Whichever wins the presidential nomination .... Barack Obama OR Hillary Clinton .... will change the face of American politics forever. Let's hope the foreign policy also changes.

#1, #2
As UK citizens I realize you know only a small part of US politics:
What is true is this-
There is no poll that shows Hillary or Obama or any democrat winning the presidency.
EVERY poll shows Rudy Giuliani or the maverick John McCain winning. Both are republicans. Both men are VERY determined to win the war on terror.

I'm for the Hillary-Obama ticket .That would be a historic first ! And a great choice. Either one is heads above Shrub!They want Americanism- fairness for all- through the social compact of the Nanny State.They want a true internationalism:one that does include other nations, not a go it alone neo-con policy.They know that the prhase "it's your money" means starve the poor.They know that small government means letting corporations ride over the people and put government into people's lives .They know that an anti-scientific attitude ill serves the people.They know that FISA violations,rendition and torture ill serve the people.Can you read now Mary Jo?

Note to Carolyn 1: Please spare us all the condescending remarks. I wager that 100 random readers of this page know more about US history and politics than 100 random readers of People magazine. Moreover, Rudy's best pal is about to be indicted and McCain is about as maverick as the Dewey decimal system. Finally (hate to spoil the party) there is no such thing as the "war on terror." There is however a war in Iraq and a war on civil liberties. Cheers.

Hillery is a socialist pure and simple. The big change to this country for the worse was when it became big. The power went from the people to the party and big capitalist. Obama I have to admit I don't know enough about him at this time to make any judgement. As for the polls, they are worded to get the answers that they want, I trash them.
McCain could possibly, but not probably win the nomination but not the election. Guiliani was a mayor and did preform excellant at 9/11/01 but does that qulify him as president? The democrates do want true internationalism and are all to willing to sell this country so long as they are in power and don't think for one minute they really believe in freedom. One cannot have a large all powerful government and freedom at the same time. #5 best you get your head our of the sand.

#3.
Rudy Guiliani was considered a 'lame-duck' until 9/11 and it was how he dealt with that, made him a national hero. Otherwise he has nothing to offer.

McCain, if you'll pardon the pun, has had his chips, if for no other reason than the Republicans will have had two terms in office. The voters in American are never keen to give a party more than that in recent times. Plus, George W. has made any Republican virtually unelectable.

That's why Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Aoda,poppycock. She knows freedom and it is not a unregulated free market and geitting into people's bedrooms.Generals like her.To bandy about socialism is to convey invincible ignorance! There is no callling for public ownership of industries or farms. The Nanny State empowers and frees the people.Your notions are Orwellian!With the rise of the state has been the rise of freedom,not Hayek's silly road to serfdom! FDR saved free enterprise. Now we have Shrub with his spend and borrow scheme. At least,Giuliani stays out of other people's bedrooms!

I pay no attention to the "polls" as the media publishes what they want to publish and what "sells". I sincerely believe there is still a much higher majority of conservatives in the US, and more people are behind Bush than the media portrays. I am not happy with any candidates at this time. I'm for finding my own little island someplace and getting away from all this media noise. Have a grand week.

Regardless of whether Barack Obama becomes successfull in the next Presidential elections or not will have only a symbolical value. The interests and demands of America's giant Military-Industrial Complex will, as usual, determine the major aspects of U.S foreign policy. Those who think that Mr. Obama, or anyone else, is strong enough to resist this pressure is either too naive or too idealistic.

#8 skeptic griggsy. First I made no mention of FDR. I know what he did and he was the man to do it. However other than Social Security his ideas were temporary measures to help people to get back on their feet and move the country. He almost did it but WWII changed things. However Hillary is not for freedom. She wants a very big powerful government that reverses things. Instead of the government depending on the people she wants people to depend on the government. If she believes in freedom think of her husbands terms in office. Swat teams barging in house and putting assult weapons in peoples face. The tragety of Waco, the FBI files used for political purposes, Hillary's involvement inWhite Water, hugh profit from the commonidies market, hiding evidence, and of course "universal health care". Social Security was a great idea. No, she is the wrong person to be president. I see no republican winning either. As for the nanny state frees people is pure poppycock. While the original intent is good, it is then used to make the citizens dependent of the government. Something for you to think about. Social Security was supposed to be tax free and put in a trust fund for our pensions or disability. Give FDR and the democrats credit. Now it is not tax free and the money goes into the general fund and spend on pork. When did that sart, Johnson did with the backing of a democratic congress so they can have guns and butter and Johnson could be the second FDR. Affirmative Action, to our shame that law was needed because of racism and bigotry. That law should have been temporary. Every person should have the OPPORTUNITY to be the best they can. For more freedom, we do have it so long as it is what they want. Do we really have freedom of speach and thought. No, research what is going on. Big government=big bureauoracy=lost of freedom. I could give you more examples but I think you get the message and no, I am not a racist or a bigot. I just w

The presidential election is much too far any for any polls to be valid. Most of the country knows little about Giuliani, and the people who do know a lot, New Yorkers, don't like him much. McCain's "maverick" status died a long time ago. He's now known for supporting the war in Iraq and supporting the use of torture. More candidates may step forward. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

#5 Nichol:
and you did NOT dispute that Rudy and McCain win over Hillary or Obama in every pole.

Yes, about Rudy- he's on his 3rd marriage, supports abortion, etc.. , and his numbers still beat Hillary. Explanation?

I think the 'preconceived notion' that McCain could win the next election is good for one reason: it will scare Iran, because Iran understands that McCain will stand them down. He's got more steel in his spine than the congress combined.
Iran knows it cannot win against McCain.

Its a little early to be expending all this energy and hot air on this subject. Let's agree to revisit this this time next year.

Aye, Conan. A grand idea. Let's do so; then we can discuss how Barak or Hillary is doing as the new president. Cheers!

#4-skeptic-"fairness for all" - means tax the rich more (their definition of rich).
"it's your money"-but not for long if we win.
"true internationalism"-open our borders (gw no different from them in regards to that). and if you're talking about us "going it alone" in iraq, you have insulted any country that has or has had troops there (whether they sent 10 or 10,000).
"small government "- WHAT?
Obama, what little voting record he has, is extremely liberal, more so than hillary. Signs at his speakings read "muslims for obama".
And yes, it has been Written and reported that terrorists wanted the dems to win.

#7- wonder boy- guilliani was never considered a lame duck! Even lib nyers like him. He did alot for that city.

#7
McCain is one of the most recognized War Heroes in the US>
The 'chips' you are referring to about McCain?
Could that possibly be due to the torure from Viet Nam POW- the man can not raise his arms to hug someone, he can barely raise his hands to shake-
HE HELPED REWRITE THE TORTURE BILL (The Geneva Convention was ambigous)

Combining the words McCain and chip in the same sentence: REALLY STUPID.