TnTComic

warren
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D)
82.61% match

Who?

He's a good guy!

Obviously, or he wouldn't exist in a news media vacuum. It's pretty simple, really:
The more friendly airtime a candidate gets from the Press, the more likely he (or she) is to be an enemy of nonconformity, freedom, liberty, etc.

It pegged me.

Ron Paul - 86.27% match

That IS who I will be voting for in November 2008--regardless of whether the Springtime for Hitler Party nominates him or not.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R)
76.00% match

Who?

New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 72.00%

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

warren
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D)
82.61% match

Who?

He's a socialist who wants a minimum yearly salary to all citizens of 5k. If you make more than that you get nothing, obviously, but if you are less than 5k, he brings you up.

He's a little insane.

Gravel is not a friendly guy. He's hugely confrontational and is constantly yelling about how democrats are as bad as republicans.

legendkiller13
can i pick none of the above? i do not feel represented by any prez wannabes at all. this is a pretty sore lot of choices if you ask me. on second thought ill take arnold

have you bothered to read or listen to any of the candidates? The Dems have several really awesome people running. I like Obama the best myself, not because I agree with him on everything(I don't) but because I think he would do the best job of fixing the problems we have. He's also insanely genuine and that means a lot to me.

Kuccinich is probably the closest to my political views and I'd really like to see him be Obama's vice pres.

Edwards is an OK choice but he tries to hard and seems almost as fake as hillary.

Gravel is insane and wont win the dem nom but he might run as a socialist.

And then theres the green party.

TitanOne
It pegged me.

Ron Paul - 86.27% match

That IS who I will be voting for in November 2008--regardless of whether the Springtime for Hitler Party nominates him or not.

you and me both pal, i dig ron paul because he can't sanction youre average political bullshit. he's a truth teller. him and kucinich.

I've had a change of heart. I say "why screw something up only half-way?"

Ghouliani is my master now, Joss Wheaton!

Me, me! Pick me!

Oh wait - you have to be American, don't you? And born into that rather elite circle of political dynasties that effectively acts as a Royal family while pretending the US doesn't have one ...

Damn. Fell at the first hurdle!

You know DAJB, almost every country I know with a presidential system functions like that. They are in all but name, pseudo monarchies... But not quite. More like aristocracies where the "elite" aristocrat families rule amongst themselves. -The US, Japan, Mexico... Whatever.

Countries least like that tend to have a weak ceremonial presidential head or powerless monarch... The Commonwealth countries, Spain etc...

Then there's places like France that are in between. I dunno, generally I'd say that presidential systems take too much of the worst of the Monarchy systems to function well as democracies. I prefer strong parlementary systems where the power of the leader isn't that great since he has to defer more to his party, and he's not that far above his peers since they were elected just the same was as him: not to any special role to start with. It makes the system inherently more democratic because the leader is a lot more accountable to the people.

But the US is stuck with it :(
I hope Obama wins. They're all centre right really, that's the only way they have a chance of winning, but aesthetically it'd look good to have Oboma as president. And I think he's less right than the rest... Or maybe that's just wishful thinking?

bobhhh
kucinich.

Maybe I'm just to close to see this but I can't see why people always talk about Kuchinich like he is, well compitent much less visionary. I mean from my perspective what Bush is to conservatives, Kuchinich is to liberals.

I've had him as my congressman for, well almost my whole life, and he has been a constant source of disapointment to me, of course in my opinion Ohio in general has some of the worst politicians including our wonderful governor Taft and several former mayors of Cleveland, but I digress.

It has been my experience growing up with this leadership and seeing him on TV and even locally campaining that he isn't very effective. When I was young even though he was supposed to be looking at national policy he was always to busy appearing at local events. For example I remember him standing in front of a hospital closing vowing to keep it open to make sure the poor in the area could have local access to decent doctors, a week later is was closed. This always seemed to be his trend in my life time, that when the attention was elsewhere so was he with no comment to the last project. Now that he is running for president he seems to have a much more national vision but I fail to see how he has really changed his operations. He seems always more content to shout out what he wants or what is wrong then actually making any change. Often times he has come off as totally unrealistic in his political theory. He seems highly prone to well intentioned unrealistic high handed failures.

I wish I could speak to his term as mayor of Cleveland but I wasn't around for it and I don't want to pass on second hand information.

I'm not going to say there is some you simply must vote for but I beg you to at least rethink this particular individual.

Other than "I had him as my congressman" I don't see where your comparison is apt. Can you please supply specific examples? I don't mean to disparage your vague memories, but frankly, they're vague.


I'd really like to see this, because I think every candidate deserves a high level of scrutiny.

Clerification I mean my adult life: He was elected in 1996 when I was going on 14 and starting to become clearly aware of such things.

I really don't know how else to take that except as disparaging, and perhaps a rather personal attack. I didn't offer you vague memories I offered you an over view of his carrier from my perspective. He has been my representative for a very long time my memories include vague, sharp and current one. I just don't see the point in mentioning that say the name of the hospital was Mount Siani(SP) since it is gone now and the name means nothing to you. I can't help but feel that was rather unfair of you.

Further having him as my congress man has nothing to do with the comparison it simply gives me different view point then most people here which I am attempting to share. My point is that, like Bush, he is a well intentioned individual who is highly polarizing, is rather openly proud of his beliefs to the point of failing to achive them, and who's compitency is over often overshadowed by his passion.

For example in his home grounds of Cleveland education has been a major issue. So bad in fact at on point the head of our school district commited suicide out of dispair for his inability to help. However rather then stress education which would resonate with his home base and much of the country the issue that took center stage in 2004 was his attempt to find a wife which got him on many talk shows. Currently many Ohioans are upset at his jetting about to other states rather then representing his state for the last several years.

To be fair he does hold to most of his beliefs (the only one I can think of his actively flip floping on is abortion) but they are often so extream that they have no chance of going anywhere thusly he can't really be held accountable for them when the fail to gain momentum.

Subsiquently when he reports that the real reason democrats don't want to have a debate on fox is because they don't want to debate him (I'm misquoting him slightly there, I belive he said that was an additional reason) was because they didn't want him to make them look bad, I can't help but be sceptical that this wasn't just an attempt to get his name out again. Incidentally it worked since he was almost the only canidate quoted in the story.

Additionally his frequently combative (and in some cases rather grandstanding) behavior always put him on the fringe even when he is clearly in the right or at the very least stands a good chance of pulling far more mainstream support. While he has picked up far more tact as the years have progressed he really has never stopped this maner of politics. In the end he has very loudly made his voice heard, but accoplished very little which is really the point that bothers me most about him (though I am also critical of what I feel are unrealistic world views this is a more recent development as prior to the Iraq war he seemed to stay largely focused local & some national issues as opposed to international).

Well I don't claim he is a visionary, just that he seems honest and transparent for a washington politician, and he is saying the right things about the war, at least now which is when it counts.

But I like Obama more and more, and not because it would be awsome for us to have a black president just cause(although it would be awsome), but because he seems the most sane and levelheaded of the bunch. He generates calm and trust, and that's important as a leader, and besides I feel he is less likely than some to go back on his promises because you get the sense that his word actually means something to him.

bobhhh
Obama seems the most sane and levelheaded of the bunch.

Oh well. Guess that's scuppered his chances then!
;)

The highest I got was 64% with kunivich. It doesn't surprise me in the least bit since, in my opinion, both sides are full of shit.

Apparently my ideal candidate is Joe Biden.

It gave me the character Snake Plisskin from Escape From LA and NY. Whats that mean?

RobertTidwell
Gravel is not a friendly guy. He's hugely confrontational and is constantly yelling about how democrats are as bad as republicans.

Sounds like a realist to me. Although, truthfully, I'd have to see them do something different from Republicans--aside from yap about global warming and health care--to distinguish the two parties.

The president held a news conference today and he was scolding the Democratic Congress as if they were a pack of errant schoolchildren. He knows they won't impeach him, or even censure him, and when he threatens them on some spy law or war funding, they respond by giving him what he wants. I think Bush knows he can get away with this, because he knows the same special interest groups that own him own them.

Stephen Colbert is running. Who do you think I'd want?

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R)
81.82% match


You are number 1,137,435 to use the Candidate Calculator.

ozoneocean
The association with her Husband? The fact that people are tired of "families" in the top sopt now? Or is she genuinely an undesirable candidate?
-Even the ones who supported her did so because of her party, they said she wasn't a choice they liked.

She's always struck me as being a bit too conservative in a lot of ways, maybe that's it?

I'd agree with these. That woman is just evil incarnate. Back when her old man was prez, my family was almost forcefully relocated due to "ecological concerns". You'd think they'd have learned that forceful relocation on indigenous humans is wrong from the Trail of Tears.

ozoneocean
Then there's places like France that are in between. I dunno, generally I'd say that presidential systems take too much of the worst of the Monarchy systems to function well as democracies. I prefer strong parlementary systems where the power of the leader isn't that great since he has to defer more to his party, and he's not that far above his peers since they were elected just the same was as him: not to any special role to start with. It makes the system inherently more democratic because the leader is a lot more accountable to the people.

Well, prior to the War of Northern Aggression ;) the US had that sort of government. The strong, centralized authority of DC is unconstitutional. It's just that nobody has the cojones to go in there, kick butt and then let go of the power they had to have to do it.

Oh, I got this guy, whoever he is:
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R)
87.50% match

You are number 1,147,577 to use the Candidate Calculator.

Colbert for president, all the way!

:P

trevoramueller
Colbert for president, all the way!

:P

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Although I fully intend to vote for Hillary Clinton, it picked the following for me,
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D)
81.82% match


Your Other Top Matches
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 72.73%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 70.45%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 68.18%

But it did not ask the most vital question of all; "would you give your left arm to see either a woman or a racial minority become president?" Yep, I would. Well, not MY left arm perhaps. But I'd be willing to sprain it for the cause.

I'd just like to disprove the myth that a woman cannot be a great president. Not that I necessarily think that Hillary will make a great president. I don't see, however, that she could be anywhere near as bad as Bush has been for our nation.

Erm, voting for someone just because of what's between their legs or the color of their skin seems... flawed. I'm really not a fan for Hilary whatsoever, (I like Obama, but I'm more of a Kucinich guy to be honest) but I can recognize and like the fact that the major political parties are (very incredibly slowly to the point where they make a glacier look like the Flash) beginning to put up candidates that reflect more than just the "rich old white guy" population.

That they're doing this at least means that eventually after several election processes, I may end up with a candidate that I agree with that will just happen to be a black woman.

Vagabond, I agree with you, but then again, I never said that I would be voting for Hillary for all of the right reasons. Now I wouldn't vote for her if I thought that she would be disastrous for our nation, but the simple ability to get elected counts for more than most people seem to realize.

Let me put it this way, sure on paper Kucinich would seem to be my ideal candidate; but only if you limit yourself to a certain spread of criteria. What if you factor in the ability to assemble a professional team of aides, many of whom will inevitably become part of your administration? What if you count sheer breadth of experience in presidential leadership. Hillary was on the inside working beside Bill for eight years, and unlike the Stepford Wife, that that GW Bush married Hillary actually was part of Bill's inner circle administration. She has more practical experience than any rival candidate, not to mention the added boost of being able to draw directly upon Bill's thoughts any time she needs to.

So there are a fair number of reasons why I would consider Hillary Clinton a better candidate than Kucinich, but still I definitely want to see a woman or a racial minority become president during what's left of my lifespan. Call me quirky if you like.

bobhhh

ozoneocean

mapaghimagsik
I'm not. People decide by cult of personality. Not a stand on issues.

In that case: Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez. Just for the fact that they have the biggest rock hard iron balls on the planet. ^_^

Those guys are leaders with a capital "L"

But according to that silly quiz it's 88% Dennis Kucinich... heh, him getting in is as realistic as Chavez or Castro lol!
Not that I have any say about it, but then again, even US citizens don't have that much of a say given how many actually vote and your electoral/political system. ;)

I chanced across a US political forum a while ago and most people on it, whether Democrat, Republican, libitarian, or the few real left wingers (all the other parties mentioned being right of centre, realistically), hated Hillary Clinton. Why is that? They're afraid of a woman in that position? Too much of a change? The association with her Husband? The fact that people are tired of "families" in the top sopt now? Or is she genuinely an undesirable candidate?
-Even the ones who supported her did so because of her party, they said she wasn't a choice they liked.

She's always struck me as being a bit too conservative in a lot of ways, maybe that's it?

I suspect she has learned from Bill that to push progressive issues past the right wing curmudgeons in congress, one has to pay lip service to the center. Let's not forget all this nice discussion about universal health care was her idea, one which she was sternly punished for. UHC is about as liberal as it gets.

As for her likability factor, or lack thereof, I chalk it up to the fact that she is an intelligent, nondomestic, agressive career woman. America still has some ingrained cultural prejudices, and one is that women shouldn't assume too much, especially when they encroach on male territory. Men find it pushy and women find it arrogant.

Granted I am generalizing, but you'll find this goes way past ideology. Elizabeth Dole would get as much resistance as Hillary, and they are about as polar opposites as you can get.

Barack Obama is likely to suffer the same problem as it relates to race. People are just to indoctrinated with presumptions when it comes to race. It's one of the things that makes me sad as an American, that racism and mysogony can still exist in this century.

I think if a genuinely EXCITING black or female candidate emerged on the scene, they'd be so popular they'd sweep the land like a brushfire. But such a candidate would have to be intellectually honest, candid, and, in order to interest me, a constitutionalist (instead of an authoritarian---of either presumed "left" or "right" orientation).

I think Hillary is a well-spoken and polished character on the podium, and as a likely president, she doesn't exactly fill me with elation or dread, because I don't think she represents much of a change from the Bush Administration. No matter which party flacks we choose, we will still get oppressive, massive, expensive government run by people who play at war as if it were a board game, and who pointedly ignore our Bill of Rights and constitutional checks and balances.

What I get annoyed with is no matter what Obama or Hillary do, the media will still treat their campaign as "lol hes black/a woman."

heh I got Dennis Kucinich.

I don't know much of anything about him.

Hobbes 4 Pres! (Calvin and Hobbes Hobbes)
Seriously though, does it really make much of a difference?
It's those behind the scenes that pull the strings.
We've got our own election in Australia coming up.
Tweedledum or Tweedledee?... It's so hard to decide.

Kucinich? Sigh.

Vindibudd
Kucinich? Sigh.

Agreed, just because someone osyensibly agrees with a lot of your positions, doesn't mean he commands respect or trust.