There are other candidates that are much stronger and have a better chance of winning – especially if the Republicans don’t get their act together. I just wonder why the press is so focused on Hillary.

Also, why isn’t there a runoff in Presidential elections? Sure, it would cost money, but no more than these primaries. Do away with the primaries and let us just vote. Then let the top two winners duke it out.

But then, so do the Obama and Edwards steamrollers.

I also don’ t think you’ve given enough thought to the Republicans who are embarrassed as all get out at how Bush has dragged the country down economically and morally.

And it ain’t like I never played crossover voter games before.

2) Pelle says: Your issues with her stances aside, it seems to me that America will never be ready for a female president as long as it comes in the form of a strong, assertive type…

Wait a second. What do you mean “issues with her stances aside”? Is this like “issues with his slashing innocent women aside, Jack the Ripper was an okay guy?” Are there people out there who are sexist and hate Hillary on those grounds? Sure – lots of them. But let’s take that argument over to them. Around here there are lots of people – me included – who’d be just peachy with a woman president (or a black or a gay or a whatever minority you’d like to inject into the conversation). But THE ISSUES are, well, the issue. There’s not currently a Republican I’d prefer to Hillary, but I assure you, I’ve had plenty to say about why I think she’d be horrible for the country, and if you caught me in the right moment some of it might sound “vitriolic.”

But there’s the problem. Linking criticism of her with “vitriol” is a tactic that would, if successful, mute challenges to her on any grounds because hey, nobody wants to be framed as a sexist.

So you can consider your thesis rejected in this corner. The problem with Hillary isn’t that she’s strong, it’s that she’s wrong.

While Obama has been accused of being inexperienced, he has no less experience than Hillary. Being a First Lady does not qualify as experience. Obama was an Illinois state senator for 7 years before going to Washington where he has had 2.5 years of experience. How many years has Hillary been a senator? Furthermore Obama lived overseas which gives him a different perspective which I think all of us can appreciate.

The quality I admire in Obama is his sense of justice tempered with intelligent and reasoned logic. His responses are generally measured and thoughtful. I like the fact he is willing to speak to other world leaders rather than insisting they must bend to American rule. By doing so it shows respect that is non-existent in the Bush administration. And his willingness to bridge the divide Obama shows cautioned reason, whereas Hillary is too reactive which means just more of the same. She is too hawkish and triangulates instead of taking a definitive stand. She seems eager to follow in Bush’s footsteps regarding foreign policy. For instance, her support for attacking Iran without taking into consideration the consequences is worrisome.

Certainly no one will agree with any one person on all issues, but there is nothing to suggest Hillary will be much different than what we have now and that is unacceptable. IMHO Notwithstanding she is intelligent, charming and engaging, but i do not trust her.

Theretofore if republicans cross over during the primary that is just fine with me. Obama has a lot of republican support, but how much is the question?

Insofar as Ron Paul Iam impressed by his honesty and courage to speak the truth. Yet what i do not like includes his plans to privatize our infrastructure and most everything else, pull us out of the UN, disengage the US from treaties and end social programmes like Social Security and medicare, etc…

I believe in the UN. Of course it is not perfect — it reminds me of our Congress. The UN is the only organization that, on the most part, keep nations talking and from warring on each other. Without the UN the world would be a crazy place without structure or law.

I’d rather see the next president instead of backing out of treaties, fix them.

Ending social programmes is not a practical idea either. Absent a safety net what are people to do; It would be unfair and unjust to them. Everyone deserves to have their basic needs met: a roof over their head, food, water and clothing. Iam not suggesting welfare, however, certain people do need help.

If Ron Paul is your choice you may want to reconsider.

Look it up

Your issues with her stances aside, it seems to me that America will never be ready for a female president as long as it comes in the form of a strong, assertive type like Mrs. Clinton. Laura Bush would have a much better chance of getting elected because she appears soft, feminine and submissive. What a sad commentary on this country.

But I’m voting for Dennis Kucinich – the only really honest person running for prexy!

If Republicans would return to their roots and choose the most sensible candidate, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ron Paul would steal a lot of Democratic votes and ultimately win. Throw in Obama as the VP and Hillary is toast.

I’d argue that the tides have turned so much in the Democrats favor that the hypothetical Republican’s best bet would be to vote for the Democrat that most closely shares their values in the primary.

I’m voting for Pat Paulsen. The only real choice.