These guys running for office are puppets.

Unless CNN's so called "lower tier candiates" start getting some play, the US will go right along with what it's doing now -> Ignoring the people and putting you into economic slavery.

All she wants is power.

And what does Giulani want, exactly?

[Obama]’s another John Kerry, and no one wants that now.

But people want another Bush now? A less friendly-looking, sleazier Bush, nonetheless.

Why is Giulani saying he's the only one who can beat Clinton? The only GOP candidate right now that can best Clinton in every field, including the war, is Ron Paul. Giulani has the same chances of beating Clinton as Romney or someone like Huckabee.

Al Gore tried to be a pioneer by picking Joe Lieberman, a Jew, as his VP. The result was that Gore lost every single state in the South, including his home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas. I am convinced that crude anti-Semitism was a factor here.

Parties should only select 'high risk' candidates when the election is unwinnable. Thus, Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro as VP was smart. Although Mondale lost to Reagan, the Democratic Party made huge inroads in the female vote due to their historic selection of Ferraro.

Gore's selection of Lieberman was disastrous because the election was his to win and choosing a candidate whose religion would draw fire created unncessary risk. Lieberman also was a terrible candiate, essentially chumming it up with the villainous Dick Cheney in the VP debates. Cheney, a man whose entire existence is owed to govt. service mumbled that the govt. "had absolutely nothing" to do with his massive financial gains at Halliburton...and Lieberman chuckled.

I respect Barack Obama and violently detest GOP racists Romney and Graham for posing with the Obama-Osama-Chelsea's Momma signs. But to give the always vicious GOP a 'target rich ticket' of a woman and a black man is to commit political suicide.

Americans what to see some change for the better in the government, not predictions who will be on the other parties ticket.

Goes to Socialism? In what sense? Are you talking about socialized medicine?

What about socialized law? Every criminal has a right to an attorney, why shouldn't every family have a right to a doctor?

What about socialized mail? Have you recieved a letter lately Trevor? Pretty damn social, isn't it? Yep, that damn Post Office is down right communist.

Oh, let's not forget The Fire Dept. That is the epitome of Socialized goods and services provided by the goverment.

I think maybe you're right Trevor, let's de-socialize the fire dept.

I just hope you live in Beverly Hills instead of Compton, because Beverly Hills would get all the good fire engines and the rest of the city would burn for lack of funds.

That's basically what's happening to our health care system. I know this first hand that your health all comes down to profits and how much money you have to care for yourself.

The fact that we live in the richest country on the planet and people are constantly losing their life savings because of illness, is a crime against humanity.

I say do what Obama or Edwards suggests, let the private insurance companies compete with a "socialized goverment medical system."

If you want to keep paying an arm and a leg for coverage you can never use for fear of such rates going up or being canceled, go for it. We'll see which system wins out.

Bottom line, you're living in a socialized system, the scary kind, when you can't take a day off or get hurt for fear you'll lose your job and be homeless. That's scary!

It ain't going to happen.

Have you not been paying attention to the debates and the various books of the various candidates you can get at the local library? (Yes, Republicans have failed to ban libraries, yet.)

Read Audacity of Hope, read Clinton's book. Listen to the two of them speak. You'll start to notice key differences.

Hillary is trying very hard not to upset the existing system. She believes in taking money from lobbyists and she agrees with several tenets of the "war on terror."

Obama shuns lobbyists because as a newcomer to the Senate he's seen what tremendous money being thrown at politicians is doing to control the issues discussed. He has repeatedly, for years, since before any other candidate DARED to talk about it, said that the "war on terror" is a fear mongering tool to control the masses. He has said, quite correctly, that 9/11 was a heinous CRIMINAL ACT, not an Act of War, as Hilary has said.

That right there is the fundamental difference between the two. Obama realizes that you cannot go to war in the conventional sense with terrorists, who have no loyalties to borders and no infastructure.

On the flip side, Clinton is still exibiting a 90's sense of cold war mentality, the same US versus THEM mentality that Bush has crowed from every building top for six years.

It is the difference between YESTERDAY and TOMORROW. A huge difference in cultural thinking and a world mentality versus an isolationist mentality.

You cannot simply treat terrorists like we're at war, because the danger of being perpetually at war is the elimination of our rights, for good... not to mention the stress caused heart attacks of thinking that THE ENEMY is going to jump up from any rock.

Clinton would be either intentionally or niavely drawn into the use terror to control the population and her agenda, Obama would use common sense to change the stereotypes and get people thinking rationally and constitutionally again, that's the main difference in my mind.

Because they know he's got the most inevitable shot at being the next President. They want him out of the way.

However, their response to Obama's comments shot themselves in the foot the same way Clinton did when she responded to him. They said that his comments about going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden whether Pakistan agreed to or not were "naive". They made themselves look like a bunch of whimps on their own favorite subject, the bogus "war on terror." I guess they all, including Clinton, were saying that they WOULD NOT go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, THE DUDE THAT ATTACKED US, without the permission of Pakistan.

They look weak, Obama looks stong, actually, he looks like the only candidate with his head correctly screwed on.

And Obama will not choose her and his VP.

Even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time beating this ticket. Who is 911 Rudy Toody Fruddy again? He'll be lucky to get the Republican nomination. Stats show that 57% of republicans are unaware of his stance on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Once these fundamentals realize, Rudy will share the same fate as Howard Dean. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!

On a serious note. Children who dislike their parents so much they plan on voting for the other guy, should tell us all we want to know about Mr. Mayor. His kids are stuck with him as their father. They have no choice. America on the other hand does. Please do not pick this blowhard.

since when is new england a state?

Don't know if I agree with his prediction about Hillary and Obama though. Given her extremely high negative ratings and the fact that she is one of the most polarizing political figures in recent history, I don't know if I would just call the race hers at this point.

Luckily, that act of God has a name – Ron Paul!

That pretty much assures the Republicans will lose the Presidential race in '08.

Then they turn around and demonize that which they hope they've created in the minds of the voters.

I really think Rudy better watch out, a horse named Petraeus is closing on the outside. I predict a Petraeus/Webb ticket. That's right – Webb. Two military types, one from each party. It's sooooo red, white and blue, sooooo Yankee Doodlish. It'd be like having a Bud car and a Miller car come in first and second at Talladega.