Clinton or Obama?

[nedflanders]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/ 7359957.stm

If you could vote who would you vote for and why?

[vehelpfulguy]

I could understand all this fuss if it was to decide who was actually going to be president, but this electoin is to decide who is going to stand for election as president.

Why on earth the americans spend all this time, and millions of dollars, making this decision.

And after taking all this time, and spending all this money, who do they finish up with: Nixon, Carter, Reagen, Bush snr, Bush jnr.,

If they want to take this long making the decision, fine, but why it has to be rammed down the throats of the UK population for months on end I have no idea.

[keyplus90]

First of all what vehelpfulguy said. It is for who would be candidate, and there is sooooooo Much fuss in the media. In the end does not make any difference who is President as all the decisions are made in Pentagon.

[RevFunk]

Neither

As all politics is pants

[4GS]

Obama
Clinton would be as bad as her hubby was

[RevFunk]

Only America could drag out the race for months. Yawn.

[jno]

the next president will be one of three people: a black man, a white woman, and a white male Vietnam vet who sings 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' to the tune of the Beach Boys'
'Barbara Ann'. Sounds like a genuinely interesting choice to me (and possibly to the Iranians).

[Quinlad]

Supply and demand. The media is full of it because people are interested.

In the same way that the media os full of news about Britney's cellulite or what Jordan's done to her hair.

Horses for courses.

[sp1214]

The American public must be so fed up with these two warring factions claiming to be on the same side I wouldn't be surprised if McCain got in.

[VorVZakone]

I'd vote for the bridge to nowhere.

[SeaJayPea]

I suspect, although I really hope it's not true, that the Democrats have messed up this time. I think there are vast areas of the good ol' USA where people just will not vote for either a woman or a black man. I think McCain is a shoo-in for the Presidency unless something spectacular happens.
On the basis that the world needs another right-winger in the White House like it needs a hole in its collective head, I'd go for Clinton rather than Obama purely because I think marginally fewer people will be put off voting for her than BO.
And isn't the whole thing depressing?

[perigra]

obama

[cruella]

Think it would have to be Obama.
Not keen on Hilary Clinton.

[winebuyer]

After two of the early primaries went to Obama, Bill Clinton said that the Clinton camp weren't worried beause ... wait for it ... Jesse Jackson had won the same two primaries when he had been standing.

So Bill ... why do you lump Mr Obama in with Mr Jackson?

Do you by any chance have him mentally pigeonholed as the token black guy, who will lose in the end because Jesse Jackson did? It rather seems that way.

And you really think that you and Mrs Clinton should be back in the White House? Well I have news for you Bill ... Mr Obama is going to whupp your wife's butt. I hope.

However, by the time of the proper Election, the Clintons will have slagged Obama off to the point where John McCain will walk into the White House.

[Kromovaracun]

The Primaries are an important part of the USA electoral process. The point is to reduce the influence of parties: in the UK the national parties effectively dominate nominations and selection of candidates. Which means that if you have views which differ from those of the two main parties, you're screwed if you want to run for election. Because parties are much broader groupings of ideals in the USA, more are represented.

I'd vote for Obama, if it was between the two of them (though of the big three I prefer McCain to both of them). Clinton's policies are a little more puzzling and unrealistic in places, and she has had a tendency recently to shoot herself in the foot. She's also worryingly populist on economic issues (life NAFTA)

Unfortunately, so's Obama. And a few of his policies are a little goofy, too. But most of them are okay. H's also more charismatic and generally looks the better leader.

[Quinlad]

Clinton for me. On policy, although she looks like dour conservative, she's more liberal than Obama and talks about policy detail - rather than crowd-pleasing talk of hope and dreams (not that there's no place for that).

The Republican party is so far to the right of either Labour or the Conservatives that it's simply not in the UK's interest for our key ally to be led by a Republican.

[Kromovaracun]

I think you're over-generalising there. Republicans are broadly very right-wing but be careful of assuming they're all the same (as parties are in the UK). McCain, for instance is a good example of a RINO [Republican In Name Only], as is Schwarzennegger. Plus you have plenty of examples of DINOs across the South. Plus I think it'd be odd to say that Reagan's presidency was bad for the UK.

The thing about American politics is to view them as individual candidates, rather than party candidates like we're used to in Blighty. McCain's a Republican but he's not necessarily that right wing on several issues. He's also the only main candidate who actually admits he's weak on economics. Plus has a far more sensible Iraq policy than either of the Democrat frontrunners.