Biden?

[Guest JamesWilson]

Convince me that Obama is a better choice.

So far they both look like douchebags to me. McCain seems like the more honest douchebag, but douchebags they both seem.

I'd love to hear a defense of Omaba that doesn't involve "change", "not a republican" or "charismatic."

BBB, if you can't figure it out for yourself, then there is no point in me trying to convince you.

[BiBottomBoy]

Is your reasoning something beyond "he's not a republican?"

BBB, if you can't figure it out for yourself, then there is no point in me trying to convince you.

[TampaYankee]

Is your reasoning something beyond "he's not a republican?"

I think that I and others have done an adequate job of laying out the differences between the Dem and Repub agendas and what lies in the balance. That trascends beyond the individual candidate personalities to the next government establishment that sets the agenda for the next four years. These are not just my views they happen to be Hillary's view as well as the views of the Democratic establishment, many of which were ardent Hillary supporters.

I'm left to conclude that you really don't share the Democratic agenda. That's ok, neither does McCain or Bush, or Rove or many others. It's a free country. Vote your principles.

[TotallyOz]

I think that I and others have done an adequate job of laying out the differences between the Dem and Repub agendas and what lies in the balance. That trascends the individual candidate personalities to the upcoming government establishment that sets the agenda for the next four years. These are not just my views they happen to be the views of the Democratic establishment as well including Hillary Clinton.

I'm left to conclude that you really don't share the Democratic agenda. That's ok, neither does McCain or Bush, or Rove or many others. It's a free country. Vote your principles.

I like to believe I know the agendas of the parties but I don't. At least I don't see them put into action too often. The Democratic led Congress has failed miserably at doing its job in furthering its agenda. I don't think they have had any balls to stand up to Bush. And while I had great hopes for Nancy being the leader, she has also failed. I do think that Dennis Kucinich is about the only one of them that has any balls left. The rest are dickless.

[BiBottomBoy]

I'm honestly ambivalent about the democratic agenda. There are some things they are right about and are the best party for gay and bisexual rights. I also think they are less likely to get us involved in new wars - and that's a good thing.

On the other hand, they do have some policies and views that trouble me. The most obvious being they want to get rid of the expatriate tax write off - which would cost me roughly 35 percent of my income - and might lead me to bankruptcy. They are also big supporters of the inheritance tax. This would screw my brother and I really badly. My parents aren't rich but have hundreds of acres of property in New England that has been in our family for over two hundred years. Because the value of the property is so high, even though my parents don't have a lot of money, if my parents were to pass away, we'd be force to sell it in order to pay the tax bill - which would mean turning about 1,000 acres of green space into condos. Is that really a good idea?

Of course the Republicans have their weak spots as well. Their tougher bankruptcy laws and complete lack of regulation of the mortgage industry has become a huge financial disaster for a lot of people.

And their lack of respect for free speech and privacy is very, very troubling.

In other words I think both parties have serious problems - which means at the end of the day I'm going to have to vote for whichever guy's judgment I trust the most.

So far neither McCain nor Obama have made a great case for themselves. So, I'm going to wait and see how things play out and which one seems the most rational under pressure. At this point I'm leaning towards Obama, but I'm honestly interested in hearing arguments on both sides.

I think that I and others have done an adequate job of laying out the differences between the Dem and Repub agendas and what lies in the balance. That trascends the individual candidate personalities to the upcoming government establishment that sets the agenda for the next four years. These are not just my views they happen to be the views of the Democratic establishment as well including Hillary Clinton.

I'm left to conclude that you really don't share the Democratic agenda. That's ok, neither does McCain or Bush, or Rove or many others. It's a free country. Vote your principles.

[TampaYankee]

Finally some solid common ground we share.

I am not enamored with either party. However, I don't see any others on the horizion not to mention better ones. That is why I am an Independent. So I deal with what we have and hold my nose.

I share your dislike of the Inheritance Tax, at least as presently constituted. I can see the expatriate tax and inheritance tax greatly gores your ox. I appreciate that would be a significant hit for you that wouldn't be easy to overlook. That is far a greater impact than haggling over a few percent at the margins.

There is a long list of things I really dislike about the Dem policies, immigration being one of them. I also believe they are just as corrupt as the Repubs, in general -- in the pocket of special interests and big business in their own way. It's just that they have been out of office for a while and are less malignant at the moment because of that hiatus.

However, after the last eight years I feel that we stand at a cross roads. I view single party Dem government at this particular time as I do a powerful drug used to fight a persistent infectious disease. The drug acutally works to kill both patient and disease. The calculation is made that the disease will be killled before the patient. As an example consider cancer chemotherapy.

IMO we have some big problems to undo and others to block from happening. We need some strong medicine, maybe with some unpleasant side effects. I'm up for a four year dose for single-party Dem medicine. I understand that your personal circumstances may make the side effects more difficult to endure. We all have to vote our own interests. That is a motivation I can understand and embrace. More so than voting for personalities over policies.

For me this is not an election between personalities but between big picture policies. I hope the Dem policies will kill the bugs left behind by the Repubs and block any new ones before the Dems seriously begin threaten the patient's long term health or abuse their power. It is inevitable that will happen. That is why elections every four years is theraputic.

I may be an ardent supporter of the Repub candidate next time around if the GOP sheds its POG robes and they pick a decent candidate. Unlikely, but possible. In the past I have voted for more Repubs than Dems. Of course that was before the GOP developed some disturbing carcinomas.

[TampaYankee]

I like to believe I know the agendas of the parties but I don't. At least I don't see them put into action too often. The Democratic led Congress has failed miserably at doing its job in furthering its agenda. I don't think they have had any balls to stand up to Bush. And while I had great hopes for Nancy being the leader, she has also failed. I do think that Dennis Kucinich is about the only one of them that has any balls left. The rest are dickless.

I share your dim view of the political party agendas. Obviously there are several levels to the agendas, not all of which are focused on pursuing the 'public' agenda. Such is the nature of politics and why politicians as a social class are held in such low repute.

Why hasn't Kucinich gotten more done? He has failed consistently to implement his agenda. The reason is simple. He cannot do it by himself or with whatever support he has garnered.

It's pretty clear that also holds for the present Dem congress. They fall short of the strength to over come Presidential vetos in the House and Senate parlimentary restrictions in addtion to vetos in the Senate. (I dont laud the Dem leadership in either house and believe that Senate Leader should be retired from that post in the new Congress. )

How would you propose the Dems stand up to Bush that would lead to success instead of public flame outs in defeat? I don't believe either Dem congressional leader is smart enough to out maneuver this Bush/GOP congress axis. I'm not sure there is anyone smart enough at this particular time.

The Dems could have created a big public ruckus in their defeats. The lesson of the government shutdown in Clinton's admin shows that the pubic doesnt care for that even if ardent grass root supporters do. Usually it is better to keep your powder dry until the target is in reach. An alignment of the Congress and Executive Branch does just that. It was clear that the upcoming election would greatly strengthen the Democratic hold on government. After a couple of early failed attempts they pretty much decided to keep their powder dry until then.

Now, when the Dems stand on the verge of gaining that alignment and the strength to put up or shut up, this is not the time to deny them. Not if one embraces their 'agenda'.

If under their strengthened circumstance they don't produce then it is time to draft Ron Paul.

[BiBottomBoy]

I wish Ron Paul didn't come with so much racist and anti-abortion baggage.

He's right on so many, many other things, but so wrong about race and the right to choose.

I share your dim view of the political party agendas. Obviously there are several levels to the agendas, not all of which are focused on pursuing the 'public' agenda. Such is the nature of politics and why politicians as a social class are held in such low repute.

Why hasn't Kucinich gotten more done? He has failed consistently to implement his agenda. The reason is simple. He cannot do it by himself or with whatever support he has garnered.

It's pretty clear that also holds for the present Dem congress. They fall short of the strength to over come Presidential vetos in the House and Senate parlimentary restrictions in addtion to vetos in the Senate. (I dont laud the Dem leadership in either house and believe that Senate Leader should be retired from that post in the new Congress. )

How would you propose the Dems stand up to Bush that would lead to success instead of public flame outs in defeat? I don't believe either Dem congressional leader is smart enough to out maneuver this Bush/GOP congress axis. I'm not sure there is anyone smart enough at this particular time.

The Dems could have created a big public ruckus in their defeats. The lesson of the government shutdown in Clinton's admin shows that the pubic doesnt care for that even if ardent grass root supporters do. Usually it is better to keep your powder dry until the target is in reach. An alignment of the Congress and Executive Branch does just that. It was clear that the upcoming election would greatly strengthen the Democratic hold on government. After a couple of early failed attempts they pretty much decided to keep their powder dry until then.

Now, when the Dems stand on the verge of gaining that alignment and the strength to put up or shut up, this is not the time to deny them. Not if one embraces their 'agenda'.

If under their strengthened circumstance they don't produce then it is time to draft Ron Paul.