If McCain wins, I'll delete my account and not post for 3 months.

If Obama wins, you do the same.

On for it?

It'll be surprising if Paul was voted in by these people that are believing an 18th century hoax!

how the fuck do you get experience unless you are given the job its backwards to think like you do

mccain is gonna have to play dirty to win.

You work yourself up. Think about your personal job - your not at the top, and if you are, you didn't start off there. You don't use the Presidency as an internship.

Anyone who thinks we can risk Barrack as President is kidding themselves. He's already shown his ineptitude when it comes to foreign policy - claiming he would sit down with our enemies, and bomb our allies! Brilliant, Obama. Dumbass.

McCain's been through it all. Plus, McCain has been consistently right about Iraq, while Obama's record concerning Iraq has been shaky at best. McCain knows what he's doing. Obama doesn't.

This election isn't going to be about the war, not when you can't afford a carton of milk. Show me what you're going to do about the economy and maybe I'll vote for you.

You're the twat here. McCain knows what he's doing, Obama has no clue:

Obama and Iraq
By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- The economy is a rising issue in presidential politics, but Iraq still overshadows this election.

John McCain's nomination was assured by the success of the surge he had consistently advocated, against intense opposition.

If Barack Obama eventually wins the Democratic nomination, his extraordinary rise may be traced to a speech on Oct. 2, 2002, at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago. That day Obama -- then an obscure state senator -- said: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

For many Democrats, this prescience has given Obama the aura of a prophet. And this early opposition lends credibility to his current promise: to swiftly end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.

Recently, this pledge was called into question by Obama's now-former adviser, Samantha Power: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground."

The proper response to such a statement is: One would hope so. Power's "gaffe" happens to be an obvious truth. Would Americans expect a president to keep campaign pledges that he later determines would undermine the national interest?

But it is not only the future of Obama's anti-war commitment being questioned; it is also his past consistency. In a new article on Commentary magazine's Web site, Peter Wehner undertakes a thorough examination of Obama's Iraq record. It is, shall we say, complex.

More than a year after the initial success of the invasion, Obama explained, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." And he was correct. In July 2004, he argued that America had an "absolute obligation" to stay in Iraq until the country stabilized. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died."

Two months later, Obama criticized Bush's conduct of the war, but repeated that simply pulling out would further destabilize Iraq, making it an "extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." And he signaled his openness to the deployment of additional troops if this would make an eventual withdrawal more likely.

In June 2006, Obama still opposed "a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops." "I don't think it's appropriate for Congress," he said, "to make those decisions about what happens in the field."

By late 2006, as public support for the Iraq War disintegrated and his own political ambitions quickened, Obama called for a "phased withdrawal." When Bush announced the surge, Obama saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there" -- a lapse in his prophetic powers.

When Obama announced his presidential candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007, he stated, "I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." Then in May and again in November, he voted against funding American forces in Iraq.

Wehner concludes that Obama is guilty of "problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst." And he notes that while McCain has been consistently right about Iraq in the years since the invasion -- highly critical of the early strategy and supportive of a successful surge -- Obama has been consistently wrong in supporting the early, failed strategy and opposing the surge, even as its success became evident.

Obama did indeed oppose the war early on. But he did not become an anti-war leader in Congress. He is not Dennis Kucinich -- and thank goodness. Obama's initial foreign policy instincts -- refusing to tie the hands of the military with arbitrary deadlines -- were not radical. I find this reassuring.

But there is little doubt that Obama has gained in political support among Democrats as his positions on Iraq have become progressively anti-war. His March 2008 withdrawal deadline -- which is up now -- would have undone the Anbar Awakening, massively strengthened al-Qaeda and increased civilian carnage. And Obama will find -- as John Kerry found in 2004 -- that Americans are suspicious of a prospective commander in chief who votes against funding U.S. troops in the field.

The Iraq War determined the paths for McCain and Obama. But there is a large difference between them. McCain eventually won his nomination because he showed political courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. Obama may eventually win his nomination because he surrendered to that pressure.

Almost single American I met the past few months who was travelling outside their own country was ashamed to be American whilst travelling, due to the Government.

Personally I told them they were mad... I think American people are generally great irrespective of the government. But it's still crazy.

That said, you don't tend to meet many Republicans outside the US though... Make of that what you will.

(I avoided discussing politics and religion while down south in the US, thought it wise!)

i wonder how much taxation plays in the way people vote, considering the republicans tax policy favours a minority you would have thought they would loose every election.

i actually find the opposite. i doubt that all the fly-over states that consistently vote republican have many rich people. yet new york, california, massachusetts and other states that are generally known as wealthier states consistently vote democratic.