Nice try. All PRESIDENTS are civil servants, nothing more. The one we have now, however, is definitley less.

I'm sure the kids at Columbine and Virginia Tech more than happy to die to satisfy your notion of "rights".

And if you really want to argue about infringing on consitutional rights, I suggest you turn on the TV before you engage in yet another fruitless attempt.

Things like Due Process, Habeus Corpus, etc. must not be constitutional terms that deserve consideration in your world.

The President needs to be just a tad more than a civil servant.

What does the Bush family have to do with Obamas qualifications, or lack thereof?

As far as Biden, please, do I need to list each and every time he has voted for confiscatory "gun-control" measures and the like? The basic platform of the Democratic Partei is all about limiting freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution while ensuring that the elite can live as they please. For every Bush "dymasty" you can name, I'll raise you a Kennedy.

Better learn how to read, SG. I refered to both Biden and Obama as "Civil Servants" not Statesmen--that's what you called them, not I. Both having the title "Senator", I feel comfortable labeling them civil servants.
I love your constant reference to Biden for limiting freedom. How about some examples? Because I can promise you that for every one that you can come up with, I can counter with five from the right side of the isle.
As far as Obama having only 143 days of what you refer to as "experience", You and I obviously have very different definitions as to what constitutes experience. He may have only been an acting Senator for 143 days, but denying that he gained experience on the way there is ridiculous.
Please bear in mind that Obama's daddy didn't pave the way for him. He wasn't "born" into his political position, like W. It may be hard for a lot of the right-winger's to understand this concept, but it actually is what the "American Dream" is all about.

Lakennedy, Obama has exactly 143 days of experience, and this makes him a "respected statesman"??? Biden never met an opportunity to limit the freedom of the American people that he didn't support.

One thing I've always gotten a kick out of is that if a so-called Liberal dislikes a Republican or Independant candidate or office-holder, his espressions of dislike are "reasoned dissent", yet if a person dislikes a so-called Liberal candidate of office-holder, then they are to be villified.

I wonder why there is such a push for Obama to come up with his VP first. He has only got the nomination in the past month while McSame has had his nomination locked up for many months now.
AS for Hillary, here is her chance to become a political powerhouse in the senate. I know this is not what was in Bill and Hillary's life long plan, but she could become the powerhouse replacement for Ted Kennedy. But if her goal really is the Whitehouse, I’m sure she is willing to wait 4 more years. If this is the case then she would want to see McSame in the Whitehouse. She will easily be able to take him out in 4 years when Iraq doesn’t go like America wants. If Obama is in the Whitehouse then a Republican would be able to take over when Obama’s policies don't work in Iraq exactly like America wants.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think a same party candidate has ever been able to challenge an incumbent and won its party’s nomination. If Hillary doesn’t do everything in her power to convince her supporters to vote for Obama, then she is putting her own political aspirations over the needs of the democratic party, and the country.
.

for EVERYONES vote to count, who ever loses the presidential election should be VP. thats a true democracy. as it is the losing team even if its 49% of america, really gets no representation in the white house. president obama should have no choice but to give the job to mccain:)

Lakennedy, name one qualification for president that Obama has, serving as a U.S. Senator since January 2005 definitely doesn’t cut it in my opinion. Try to name one substantial accomplishment of Barrack Obama besides being nominated to run for president. “Hope and change” is not a qualification either.

Wow, strong comments from SG. I have to say that it definitley speaks volumes of not only our political system, but our society as a whole when someone can sum up the careers of two of our nations top civil servants in an ignorant statement such as the one SG just made.
It's ridiculous one-sided comments such as this one that make me ashamed of our society. The Gazette has created these blog's as an opportunity for people to have open-minded debate. SG, you are obviously only interested in insulting people, not offering any substantial input.
Shape Up. These comments are exactly what our society DOESN'T need when debating issues regarding an election as important as the upcoming one.

Might as well go with Biden if Hillary isn't getting it. Perfect match-an unqualified machine politician elevated by his race, and an unashamed old-line socialist.

McCain? who's that, sorry, but McCain is too much of an "all war" guy, and to have someone in office who is all about war, sorry, I'm not interested in someone like that. We have had too much involvement in sticking our noses into other peoples business. Yes I know we're not going to get out of Iraq real soon, but I also know we do not need someone in office who is willing to be pushing for war constantly like McCain. No thank you, all you who are willing to push someone into office who wants that can take care of all the parents who's kids will die in those wars and comfort them. I'm not willing to do that. Obama all the way and I know he has the commonsense to take the time to choose a running mate who will be there for him. As for his minister, is his name Obama, did he make his decisions for him? No, stop pushing his minister on us, he's not Obama. Just like my minister and your minister and teachers beliefs aren't yours. Get a life, people.

Biden would definitely be funny since he routinely puts his foot in his mouth. Do a Google search for his comments on Indian people and on Obama being a clean individual.

Take a closer look at Biden.
I think that since there were so many nominees that were weeded out early due to finances, a lot of them were overlooked.

I agree with Stevelknievel, Hillary is not going to get that nomination.

This decision is monumental, however. It is really the first "executive" decision both (projected) nominees will make, and it could make or break a campaign. Look at what happened in the 1972 Election with McGovern/Eagleton.

Funny how the Democrats love affair with the Clintons took a very bad turn. Now they hate them so much for party unity.

Gotthat, while it might be the thought that counts, 'Going Green' isn't about reducing dependence on foreign oil, nor is it really about saving the environment either. If the Green movement was really about saving the environment, they would allow drilling for oil closer to home instead of drilling for it and then transporting it halfway around the world, many times daily.

Currently there are no means of power generation that do not harm the environment in some way, shape or form. Nuclear power? It's all about the spent fuel. Hydroelectric dams? They spoil the rivers and interfere with fish breeding. Solar power? Do you know all the harmful stuff they make the panels and the computers that control them out of?

The green movement is something that needed to be done, but it needed to be thought about before rushing to action. Ethanol? What has that done to food prices and how many acres of rainforest were cleared to introduce those crops to foreign countries? Besides, it's a lot less powerful than gasoline and thus requires more ethanol to go the same distance and do the same work.

Obama should nominate his wife. The Democrats love her, she's well educated with her own mind and nothing she ever says will surprise him. She'll appeal to women and she can hurl insults at republicans while being protected from same as his wife. And best of all, there will be no need for him to claim that she's not the Michelle he knew.

There are a number of reasons to not choose Hillary.

First, during the election, Obama would always have to look over his shoulder to see what she's doing, and what Bill's doing. Is she undermining him so she can run in 4 years?

Second, too many people dislike her intensely. A vice-presidential nominee should at least not offend. And the GOP will make the election about her, not about issues.

Third, with a razor thin majority in the Senate, why would the Dems really want to make that majority smaller? They need every Senator they can muster to over ride GOP filibusters. Otherwise the GOP can block everything on the Dem agenda.

Fourth, if Obama wins, where is the center of power? At the White House, or in Bill and Hillary's kitchen?

Ralph,

Being a war hero is neither a prerequite for the job, nor is it a guarantee of good performance.

May I point out to you that both Hermann Goering and Adolph Hitler were legitimate WW-1 German war heroes? I wouldn't say their foreign policy was successful, would you? And "Mein Kampf" certainly let everyone who cared to read it know where Hitler stood. Maybe you should re-evaluate your criteria.

Biggirl,

Do you want a Dem in the Whitehouse or 4 more years of GOP mismanagement? The GOP is counting on you to not vote.

I'll be writing myself in this time.

Again.

Just remember, writing yourself in is still a vote and it's better than settling for someone who you really don't like.

I have always voted dem, but not this time. It will be Mccain. I see it as a race between a used car salesman, and American Hero that I know where he stands

dkush21, good thought. "Going Green" is going to be a huge movement in the right direction to become free of our oil dependencies among many other positive reasons. Also, it would be really great to see a policy where products manufactured outside of the country have a higher tax, and products made within the country have little or no tax. I would think that would really boost our economy and promote American jobs.

biggirl...as a "lifelong democrat" you'd be doing your party a disservice by voting for McCain simply because you're PO'd Hillary didn't get the nom. Obama won the popular vote, and he has the most deligates. Even if all of Florida and Michigan were counted, Obama still won the most deligates.
*
lovetoscrap...it seems you've been listening to Hannity and Rush a bit too much. Gore's house does use a lot of energy, but he also takes many steps to offset his carbon footprint, which is something never mentioned on 'Faux' News. It's very easy to look at only one side of an issue because it fits into what you agree with. I'm happy 'W' has a house that uses less energy than Gore, but his policies do almost nothing to reduce environmental damage. I'm really looking forward to drilling off Florida and in ANWR to help those poor oil companies line their pockets some more while we save maybe 4 cents per gallon at the pump.

Al Gore is about as green as a carrot. He's all talk. Pres. Bush has a more environmentally friendly house than Gore has. What's the deal with this nonsense anyway? Isn't it common knowledge that his house and power bills are more monthly than you and I will pay in a year?

David Duke would be a good choice. Then they would cover both sides of the street.

Edwards or Richardson

I wrote in another thread why I strongly believe it will be Richardson:
http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

He keeps getting more and more support on Intrade. (www.intrade.com)
This is one of the strongest plays of the entire year, in my mind. At worse, you will be able to hedge out, and take profit as Richardson builds more support and his contracts go up in value (as they have all ready the past 3 weeks). Just glad that I locked in my contracts early at a dirt cheap price!

janesvillean and we don't need three presidents in office.

Hillary would likely be a mistake, and not because I fear she couldn't do it - she could. A president must feel they are in charge, and a highly competitive VP is not good for the incumbent or the country. The president must be strong and independant (at least perceived as such). If Hillary is on the ticket, it will always be felt that he was forced to take her on to settle the competitive issue, to prevent a scene at the convention, or to keep her voters in the democrat column. She would be seen as a comparative equal which could divide his decision making power - people would always be asking him "what does Hillary think about this issue?" I think that would be unwise. McCain could pick Huckabee, because he was no threat in the end. My comments have nothing to do with who I might or might not vote for (I am still uncommitted and deeply concerned), but I still see this as an issue for Obama and the country.

Hey, as a lifelong Democrat, perhaps Obama supporters would be interested in knowing that I will not vote for Obama unless he puts Hillary on the ticket. They tied, and only the backroom deal gave him enough delegates to "win" the nomination. As such, they both must be on the ticket for democracy to be respected.

How about getting Al Gore to run for vice-president. He is doing alot for global warming, maybe he can help turn things around and get people to go GREEN and save our nation.

It doesn't matter because whoever it is when the dirt on them comes out Obama will just say, "That's not the person I knew."

Say, how about his minister guy?

Russ68, *zing!*

Where's the option for, "Who cares!" McCain 2008!

How about John McCain? Whoops, sorry I forgot he's pretending to be a Republican this time, nevermind...

I like Hillary more after the campaign, but it would be nuts for him to have a rival in his administration scheming the entire time. She is not going to accept playing second fiddle. Many Democrats, however, think she would make a fantastic Senate Majority Leader (especially with a 58-seat majority, as seems likely).
.
A dark horse a lot of people like is Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas.

No way, NO WAY Hillary is getting the nomination. Absolutely never.