Obama, Clinto, Edwards - does it make a difference? Discuss. Elizabeth Edwards is inspiring.

As a Canadian, believe it or not, I am watching the Democratic Primaries, very closely. There are many things that could change here in Canada, depending on who gets the majority vote. As much as I think that an Ethnic Minority candidate would be good for the United States, and Obama would be great on the domestic policy side, I can not see him as someone ready to take on the world stage. I feel that he does not have enough knowledge about foreign policy. My biggest dissappointment with Obama, was his blunder about Canada's political structure. We have a Prime Minister, not a President. As being the closest neighbour to the United States, I feel that the candidate should know more about Canada, without making such blunders.
When it comes to Edwards, I find that even though he is a Democrat, he leans more to the Rebublican side of things. His feelings towards Gay rights and Gay marriage, sound like an excerpt, straight out of the Rebublican hand book. He is anti-gay, and for that reason, I cannot see the gay vote going his way.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would be a perfect candidate for the Democratic Party, and she would make an excellent President. She knows her world politics, she is gay friendly, and she is Canada friendly. For me, she has the best of all that concern me.
I know that I may not be an American, but I have the utmost respect for my American brothers and Sisters.

We can continue our Canadian discussion of the USA primaries. Excellent article today in the New York Times about why the polls were all wrong. Basically the analysis went like this: poorer and less educated people are less likely to particpate in polling than better educated higher income people. So Obama was over represented because his supporters were better educated with higher incomes. There was more of course, it was an interesting analysis of polling difficulties. Cell phones of course are another issue. Who is going to win in Michigan?

I guess I better jump in since I am a Canadian living in upstate New York. I have met with Senator Hillary Clinton. Twice. I have some wonderful correspondence from her. For me she is the real deal. She is very emotional. She does care. But, I'm afraid the U.S. is no longer what it once was. I'm very concerned as I am raising my son here. It would be interesting if she were to become President, as I would very much like to see that kind of emotion and drive and sincerity in the White House. It's a huge job responsibility this time around. It's really asking alot for any incoming President. The Bush administration has devastated this country. Paralyzed and alienated all of us from the rest of the world. The economy of this country speaks volumes. A recession isn't coming it's already here. I see it in how my business has changed. I'm not sure about Michigan. I'm rooting for Clinton. She has given me great advice and support. Her feelings towards me and my son are genuine. And what a wonderful time to finally get a woman's perspective on this country. In my lifetime I want to see this happen. And the time is now.

This day in history. On Jan. 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote. Interesting with Hillary running. She still seems like the establishment candidate, so I don't get the change thing.

Dado 1,
Well...what do you think so far? Economy is sinking. The war is never ending. Obama can only hope he has a plan. McCain still looks sexy. And Hillary, well...heck, she wears the pants and has the brains too. I sure miss the loonie.

On the economic end I like Edwards and his wife is inspiring. I like Obama because he isn't the establishment candidate. I like Hillary because for her drive, hopefuly that would help a legislative agenda. I think Obama's best position is on Iraq and less so on the economic front. I can't believe that Bush has been able to follow esential the same agenda of the Savings and Loan scandals (lack of regulations in lending) of the Reagan era. How did the left ever get the blame for deficit financing? Mulroney in Canada, Thatcher in Britain, Reagan in the USA all of them introduced massive government deficits.

Don't kid yourself. Obama is not the establishment candidate yet. That Reagan remark today sure was stoopid. His position on Iraq is very weak. I don't see any changes coming from his administration should he make it passed the welcome mat. Hillary is the best shot. Edwards is finally starting to get some smarts and getting the heck away from Obama. Good move for him, but I think it is a little too late. He might make a good water boy for Hillary though. Hmmm, come to think of it, what will really make this election exciting will be their choice of running mates. I still think McCain is sexy.

What was the Reagan remark I missed it. I'm a bit surprised at what an easy ride Reagan gets historically. He beat the Soviet Union by bankrupting both countries. Wasted so much money on Star WArs and hsi arms race. He jack up huge deficits by increasing spending while cutting taxes at the same time. He was an internationally bully. Not to mention his disregard for the pending storm of the HIV+ infection storm.

I'm sure you must have seen both of these from barelypolitical.com Yes, they're over the top, but they are so over the top they might be effective in someway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSxxlj6rGE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU