Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Democratic Presidential debate in Nevada

I watched the Democratic Presidential debate last night.

I thought that OBama won; however, most of those interviewed on CNBC thought Hillary Clinton won.

I still do not know who I will support for President this year. I will most likely support a Libertarian; however, I may vote for a Republican or Democrat depending on who wins the nomination of each of the three Party's.

After watching the debate my thoughts on the top three Democrats have not changed:

There is no way I could ever vote for John Edwards. I do not believe that he is genuine.

I also cannot vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. She is as fake as they come and she flip flops too much.

I could possibly vote for Obama. Obama has a lot of policies I disagree with; however, I think he is genuine.

Mike Sylvester

8 comments:

Robert Enders said...

Obama says he wants to abolish nuclear weapons. Either he is lying about this, or he really doesn't know anything about foriegn policy. Nukes kept the Cold War cold. If we got rid of our stockpile, we still could not verify that Russia and China got rid of theirs.

If forced to choose, I would choose Clinton over Obama. Even liars have a survival instinct and a desire to keep themselves safe. Which would hopefully translate into a desire to keep the country safe.

Templeton Peck said...

I would be okay with an Obama presidency. I would like to abolish nuclear weapons too, but that isn't possible or practical. Hopefully that is what he meant.

Robert Enders said...

Ok, I tried to look up the quote to see how serious he was. This is what I found:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/
So I was wrong about what he said. He supports maintaining a stockpile as a deterrent, but opposes generating any new weapons grade material.

If I am not mistaken, to maintain a stockpile, you must generate fresh plutonium on a regular basis because plutonium decays over time.

Mike, you know more about this than I do. What's the shelf life of a warhead?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Robert,

Plutonium 239 has a half life of 24,100 years...

steve said...

Obama is for a rational nuclear policy. There is not reason for the U.S. or any other nation to continue building nuclear missiles. Also, mutually-assured-self-destruction barely kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from nuclear war-- I hope that the U.S. does not rely on this as a solution in the future.

I'm, by the way, highly supportive of a Obama presidency:

Regardless of the fact that many of his policies would fail or be insufficient, as would any other presidents, he is the only (viable) candidate that can fundamentally change our political system. Beyond a good candidate, with need positions, Obama places esteem back in the political process-- he allows people to believe in democracy. A belief tarnished by the Bush years, (and Clinton years).

Obama also has arranged the best political counsel of any candidate, with the best and the brightest from across the country. Obama has the most academic/policy advisors of any candidate. He even has the most self-professed libertarian advisers. And these advisers are for-the-most-part not political hack. They are innovative thinkers and public servants. Human rights scholar, Samantha Powers, who was in Fort Wayne recently, is one such Obama staffer.

Kody Tinnel said...

I would definitely take Obama over Clinton or Edwards.

And I would much rather vote for Obama than any of the Republican frontrunners.

Robert Fuller said...

I would take Hillary. I like her ideas on health care. It really needs changed.

Fr. Fozy Bear said...

Out of the three it would be Edwards and Obama, of course Im still vying for a Paul-Kucinich ticket