The week in review: momentous change read more
Election blog: Spin and reality read more
Blog: Where to for Pakistan? read more
Super Bowl blog: Patriots v Giants read more
Road to Beijing: Is that an elephant or a Tibetan antelope in the room? read more
Has John McCain made the right VP choice?
"Scott is incorrect. Palin has never been out of the country until recently. Also, her speech w..."
Did the Beijing Games live up to its expectations?
"It was the best ever - stunning record breakings. Can't be surpassed!"
Is Australia's defence budget justified?
"No, its only throwing good money after bad. The only credible and effective defence Australia c..."
NOMINEES GEAR UP FOR SUPER TUESDAY
Monday, 4 February, 2008RELATED CONTENT
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Who do you think should be the next US president? The race for the White House is on, with voters turning out to nominate candidates, but who deserves the job most?
COMMENTS
First [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] LastI do not understand where the great attraction to Barack Obama has come from. There is not any experience of this man to which we can review and make judgement towards, nor has he preached any radically different policies to those of his rival. As far as I can see, Hilary Clinton is the more logical candidate to run against Senator John Mc Cain. Most importantly to myself, I would like to see either Democrat become the president, just please not another Republican.
Obama
As an American who is not able to vote but is following your news programs, HILLARY CLINTON has the experience and the wisdom that come with time and experience.
Right on Leigh from Qld. Politicos are bottom feeders who pander and sell out countries to bankers. Still, its a sort of democracy in that if we DON'T BORROW MONEY and live a simple life, the bankers are toothless. But then they start a war (WW1, WW2 and the soon to be upon us WW3). What a shame. People have so much awesome potential and the Creator has given us such a beautiful garden to learn in.
I feel that Hilary would be a better president and help the USA out of the current health care crisis.
Dr Ron Paul is the only candidate who should be President. And as for Sandra from Sydney who says 'I wouldn't care less who's gonna to win this election. I don't pay a bit of attention to it, it has got nothing to do with Australia, who cares' you need to wake up it has everything to do with Australia - almost as much as Americans including their and our foreign policies and our own troope that are forced to follow money hungry and power playing American Presidents into an illegal war. ronpaul2008.com The only man worth being President.
The real power is not with politicians, it's in the hands of bankers, and the way to get it out of their hands is to not vote. That's right, threaten the buggers with anarchy and we'll see real change in this world. The inequity of wealth is the growing cause of suffering everywhere. People-power is the most powerful agent of change if only it can be harnested for the greater good.
Ron Paul? He's come second about twice in primaries - and he'll do it more now that there's only two guys running. If you come second but pull so few votes you don't make delegate thresholds, you aren't a part of the discussion. I also find his adherence to very-small-government policies unsustainable. It's archetypal American extremist-capitalism at its most pure: and that's a system that isn't running well now. That said, I'd expect to see him run as the Liberatarian candidate (which is what he really is); and be about as important as Ralph Nader, the other spoiler in a race between the two protagonists. As for who should be the president? Ideally, none of the ones running. The American system doesn't lend itself to an unspectacular, grafting politician who 'gets things done'; and that's what they need. That's the vice-president's job - and people don't vote for vice-presidents. I'd probably fall into the not Clinton camp - the manner of the campaign is vintage Howard wedge politics. Obama's running a Rudd-style platitudes campaign, and that's less dangerous for mine, as long as he allows his secretariat enough reign to cover his shortcomings. After all, the civil service runs the nation, not the leader himself.
Do you think a stronger USA is good to the world or our nation? Don't know?! Just ask yourself this question: has the world been safer since the USSR collapsed? or Iraq invaded? Don't you think someone like Bush, who cares is either Obama or Clinton, or even some one else, to run USA forever will be better for the world and our nation in long term? Therefore, who cares, so long ...
Ron Paul is the only rational-thinking contender, despite not being a real contender.