If you voted right now?

I actually find this result somewhat interesting ... perhaps it refutes Occams' observation about the site's user profile. I say that because based on the comments I've seen posted, I tend to agree with his perception and figured the McCain vote would be significantly stronger.

So I'm curious is the support for Obama strengthened from an ideology match with the democrat party or is it driven by distaste for Bush.

I'm surprised Hillary got that many votes.

Everyone is upset at Obama's recent statement about people going with what they are comfortable with, I tend to agree, a lot of people will say they are upset with the immigrants who are illegal in this country. I'm a retired autoworker-nerd. The only Mexicans who took a job away from me were the ones who live in Mexico after the Republicans pushed through NAFTA under the Clinton administration. Allowing big business to send work to where ever they want, with nothing in return. I know it sounds corny but who knows, maybe someone can change things in DC.

Where's Ralph Nader?

You may laugh (and I kind of hope you did), but if Obama does not get the nomination, I will vote Green.

He received 463,655 or 0.38% of the popular vote in 2004. That's not enough to "hand" the Presidency to McCain (who, I agree is just a slicker, more politically versed version of GWB).

If the Democrats can't convince an extra 463,655 people to vote for them, then Ralph's right: the Democrats are responsible for their own loss, not him.

I am not a super delegate or anything like that. Lets see here, Obama Hussein, Clinton or McCain? Between a turd sandwich and two douche bags. Think, I'll just pass this year, my popular vote doesn't count anyway.

That way when the country goes down, can't blame me! LOL!

My vote is like peeing into a blue pond anyway, but... I also realize that a whole lot of people are going to vote Democrat even if my dog won the nomination, especially out of spite for Bush. McCain is no Bush.

I have a lot of respect for Obama, and anyone who has been around O'nerd for a while will see remember (or at least have the savvy to search for) my compliments towards the man. HOWEVER, he (and Clinton, who of all people should know better) really need to sit down and read The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat. While they are at it, they should read some economics books while they are at it.

The Economist has a whole series of articles where the authors are agog at the stupidity or populist pandering those two are up to (likely the former, as an Obama aid was caught telling a Canadian diplomat (wink wink, nudge nudge) "just joshing, don't worry!" or words to that effect). Just go to the Economist and look for articles on NAFTA or Obamanomics. The Economist is anything BUT a conservative paper, so if you don't know the reputation of the paper, take a look before making assumptions.

Let's look at other idiot political antics this week. The Columbia free trade deal was shot down. Here we have a success story in South/Central America with enormous strides to ending violence and brining about good transparent governance, and we slap them in the face for their trouble. What exactly does the American worker have to fear from the Columbian economy? The legal economy that is, not the cocaine, which legal alternatives might help them end that too. US manufactured goods are strong overseas because of the falling dollar--that's the way it is SUPPOSED to balance out, but we don't want to make the deal that will facilitate more trade.

I honestly don't know what is more troubling--the pandering and the perpetuation of stupid myths about the economy that foster protectionism and cut against free trade and the advancement of democracy, or the stupid people who buy this crap and don't call bullshit on it. Even the moderator at that debate in Ohio was trying to hint the candidates that unemployment was, like, *really* low, are you sure this is a problem? (stamp, stamp) I cannot figure our how politicians can get away with telling people they are too pathetic to compete on a level playing field and become more popular for telling them they are losers. It doesn't make sense. Especially from a candidate who supposedly stands for "HOPE!" (but you are all still a bunch of victim/losers and I will make them stop picking on you) Moreover, the economy changes all the time. At the beginning of the 20th century, most people lived on farms. To promise people that they will always have the same job, and their kids after them is completely ludicrous, and I sure as hell hope my kid has MORE options than I had. Perhaps they should've said that no, they couldn't really protect their jobs against foreign workers, but they can see the playing field leveled and they can help them transfer their benefits and train for a NEW (better) job. Anyone advocating protectionism needs a reality check. That ship sailed in the 19th century.

So on the most important issue facing our Presidential candidates, two have chosen to pander or are just plain ignorant. It gets better. If you are voting for one of the same two because of their policy on Iraq, you'd better go back and check the fine print on that promise too. Several statements on that subject have "clarified" that too, which actually makes me a little more supportive of Obama, because at least he isn't stupid enough to precipitously withdrawal. Iraq is what it is. No matter who gets elected, events on the ground will dictate the pace more than any policy whichever of these guys comes up with makes. Obama's idea of tying continued aid to progress sounds promising, and matches up with what CNAS (Center for a New American Security) has been saying. I've been saying for years we need to focus on training the Iraqis more than on direct combat ourselves, but I think people are (hopefully) getting that by now. To recap though, the future of this country depends a lot more on the economy, getting us off oil, and turning the train around on education as long as Iraq doesn't fall apart or we have a repeat of Saigon '73-75. Only one candidate seems to grasp the realities of the economy and the impact of the economy on promoting democracy.

A more succinct version of my previous post--someone needs to sit Obama and Hillary down and make them watch the movie Gung-ho with Michael Keaton. If you've seen the movie, you see a refreshingly honest appraisal of the 1980s recession and the hysteria over the competition from Japanese automakers. Let's be honest--the US was on its ass, the American cars of the era SUCKED and did not deserve the loyalty of the American consumer, and, well, Americans just wanted to blame the Japanese for daring the give a crap, work hard, use their heads and make a decent product, just like we told them they should. How dare they be good at it? I'm know there were good managers and workers back then who wanted to make a decent living, but as I said earlier, we lost our edge back then. Rather than go get it back, some people wanted to blame the Japanese and wanted to erect protectionist barriers. That would've been a complete disaster.

By the way, the US would actually have a pretty favorable balance of trade right now if we wouldn't be importing as much oil as we are. The trade gap is $58.2 billion, and $27.1 billion of that is oil, while we exported $148.2 billion in manufactured products. How's NAFTA bad for us again?

I know there are some trade inequities with China that must be addressed, but they will come in time, as they did with Japan. China will have to do this willingly, because failing to do it will hurt their growth, as it already is with their inflation problems.