Right now, could you vote for any of the current candidates and really be excited about them?

Eugene Mcarthy

Bleh, certainly not Al Gore. His movie drove me insane; he has such a high opinion of himself that he makes everything he says impossible to listen to. The movie isn't about global warming, it's about Al Gore.

I would love to vote for Barry Goldwater or Ross Perot. I don't think they have much of a chance in '08, though.

So far we can only be excited about dead people, Ross Perot (is he institutionalized?) or Gore (who some might say acts dead)

No Republicans out there that our Letsrun brothers can be proud to say they would for for.

(Actually I think Goldwater would have been great and the current crop of Republicans would have really ticked him off)

I'm not wild about any of them. The Republican field is weaker than 1996 when Bob Dole ran. I'd take Dole over any of the current Republicans who have thrown their hats in the ring.

The Democrats seem pretty weak, too.

I wonder if we can clone Harry Truman or Ike Eisenhower...

Harold Stassen

Ron Paul.

The thing is, I think it's okay to not be excited about any of them right now. Or to be that interested in them at all. The way they're all campaigning, you'd think the election was in a few months. If everyone in America gets on board with that sort of premature campaigning, it's going to be a slippery slope for elections in the future.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush would have a hard time--It's not like he would have his brother in place to hand him a state.

None of the candidates really does anything other than scare the hell out of me. Lord help us if Hillary Clinton got elected.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Ron Paul.

Okay, I could get excited about him. And he's the only decent person running.

Not sure if excited is the right word, but I feel that Rudy Giuliani would be a very capable leader. He has done

a great job in New York and should be able to do the same as prez.

For the dems, Obama's credentials are thin, but he is the kind of charismatic leader about which people could get excited.

I'm definitely not excited about the possibility of another round with the Clintons.

The political machine is such that any candidate that runs will be made to seem very unappealing by the time the election rolls around. When you look at some of these people from the last few election cycles on paper, they are really remarkable.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Bob Dole, John Kerry, John McCain, George Bush Sr., Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, Gen. Wesley Clark... Say what you will about them, but if you look at what these people have accomplished in thier lives, they are outstanding individuals, and more deserving of praise than of the condemnation they constantly get. The problem is that so much of the political debate now is about villainizing the individual and is less focused on policy disagreements and more on highlighting personal shortcomings. (Interestingly, one of the major candidates of the past few years who IMHO really hadn't distinguished himself was George W.)

I find that when I ask people why they don't like so-and-so, it's usually a pretty trivial reason which I suspect has been planted in thier head by listening to various pundits: 'He's too stiff', 'She's too bitchy', 'I just don't like him,' etc... It's really disgusting to me when people have such strong personal dislikes about a particular candidate when all they really know is what they've heard on the 24hr tabloid news networks.

is Fam a candidate?

Roy White wrote:

I couldn't.

The only person who I would be excited about voting for is not technically a candidate.

I know how you feel but Fred Thompson WILL technically be a candidate.

Col. Nathan R. Jessup wrote:

I know how you feel but Fred Thompson WILL technically be a candidate.

If he gets in, it's game, set, match for the Republican nomination and probably in the general election as well.

Here's the quick and dirty:

Hillary: Pros - She's the only candidate who combines intelligence, determination and capability. Cons - She will have a hard time convincing older men to vote for her because she reminds them all of their first wives.

McCain: Pros - He's the most level headed, rational member of both parties. Cons - He's lost the evangelicals whom presumably can't bring themselves to forgive him for dissing that 700 Club guy. Republicans can't win without the Evangelicals.

Barrack: Pros - He's the most intelligent, thoughtful candidate. He also carries himself in a very presidential manner, in stark contrast to Dubya who has degraded the office with his plain speak, shoot from the hip style. Cons - He's got no experience and in case we haven't noticed, white people in the blue states don't take to kindly to black people in power.

The Divorcees (Juliani/Gingrich): Pros - They were able to convince someone to marry them. Cons - They've got 6 ex wives amongst them.

The Mormon Mitt: Pros - He's a flip flopper Cons - He's a flip flopper and would have a hard time parlaying apparent public support into voting booth support.

So here's how it’s gonna end up; Hillary/Barrack against McCain/"Religious Person". I'll definitely vote for the lady and the rock star over the other option (And I really like McCain). Besides, nothing would make me happier than to make those crabby old baby boomers squirm under female leadership.

Joe Biden

I don't understand the criticism of being a flip flopper. Isn't the mark of an intelligent person someone who can be convinced by evidence and who has an open mind to give other views a hearing? Of course, when one drops their faith in reason to cuddle up to religious nutters like Falwell. I queston their rational judgement, but it isn't their changing their minds in general that is a problem.

Why do we priviledge sticking to your guns no matter what a positive attribute? I have changed my mind about alot of things over the years.

Personally, I would vote for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who would avow their belief in the Enlightenment and flatly state that they are an atheist or even if they just bluntly stated that religious beliefs aren't necessary and may be undesireable in deciding on moral courses of action. I coudl almost gurantee such a person would not be beholden to any ideology that pre-exits engagement with the facts and would be willing to change their minds as new facts came in.