Hillary Clinton is too polarizing. It'd be a gigantic mistake for the Dems to put her up in my opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with a woman, in general, holding office, but I'd have a real big problem with THAT woman holding it.

And yeah, the electoral college is fuckin' retarded. I live in a state that's notoriously a blue state (When Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his landslide win, Minnesota was the only one he lost.) but my parents are staunch conservatives. They hit the polls & vote every election but their guy never wins & all of our states votes end up going to someone they oppose. (Which I typically find pretty funny.) People say it's important to vote, but honestly, I can see a lot of cases where it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Right around the 04 elections, it was rumored that Colordao was gonna change how their electoral votes worked. Let's say, for the sake of simplifying this, that Colorado has 10 electoral votes. If 60% of their states voters voted Democrat, 30% republican & 10% for 3rd party candidate, they would give 6 electoral votes to the dems, 3 to the repubs, and 1 to the 3rd party. To me, that's fair. It represents the popular vote & then, even if you know your candidate doesn't stand a chance of winning your state, you don't neccesarily feel like your wasting your time going to vote because you know it will count for something. It never happened though and until it does, we're stuck with the utterly retarded all or nothing system.

We desperately need to do that. It would be a great start to getting into a multi-party system (something I'm in favor of.) If people saw a third party candidate winning some electoral votes, they might actually start to believe that voting for those people ISN'T a complete waste of time.

I couldn't agree more! I'd like to see up to 10-12 candidates each election, all on a level playing field (Same amount of money for campaign, same amount of tv airtime, etc...) and all with a viable chance of winning.




My wife sent an email around about a month ago with a bunch of little things to ponder, one of which was... Why are there over 50 candidates for Miss USA, but only 2 for president? It's a good fuckin' question.

We have government parties over here and its fucken ridiculous..
Labour or National are the only 2 that always win

the next president will be thinking he/she made a mistake for running.
we should force g. bush to stay president till he dies, let him handle his war.

Sorry, but, full republican all the way. (I even supported Bush)

Anyone who thinks Hilary Clinton could be president in 2008 lives in fantasy land.

I don't even know who's thinking about running, but I bet some southern good ol boy with a doofy smile wins.

Oh no, miss Dolly.

We all know it will be you. :)

A lot of the names getting thrown around are people I either don't like or don't care about. Given the people thought to be shoe-ins for running in '08, I don't think there'd be anybody I'd vote for that I'd be voting for because I like them. Maybe McCain or Obama. But, there's one politician that I really want to run for president. And that man is:


http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/..._300x450,0.jpg
Kinky Friedman

As long as it isn't bush. Oh yeah, IT CANT BE! Here in Britain a head of party can lead the two houses for as long as they want (or they're elected/ the party keep them as the big one.) Look at magie thatcher! She was a nutcase (But still she would be fun to have back) and she was incharge for three terms!