We shouldn't measure how we vote for someone just because they kissed the cheek of a small child, or paid out thousands of dollars to help people in Katrina, because they were a powerful Senator for a few years, instead we should measure our votes out to people who have the same morals as us, who know what the guy down the street wants, we should vote for someone who can live up to the responsibilities of being President, who can just a normal person who happens to decide the fate of our nation, who can justify their actions and make all people believe in them. Hillary, in your book may be all of these, but she hasn't won my vote. I still see past the little smirk and the pants suit and see someone who has been weak in the past, and will carry that on for the future.
By the way, everyone should do their research before entering the polls, my question to you is how? When there are over 300 million people in our nation, 200 something that can vote, how can you reach every single one of them? A lot of people can't afford any type of technology. I think our candidates should focus more on education, not just in school, but LIFE education. They should focus on helping those families keep up with a fast pace world, either financially, or emotionally. Find a way to get rid of the national debt, and start having a positive cash flow and be able to have plentiful money to help those in need, and I'll vote for you. Until then, we have to rely on the media to tell us whose better than who, we have to rely on our friends who tell us what candidate did what, we have to rely on what information we have to decide who our next president is going to be.
to finish
Lastly, why is this tunneled vision? I want to critize all candidates, but Hillary just sticks out like a sore thumb, sorry. Instead of saying that we should vote for someone just because a lot of people say a lot of bad things about them, and we should give them a pity vote, we should question why are we voting for this particular person and not that one? I challege you to ask yourself what makes Hillary better than any other candidate?
Next Stop: New Hampshire
Taos, NM: If you were Bill Richardson, what would you do at this point?
Enjoy the ride and campaign for VP. But at some point he's going to run out of money and get off the debate stage.
Cleveland, OH: Dewey Defeats Truman. Why should we believe another poll or pundit ever again?
The only good thing about Dewey v Truman is that the news media has been getting it wrong for many decades. Some wise person - probably a pundit - noted that it was lamentable how many voters in Iowa and New Hampshire were talking about candidates as if they were pundits themselves, trying to assess who might win by analyzing the polls. If true, that's faintly depressing. Voters should be encouraged to analyze the candidates on their values, policies and character. To the extent that our current style of political reporting has contributed to the punditification of voters, that's a crying shame.
Charleston, SC: Interesting that your colleageus Jon Alter and Howard Fineman pretty much declared Obama the nominee before tonight. What do they say now?
I think they have written about this very subject on this very website.
West Lafayette, IN: Why aren't headlines showing that Obama is leading in delegates and got the most delegates in NH than Hillary? After all, does not the Democaratic candidate with the most delegates win the nomination?
You are right. Delegate counts matter. But delegate counts at this stage are tiny.
St. Charles, IL: Last night as the results started coming in showing Hillary ahead by 2%, a lead she never relinquished, why did MSNBC panelists avoid any discussion of this early lead until it became quite obvious that she might even hold the lead and win? Were they waiting for the "Hanover" vote? Are they still waiting?
The notion of "calling" a race is a difficult one. After 2000, the networks - and the AP - are rightly very cautious about doing so in a close election. New Hampshire was a very close race, so I think their caution was justified.
New Bern, NC: Just because Clinton beqt out Obama by 3 points, does not the fact that Edwards got 17 percent of the vote have a factor? Combined, Clinton does not beat out Obama and Edwards,i.e. these are non-Clinton votes.
Who is to say that all the Edwards votes are non-Clinton?
Discuss