To all the non-US residents, please don't stay out of this discussion, I'd really like to know what things look like from the outside to you guys.

I'm wondering how people are feeling about the current slate of presidential candidates. Who do you support? Why?

I just came off reading The Audacity of Hope, and really enjoyed and agreed with many of Obama's point of views. I like his strong economic understanding and think he might be able to do a bunch of good things for the country. He gets criticized for promising too much with vague ideas of utopia. I read his book to see if he had more depth than talking points can give him and decided that he is capable of making intelligent informed decisions, and that that was the best I could hope for.

What do other people think?

As an afterthought - for any supporters of a different candidate, do they recommend any books by said candidate? I don't feel that talking points and 2 paragraph summaries can do someone justice and I'd rather hear what they have to say along with the more important why they say it.

I like Obama's voting record the most. I'd like McCain if he weren't schizophrenic. Hilliary is eh; I seem to like her a lot more than other people I know, and I'm not exactly hot on her.

I'd do a dance for a Gore/Obama ticket in any particular order, but given the treatment Dean got in '04, I don't think someone like Gore, who's become such a non-Clintonian in the past couple years, would make it out of the wringer.

But after the past six years, if it's blue, I'm voting for it.

I'm from Arizona, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I think there's gotta be a better way to handle Iraq than pulling out. Take a wild guess how I'm likely to vote. If Obama wins the nomination, though, I can take satisfaction in the observation that, for the first time in a good long while, both candidates seem to be good ones.

I have a lot more fun following the political tactics used by the hopefuls, however. Watching how everybody's doing their best to distances their camp from Bush, because, at the moment, Bush is political poison. You don't want to be seen as friendly or approving of Bush, no matter how similar some of your policies are (which, incidentally, is still pretty different - McCain is not Bush any more than Obama is Carter). I've also noticed that McCain and Obama, despite having quite different viewpoints on a number of issues, have found it beneficial to provide sound bites that are virtually identical, expressing the same dissatisfaction with the status quo while silently planning completely opposite solutions. It's fascinating.

I haven't looked into third parties, yet. Generally speaking, they don't start preparing for elections anywhere near as early as the Democrats or Republicans.

Honestly, I haven't heard a single peep about the upcoming US elections. Wouldn't even be able to tell you who was running. I will admit that I don't spend huge amounts of time reading and watching the news, but I don't think I've seen a single item on it either in the press or on the tv.

Unlike last time, when the rest of the world was hoping to god that bush wouldn't get re-elected, this election seems to be much less relevant to the rest of us.

My ideal Pres/Vp...Al Gore should run for President again, and his Vice President running mate should be Obama.

I like Obama, a lot. But I think he would be a much more effective President if he had 4 or 8 years in the executive branch under his belt. Gore has already been there, and I think he would do a good job and be a great trainer for Obama.

Here's an interesting article on Obama (full disclosure: I subscribe to Harper's in print, and have for years, even though I'm Canadian). There's also a useful follow-up that contains links to the response to the original article by Obama's office.

Here's an interesting one on Hillary (I don't subscribe to The Atlantic Monthly, though).

Both very informative in terms of the sorts of things that wouldn't be reported in more mainstream, less long-winded sources. That's why I vastly prefer essay-style writing to op-ed.

Overall, I'm not sure quite what to make of either the Republican or Democratic nomination races, though I'm skeptical of Hillary's ability to win the presidency if she lands the nomination. Having said that, it would be fascinating if she did win -- assuming she made it through her first term, that would mark 24 years of uninterrupted governance in the U.S. by only two families.

What's most interesting to me about the American political spectrum, though, is that your political centre is so far to the right of ours. Your "radical liberals" would be roughly centrist moderates here in Canada. Of the slate of candidates I know much of anything about, I like Obama the most to this point -- from what I've gathered, his political ideology is closer to mine than those of the other candidates are -- but I'm skeptical of his ability to win the nomination and the election.

LordCancer:
Does anyone really think that an African American or a Woman can be elected as president at this point in American History where racism has yet been dealt with and women are still looked upon as inferior to men?

That's a pretty broad generalization to spread across the entire country without a little bit of backup. Sure, maybe in some states non-WASP-males will have no chance. But, largely due to the Electoral College, a candidate doesn't have to do well in every state. And I'd rather think that the Civil Rights Movement stuck a bit more firmly than that in most places. Really, which is more likely to get a person ostracized: being black, or being racist?

I've read a few polls of voters, and black men fare best among minorities. They're a bit further ahead than Jewish men, and considerably further ahead (in the neighborhood of 10 percentage points) than white women. Funnily enough, atheists score the lowest. Here's an article on the poll.

And here's the interesting part.

Asked if they'd be willing to vote for a "generally well-qualified" candidate with the followign characterisitics, here's how the tally went in the Feb. 9- 11 poll.

Black 94%
Jewish 92%
A woman 88%
Hispanic 87%
Mormon 72%
Married for third time 67%
72 years of age 57%
A homosexual 55%
An atheist 45%

Which means a few of our earliest presidents probably wouldn't be able to win in this political climate.

The flipside of LordCancer's comment is that I'm actually quite interested in the US elections for the first time (I'm in the UK) precisely because I'd like to see a racial minority or a woman take the post.

I find it hard to get enthused by any of the candidates, though. Even the Democrats are way too far right for my tastes (and politics over here is following this trend).

An on top of all that, looking at Joe's stats above, it terrifies me that 55% wouldn't vote for an atheist.

Maybe we should widen the atlantic a bit. ;-)

Well, it's no picnic for me (an atheist) either. But the tides are turning. Evangelical Christians are in charge (primarily because they finally learned how to harness the language of equality and tolerance), but public opinion is beginning, slowly, to turn against them.

What bothers me most about American politics is how, almost since the very beginning, it's been basically mean and vitriolic. I don't just mean in terms of campaigning, either, but all the discourse. If you disagree with a person on one issue, it is immediately assumed you disagree with them on all issues, and are one of those damned pinkos/fundies/neocons/gays and must be hated out of the room before you try to subvert/convert/draft/screw all of us and then go legislate all our rights into oblivion. On some level we have a real fear of being persecuted by our fellow citizens - which is substantially different from countries which have had tyrants in their history or their neighbors' histories, where they (naturally) are more concerned with being persecuted by the government and/or their neighbors' governments. I think this speaks much of Americans' trust in democracy.

Joe:
Funnily enough, atheists score the lowest.

Last year, I read about a survey conducted by the University of Minnesota showing that atheists are the least trusted minority in America, and that American parents would be least willing to permit their child to marry an atheist (assuming parental control or at least strong parental influence, of course). So the result you linked doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm just thankful that my American girlfriend's immediate family couldn't care less about my atheism. My girlfriend's a theist (though not active in a church); her older sister is a Methodist minister and her younger brother is a practicing Taoist. I fit in okay. :P

Bongo Bill:
neocons

One reason people who oppose them might think it's more OK to be a blanket anti-neocon is the sheer scale of the destruction their philosophy has wrought. Regardless of whether that's fair or justified, I think it's part of the explanation for why this particular aspect of what you're talking about happens.

About your closing point, though, I agree -- I've found in general in my interactions with Americans both online and in person that you folks are less trusting/more fearful of your government than we are in Canada. I mean, we have plenty of cynics here (Hi!), but the concern that armed rebellion against our government might be necessary someday isn't credible here. I think that goes right back to the American Revolution, though the Civil War probably exascerbated it. It's an interesting difference.

Bongo Bill:
I think this speaks much of Americans' trust in democracy.

Maybe they're right. Democracy as it's currently practiced isn't actually any good, we just don't have a better alternative. It's a political system of averages in which politicians converge into parties and parties converge towards each other.

To oversimplify - the right want liberty and the left want society, but our ballot papers don't even offer these choices. Instead, we choose between two or three points right in the middle of that spectrum. You want radical tax cuts and lightweight government ? Too bad, no candidate that far right will ever get enough votes. You want ethical government and social responsibility ? Too bad, no candidate that far left will ever get enough votes.

I'd have said the left want equality and the right want liberty, but perhaps your broader use of "society" is more correct in that it speaks to the general concerns of equity, civility, and so on.

In any event your analysis is spot on.

The Democratic contenders have me in an ironic position, especially if Gore was running. I'm a card-carrying liberal poster boy, and yet I'd favour both men (Gore and Obama) over the woman (Clinton), and of the men I'd favour the white man over the black man. :P

Seriously, though: whenever I'm frustrated by the political system here in Australia, I take a look at America. And I shudder a little inside.

I'm not sure if the majority of Americans, or even highly educated Americans, realise how right-wing their political scene is. In most countries, the Democrats would be a centre-right party and the Republicans would be the religious fringe. I'd guess most countries' major progressive party would be about on par with Nader.

What baffles me is the way the U.S. votes like a country under seige. It's possibly the most powerful nation in human history and it has no enemies beyond a handful of rag-tag criminals. What's it so afraid of?

LordCancer:
Does anyone really think that an African American or a Woman can be elected as president at this point in American History where racism has yet been dealt with and women are still looked upon as inferior to men?

White people love Barack Obama...because he makes Bryant Gumble look like Malcolm X.

Sorry, had to steal from Rooney on Chappelle's Show.

With regards to the main topic of this thread, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate Giuliani and the Democrats nominate Gore. Both are intelligent men. Both inspire people. Neither one is a platform party hack.

Archon:
With regards to the main topic of this thread, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate Giuliani and the Democrats nominate Gore. Both are intelligent men. Both inspire people. Neither one is a platform party hack.

And Giuliani has a closet full of skeletons. It'd definitely make the race interesting! Also, despite all his outward appearances, Gore has a sense of humor, can laugh at himself, and has a quick mind. A debate between these two would interest me greatly.

Fraser.J.A:
I'm not sure if the majority of Americans, or even highly educated Americans, realise how right-wing their political scene is. In most countries, the Democrats would be a centre-right party and the Republicans would be the religious fringe. I'd guess most countries' major progressive party would be about on par with Nader.

Educated Americans certainly notice this. Some of them have even speculated as to why. As I see it, the main reason for this is that two factions that are proportionately far larger than their European counterparts - the religious and the capitalists - have formed an alliance of convenience.

Religious influence is higher than elsewhere because the US has a strong rural tradition, and Christian denominations ranging from "devout" to "fundamentalist" spread deep roots in rural areas. Capitalist influence is higher than elsewhere because the American populace has always held a fervent respect for the government keeping the hell out of their business, and capitalism is the economic policy which best reflects this. The religious don't particularly care about capitalism, and the capitalists don't particularly care about religion. In Europe, these two factions would be vocal minorities, unable to win representation outside the less-urban areas and major industrial centers, respectively.

However, at the beginning of the Cold War, the United States put itself in the role of the opposition to Soviet Communism. In order to gain popular support for this position - which at the time was just another viewpoint, as it had not attained the vitriol of later decades - it drew support by playing up the institutionalized atheism of the USSR's brand of Marxism. This brought the religious into the anticommunist camp, and the capitalists were there already for obvious reasons.

When the Vietnam War came along, the nation became as polarized as ever it's been. The sheer hatred going on all around exceeded anything that had been seen even in the Civil War (if historical documents from both periods are to be believed, at any rate). Those who opposed the war, in order more thoroughly to state their opinion, took on a stance that was superficially or genuinely sympathetic to communism. Those who opposed communism, by sheer polarizing influence, came to support the war. This created great solidarity among all the anticommunist factions, which largely persists to this day.

During Vietnam, labor ceased to be a political influence; those who supported the welfare state sided with the anti-anticommunists, and all the rest picked one of the conservative groups to side up with. This is a major difference between the US and Europe - labor issues don't get big attention.

The neoconservatives, who are currently in power in the US, were the third anticommunist faction. Their opposition to communism was not ideological - indeed, they tended themselves to have moderately socialist leanings - but practical, as they recognized that the US and the USSR were enemies. They were liberals right up until the time when the counterculture and academia achieved hegemonic influence over the liberal side of the spectrum. The only thing the neoconservatives hated more than the Soviets was the counterculture. Consequently, the neoconservatives jumped to the conservative camp in Vietnam, joining the capitalists' and the religious' alliance despite not having anything in common with either of them.

The political environment that Vietnam left behind has caused the Republican party to attempt, variously, to appeal to the religious, the capitalists, and the neocons at the same time. This was made possible because the Democratic party's thinking was still dominated by the counterculture and other fairly radical viewpoints; as much as the three conservative factions disliked the way the Republicans pandered to the other two, they'd much rather get one-third of the pandering than no pandering at all.

Reagan's stance strengthened the capitalist and neoconservative factions (his apparent successes domestically and abroad brought moderates over to his way of thinking). Clinton's overblown controversy strengthened the religious (the religious faction's biggest strength is on moral issues, and a president being revealed as having an affair let them attract moderates). At the same time, of course, the things Clinton did well really strengthened the emerging liberal interests (education and environmentalism especially).

This brings us to 2000. Of the three conservative factions, the neoconservatives tend to have the most skilled politicians. The neoconservative viewpoint is largely defined by a subtle cynicism, which is an outlook that all powerful people must possess or at least understand. So the neoconservatives were in charge, and they led the religious and the capitalists to the White House in 2000 by the narrowest of margins. After 9/11, neoconservatism - which is really the only truly hawkish platform left in American politics - became the order of the day, resulting in the vitriolic yet fairly decisive 2004 election.

However, during this time, a new bloc, which doesn't yet have much in the way of a strong identity (but probably includes a majority of these boards), became very disillusioned with the neoconservative hegemony of the Republican party, and began flocking to the Democrats in just an adversarial stance.

Long story short, the Democrats went too far left at the wrong time.

If the Democrats are smart, they'll begin courting the capitalists at this time, since the capitalists have very little in the way of party loyalty. How the Democrats will manage to hold together an alliance of capitalists and environmentalists, I have no idea, but it'll get them into office (since no way will the average liberal side with neocons or the religious right at this point). Personally, I'm hoping that one of the parties will splinter, so that the Libertarian party has a chance to flourish.

Fraser.J.A:
What baffles me is the way the U.S. votes like a country under seige. It's possibly the most powerful nation in human history and it has no enemies beyond a handful of rag-tag criminals. What's it so afraid of?

It is very, very difficult to overstate the influence that the Cold War and the Vietnam War had on American thinking. Since the Cold War, America thinks in terms of nuclear chess - any enemy is a deadly enemy, and it doesn't matter if they hate you as long as they don't want to fight you. Since Vietnam, political discourse is hate, straw men, and wedge issues; a politician who does not make his position boldly and with a pre-emptive dismissal of anyone who'd disagree, he'll only get shot down by someone on the other side of the aisle who does.

If the story of the United States is to be a tragedy, the Vietnam War is the third act.

I'm from Argentina, and I'll try to give you an opinion on how things look from the outside like the first guy asked.

I think it was Frank Zappa who said that the difference between your political parties is that Republicans drink CocaCola and Democrats PepsiCola, and that's representative of the differences they have on foreign affairs. I don't know how a Democrate president would have reacted to the 9/11 attacks. Maybe he would have attacked Afghanistan out of the need to "do something" but not Irak, but who can say?

From the outside, your country (along with England and a couple of others) is seeing as imperialistic, as attacking others to steal their resources, as highly hypocrite -saying A and doing B-, and the reasons for attacking Irak were seeing as a bunch of lies. And from a (maybe) purelly Latin American perspective, highly hypocrite in regards to "free trade", since your government's recipies (100% independent of the rulling party) for Latin America's "development" are never actually applied to the US (for example, reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies). The US never eliminates them, because it knows that doing that would drive farmers to bankrupcy, since they can't compete with us; why? Because your farmers have a certain quality of life that ours never had. However, your governments have done everything in their power to force LATAM countries to eliminate their subsidies (and let's not even talk to prevent agrarial reform, which is the first thing the US did: the land if for the people that works it, not for the ones who can buy it and then just employ peasants). "Free trade" is just for the Third World, First World countries protect their companies and markets (Europe does the exact same thing) because they know neo-liberal "recipies" are country-destroying stuff.

These things are not going to change if a Democrat is elected, or if another Republican is elected, so from the outside (Third World in my case), it's basically the same.

And for being the "most succesful democracy", knowing that only half of your population actually votes, meaning that your president gets elected with the actual approval of only 25% of the people, creates a lot of doubts about your democracy (at least for the people that cares about these matters). It's clear that both parties are just "puppets" of the actual power in capitalist societies: enterprises (it's the same here in Argentina), and that 50% of your population feels that way (you can say that they don't care to vote since they know they'll agree with either candidate... but I don't think so). So once again, if both candidates mean the same to you, they most surely mean the same for everybody outside the US.

Someone above said that, even though Democracy is clearly the best we have at this point in human history, people don't seem to have trust on it. Argentineans feel in the exact same way. And we even had a brutal 6-year dictatorship that killed 30.000 people and launched us into a completely idiotic war with England over Falklands. But both of our parties are seen as corrupt and never actually caring about people's needs.

The problem with our democracies is the power that big business and money can exert on them, because they fund candidates. Because small candidates and minor parties can NEVER dream of winning anything. That's what should be corrected as soon as possible, with clear rules in regards to funding on political campaings. Big business should never be allowed to fund candidates, this way money becames critical for them, they then have to return favours, and the needs of the people go down the drain. Big business interests are not the same as the people's interests... I would go as far as to say that they are NEVER the same.

What if one candidate were to promise to expand trade negotiations to include video game sales?

Hahahaha... then I'll try to get my US visa and get there to vote for the guy/lady...

You have to be a citizen to vote. But I bet they'd appreciate it if you funneled some of your pirate munnies toward their campaign. :)

Check out the McCain-Feingold act. It limits, or tries to, the way candidates can accept campaign finance. Pretty good stuff.

Also, I saved a speech by Al Gore talking about how votes are pretty much something you can buy in terms of television air time. It's pretty interesting, damning and makes me wish he'd run again, if only because he's shown a smidgeon of honesty about the whole process.

We have an election here next Sunday. It's for the Mayor of Buenos Aires. There are 3 main candidates with chances (the rest of the country's provinces will have just 2, one of each party when their election time comes however), and the amount of money they're throwing makes perfectly clear that nobody without their financial possibilities stands a chance of competing with their publicity/advertising power. One of them is a business man (linked to several dirty practices in his past), other is our actual president's puppet (and has the ruling party's political support), and the other has been governing the city for the last two years (so he's using the city's money to fix EVERY AVAILABLE street and get the votes).

The other candidates will amount to maybe 5% of the votes that these three fail to get. They had a debate last week, their proposals were completely vacuous, no one said anything concrete, just "we are going to do this" (never HOW they are going to do it) and a poll a couple of weeks ago showed that 60% of the population will decide their vote based on what they see on TV... democracy is the best system by far, but we surely need to fix it.

Joe, the McCain-Feingold Act doesn't do what you think it does. Read it closely and ponder the implications; you're out of step with your own civil libertarianism and vocal politicking in supporting it, I think. It's one of the most restrictive laws on free political speech ever enacted. And it certainly hasn't taken the money out of politics: Post M-F, campaign financing costs more than ever, despite TV advertising being cheaper than in the past, despite Internet advertising being widely available, despite radio and print costing less.

As far as America being further right than the rest of the world, we're certainly further right than much of social democratic Europe and socialist Latin America. Are we really all that further right than Singapore, Japan, or South Korea?

No, America is really not all that further right than the country with 6 million North Korean missiles aimed at it every day, the country that unilaterally harvests thousands of endangered whales every year for "scientific research", or the country where you need a licence to chew bubble gum. Would you want it to be?