corny 10 second prepared hollow one liners about non issues.

Anyway, I'm not answering the question am I ? I really hope Clinton will not be nominated, but odds are against me. So if it happens, having Obama as running mate might be a good thing, as a counterweight against the corporate interests Clinton represents. But for that same reason, I very much doubt it will happen, I don't think they are compatible enough (unless I'm seriously misjudging Obama).

You just mentioned my favorite person ever. I didn't know much about Nader either until I recently watched the documentary, Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man. We can all thank him that we have seat belts and airbags in our cars. If most people knew of just half of the safety measures he's responsible for in our daily lives jaws would hit the ground.

While I am supporting Kucinich and Gravel far ahead of the frontrunners with their cowardly policy, there is a small part of me that wants Clinton. This sounds blasphemous, but my reasoning is that I read Nader said he might run again if Clinton got the democratic nomination. Ralph's major obstacle is getting into the debates. Last time he was physically blocked from the debates as a third party candidate. Keep in mind these debates are run by private entities. The man is brilliant and would really get the country's attention if he were allowed to debate.

Hello from Canada,

Neither Clinton nor Obama are suited to be in the Presidents chair. Do not be fooled by some of the supposedly liberal democratic rhetoric these two politicians use. Why? Because both have stated publicly they want to help bring about the "New World Order". When you realize that the New World Order is nothing more than corporatism, which is a fancy name for FASCISM, then you cannot in good conscience vote for these two. The underlying cause of all of Americas problems stem from this fascism disguised as being the saviour of a troubled world. In fact, the worlds problems and the U.S. internal problems are a direct result of this philosophy. Global warming, oil wars, the fact your politicians in America have obviously abandoned any principles for fair and accountable justice, not following your own constitution and the principles contained therein, and the taking over of countries like Canada through trade agreements that will undermine our rights and freedoms, will undoubtedly be causes for great strife and possibly lead to violent upheaval in all North America. I hope sanity, justice, equality for every person, and a return to a more honest caring lifestyle wil prevail in the hearts and minds of personkind. But if you vote for these two, you will certainly have defeated that purpose.
Hillary Clinton once tried to bring in Universal Health Care. She was defeated, but instead of trying to keep the battle going for this initiative, she receives very large sums of money from those she fought against. This apparently guaranteed her silence for this initiative. Anyone who sells their soul for money is not to be trusted. Obama stated publicly in an interview on the David Letterman show that one of his goals if elected is to help bring about the New World Order. Do not vote for anyone who admits to trying to bring about this New World Order. If you vote for them, you vote for fascism.

Hello from Jesusland...

Oh trust me...we see how fascist we've become. Well, at least those "elitists" and "intellectuals" the fascist right hates sees it. (Satire intended, if being intellectual makes one elite and evil then give me my badge now) The 14 points to becoming a fascist country...well...let's just say we've already achieved that one.

If there's one thing Americans are good at, it's being entirely clueless about history and facts. I mean really, we're the #2 country in the world to believe everything just one day "poofed" into existence by an unprovable imaginary being and that evolution is just Satan's tool. Now such ideology is a "requirement" to even get elected in this country. If you don't doubt and you believe something without any proof at all that makes you fit to serve. Say what?!

Yes, some of us know the real truth. Besides, why should we trust anyone calling themselves a democrat who then takes money from Rupert Murdoch. Talk about self-hating.

Out of curiousity, if the US is #2, who is #1 ?