CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2008 Presidential Campaign
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 Presidential Campaign - Page 2

post #51 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
huh?
you were suppose to quote Chris Rock there.
Reply
post #52 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Then you don't want a centrist. That's the whole point I've been trying to make.
Then labelling what I am seeking as 'centrist' is the mistake.
Reply
post #53 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
huh?
Well-spoken. As in, when he speaks, he speaks well. Intelligent. Comprehensive. Non-stuttering. The anti-Bush, if you will.
Reply
post #54 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
When did I say it wasn't? The problem here is that you're equating extremism with being right or left and that not being extreme means being in the middle. That's not the case.
No, I'm equating extremism with being irrationally far to the right or left.

Quote:
The Bush White House is extreme because they pander to the Christian Right.
Yes, so my point is I hope we don't see a repeat of that on the left. I want to see what the moderate Democrats can do.
Reply
post #55 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:51pm
Rummy stepping down-AP!

Wow.
Reply
post #56 of 403
11/8/06 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Wood
Yes, so my point is I hope we don't see a repeat of that on the left. I want to see what the moderate Democrats can do.
Who are the extreme democrats? They don't fucking exist. The democrats ARE the center. Especially since they recruited people who are basically republican to run in the 06 elections.
Reply
post #57 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Who are the extreme democrats? They don't fucking exist. The democrats ARE the center. Especially since they recruited people who are basically republican to run in the 06 elections.
Hopefully you are right. Except for the "Republican" part.
Reply
post #58 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:22pm
What about Edwards? He's got youth, some name recognition, looks, and the ability to string together multiple sentences to make a complete thought. The biggest problem I see for him is that he was (gasp) a lawyer. Am I forgetting some scandal or another?

And Bush didn't get elected because of anything he did in Texas. He got elected because his father was president. Obama's wasn't. And considering the two-term trainwreck that has been Bush's presidency, I think he should be used as an example of how more experience is necessary before taking the big chair, if anything.
Reply
post #59 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:47pm
I like John Edwards. I think he has the youth and the charisma that will bring a refreshing look to the list of presidential candidates. He also has the smarts and conviction to not appear like a waffling politician. If I have my way, I'd pick Edwards/Obama as the Democratic ticket to the White House.

Btw, I do believe that Obama will become a U.S. President one day. By becoming a VP I think he will mature into the role and be groomed to become the next Prez.
Reply
post #60 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
What about Edwards? He's got youth, some name recognition, looks, and the ability to string together multiple sentences to make a complete thought. The biggest problem I see for him is that he was (gasp) a lawyer. Am I forgetting some scandal or another?

And Bush didn't get elected because of anything he did in Texas. He got elected because his father was president. Obama's wasn't. And considering the two-term trainwreck that has been Bush's presidency, I think he should be used as an example of how more experience is necessary before taking the big chair, if anything.
There's a reason why we elect governors, not senators, to the highest office. Bush was the Chief Executive of one of the biggest states in the country. He built a record of working with the opposition and minorities in a state where that wasn't really done. You might not remember the 2000 election. Bush stood on his record as the Governor of Texas. He got laws passed dealing with juvenille crime, education, and tort reform. He said his record as governor showed his brand of Compassionate Conservatism. Name recognition helped a ton, but it's not as if the country would have elected Neal Bush.
Reply
post #61 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger Management
I like John Edwards. I think he has the youth and the charisma that will bring a refreshing look to the list of presidential candidates. He also has the smarts and conviction to not appear like a waffling politician. If I have my way, I'd pick Edwards/Obama as the Democratic ticket to the White House.

Btw, I do believe that Obama will become a U.S. President one day. By becoming a VP I think he will mature into the role and be groomed to become the next Prez.
The smartest way to groom Obama for the presidency without getting the stink of the Senate all over him is to name his as the VP candidate in '08. Whoever wins the nomination has to look seriously at that as a way to use his popularity and minimize his lack of experience.
Reply
post #62 of 403
11/8/06 at 3:53pm
That's not really true. The reason governors are elected more often is because they don't have the voting records of Congressmen. It's a lot easier to create a negative campaign against a congressman than a governor.

People didn't vote for Bush because of compassionate conservatism, they voted for him because a) his daddy was president and b) the right basically turned all democrats into immoral heathens because Clinton fucked an intern.
Reply
post #63 of 403
11/8/06 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
What about Edwards? He's got youth, some name recognition, looks, and the ability to string together multiple sentences to make a complete thought. The biggest problem I see for him is that he was (gasp) a lawyer. Am I forgetting some scandal or another?
My mother-in-law lives in NC, generally votes Democrat, and she hates Edwards. He's got a big rep as an ambulance chaser in that state, according to her.

Unless you're referring to John Edward instead. Him, I'd vote for. "I'm consulting George Washington and Abe Lincoln on how to proceed in Iraq..."
Reply
post #64 of 403
11/8/06 at 4:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
My mother-in-law lives in NC, generally votes Democrat, and she hates Edwards. He's got a big rep as an ambulance chaser in that state, according to her.

Unless you're referring to John Edward instead. Him, I'd vote for. "I'm consulting George Washington and Abe Lincoln on how to proceed in Iraq..."
Then there that nonsense where, during a trial, Edwards said he had the spirit of a dead child enter him so he could speak for her from the grave.

The last thing we need--yes, even worse than the devil that is Bush Jr-- is Denny Crane genespliced with Kreskin for President.
Reply
post #65 of 403
11/8/06 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger Management
Btw, I do believe that Obama will become a U.S. President one day. By becoming a VP I think he will mature into the role and be groomed to become the next Prez.
Yeah, I think the quickest way for candidates to break through the racial and gender barriers to reach the Oval Office is as VP to a very popular president.
Reply
post #66 of 403
11/8/06 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
There's a reason why we elect governors, not senators, to the highest office. Bush was the Chief Executive of one of the biggest states in the country. He built a record of working with the opposition and minorities in a state where that wasn't really done. You might not remember the 2000 election. Bush stood on his record as the Governor of Texas.
And then he lost the election. And then friends of the family handed it back to him.
Reply
post #67 of 403
11/8/06 at 6:03pm
The Governor of Texas has very little real power. It's how the state constitution is set up. It's a nice office for a bully pulpit, but as far as actual legislation is concerned, the Lieutenant Governor and the Texas Legislature really decide how the state is run. It's just that Perry can suggest a law tomorrow banning puppy juggling for money and the next day the Legislature will have a bill all written and ready. It was a perfect job for Dubya.
Reply
post #68 of 403
11/8/06 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
I'm rooting for McCain.

I wouldn't call Hillary unelectable, but we need to get out of the Bush and Clinton eras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
Oh God no, no more Gore. He was already vice president and had his chance, let other people take a shot at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
I wouldn't vote for Hillary simply because she's married to Bill Clinton.

Goodness gracious people, look at the past administrations ...

(vice pres Bush), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush

C'mon!!! This is ridiculous!
No, sir, you are ridiculous.

Vote for whose right for the job (McCain most certainly isn't), it shouldn't matter if so's brother was already President, or so and so's husband...or so and so was already Vice President and had his shot at President (why you wouldn't vote for Gore, based on that, when the man is clearly very qualified for the job, is beyond me, and just reeks of stupidity).

I'm certainly not defending any Bush, or Hiliary Clinton, but please, shut the fuck up with this retarded nonsense and come back with some insightful commentary. I could care less about Hillary...because I think she'd make a horrible President..but being married to Bill Clinton is hardly a reason not to vote for the women. There are plenty of real reasons.

This kind've superficial garbage is the reason why people like Bush get elected in the first place.

This is a fucking Presidency we're talking about, not a god damned title-bout.
Reply
post #69 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
No, sir, you are ridiculous.

Vote for whose right for the job (McCain most certainly isn't), it shouldn't matter if so's brother was already President, or so and so's husband...or so and so was already Vice President and had his shot at President (why you wouldn't vote for Gore, based on that, when the man is clearly very qualified for the job, is beyond me, and just reeks of stupidity).

I'm certainly not defending any Bush, or Hiliary Clinton, but please, shut the fuck up with this retarded nonsense and come back with some insightful commentary. I could care less about Hillary...because I think she'd make a horrible President..but being married to Bill Clinton is hardly a reason not to vote for the women. There are plenty of real reasons.

This kind've superficial garbage is the reason why people like Bush get elected in the first place.

This is a fucking Presidency we're talking about, not a god damned title-bout.
Gore? Gore!?! Dude. He's in on it.
Reply
post #70 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:23pm
There are certainly extremists on both the left and the right. I'm not sure there are many extremists in congress on the left. I guess you could call a guy like Kucinich an extremist maybe. But the extremists on the left don't have much power to define the agenda, which has not been the case with the right over the last few decades.
Reply
post #71 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Gore? Gore!?! Dude. He's in on it.
Heh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My Work Server
Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.

Reason: The Websense category "Militancy and Extremist" is filtered.
URL: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/c...n2k/mccain.htm
Reply
post #72 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:32pm
There's a lot of effort on both sides to point to those who strongly disagree with them as "extremists." Are you an extremist if you think the troops should come home right this very minute? I would guess that a large number of people in this country, though certainly not a majority, would agree with that. Are you an extremist if you believe that your personal religious and moral beliefs are that abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a human life? At least 30 million self-identified Evangelicals in this country probably agree with that. Do you believe in the immediate dissolution of the military? Do you believe the US Constitution should be replaced by the Book of Leviticus? If so, I would call you an extremist. I would apply that term to no one in the Congress.
Reply
post #73 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
There's a lot of effort on both sides to point to those who strongly disagree with them as "extremists." Are you an extremist if you think the troops should come home right this very minute? I would guess that a large number of people in this country, though certainly not a majority, would agree with that. Are you an extremist if you believe that your personal religious and moral beliefs are that abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a human life? At least 30 million self-identified Evangelicals in this country probably agree with that. Do you believe in the immediate dissolution of the military? Do you believe the US Constitution should be replaced by the Book of Leviticus? If so, I would call you an extremist. I would apply that term to no one in the Congress.
Hey, don't take it up with me. Take it up with my work server.
Reply
post #74 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordling
Hey, don't take it up with me. Take it up with my work server.
Ha! I assume you're kidding. If you're not, my post was in response to the discussion happening several posts up.
Reply
post #75 of 403
11/8/06 at 7:53pm
Quote:
I'd vote for McCain if he'd just rediscover the balls that the current administration took from him. It's almost sad to watch him now, like he's being controlled by brain slugs.
Agreed. I used to like McCain (despite my general dislike of GOP), but in the last several years I think he has pandered too much to become W. Bush's lapdog, and lost the kind of convictions that had made him into a moderate who commanded the respect of Democrats and Independents alike. I no longer like him nor would cast a vote for him, should he decide to run for President in '08. At this point, I don't see anyone from the GOP side that I will want to become our next Commander-in-Chief.

As for Hillary Clinton, I will not vote for her. I think it is best to end the endless Bush-to-Clinton-to-Bush parade in the WH.
Reply
post #76 of 403
11/8/06 at 8:49pm
No, I don't care if Hillary or Jeb are great choices (which they're not), enough is enough. Surely other people should have a chance to be president, and not these 2 families, it's absurd and borders on nepotism.
Reply
post #77 of 403
11/8/06 at 9:08pm
It doesn't border on shit. It's the definition of nepotism.
Reply
post #78 of 403
11/8/06 at 9:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
No, I don't care if Hillary or Jeb are great choices (which they're not), enough is enough. Surely other people should have a chance to be president, and not these 2 families, it's absurd and borders on nepotism.
You still sound like a fucking idiot.

Look...I agree neither of them should be elected (and I'm sure neither of them will be) but it's retarded to even have this argument. Regardless of whatever voter fraud is going on (and I'm sure there is plenty) I still believe you get who you vote for, for the most part.

I'm just saying....you're making a pretty poor case as to why we shouldn't vote for either of these people.
Reply
post #79 of 403
11/8/06 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
You still sound like a fucking idiot.
Could you not have made your point without saying that? Addressing people this way, completely unprovoked, is the way threads go down in flames.
Reply
post #80 of 403
11/8/06 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
No, I don't care if Hillary or Jeb are great choices (which they're not), enough is enough. Surely other people should have a chance to be president, and not these 2 families, it's absurd and borders on nepotism.
Actually it is nepotism and borders on monarchism.
Reply
post #81 of 403
11/8/06 at 11:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny
Could you not have made your point without saying that? Addressing people this way, completely unprovoked, is the way threads go down in flames.
That's what would happen if the insults came from anyone else. But we're talking about Uncle Cthulhu here, CHUD's resident crazy hobo. Anything he posts, you have to turn it 180 degrees for it to come close to making any sense.

Fucking idiot in Cthulhu speak means ElCapitanAmerica is a pretty sensible guy.
Reply
post #82 of 403
11/10/06 at 9:41am
The recent poll of Democrats surveyed showing that their #1 choice for pres. nominee in 08 is Hilary has me scared. At least Obama is #2, but at a far-removed percentage from #1.

Democrats may continue to be their own worst enemy for a long time to come.
Reply
post #83 of 403
11/10/06 at 1:34pm
Maybe Hillary has so much support right now because she's been hinting at an 08 run for the longest, whereas Obama just started considering a run a month ago?
Reply
post #84 of 403
11/13/06 at 2:31am
McCain/Giuliani is the ticket to beat. I'll vote for that. Maybe some actual Republicans could be President again?

If the Republicans have any sense, they'll ban anyone named Bush for ever running again. Jeb Bush is about as awful a choice I can think of, worse than Hillary. Although, I would vote for Hillary just out of spite against the mediocrity of shitstain Jeb.
Reply
post #85 of 403
11/13/06 at 5:10am
I fear for anyone who'll vote for someone and not know how to spell their name.
Reply
post #86 of 403
11/13/06 at 12:43pm
NYC politics is too corrupt (see Bernie Kerik) for Guiliani to run for national office. There are no really good options for the Republicans.

I hope Hillary stays in the Senate and take over for Harry Reid once he steps down. The jury's still out on Obama's electability due to race (won't know until you try,) and even though hope ain't all that audacious, I think he's a great candidate.
Reply
post #87 of 403
11/13/06 at 1:15pm
Best/most likely candidates, imo:

Republicans - McCain. He's getting on in years, but still popular enough. The maverick image (however bullshit it may be) is still intact enough that he can probably bring back a good number of the voters who want to vote GOP, but couldn't justify it in 2006.

Democrats - Edwards. Charismatic, good-looking (yeah, it matters), well-known. If he hadn't been saddled with the ineffectual Kerry campaign, he could have won in 2004.
Reply
post #88 of 403
11/13/06 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
There are no really good options for the Republicans.
Umm.... Really? Are you saying there are no really good options for the Republican party to get a candidate elected president? Because I'm pretty sure if the general election were held today, McCain would be the winner. Or are you saying that there are no really good options for "True Republicans", ie, conservatives? Because I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of conservative candidates running, particularly Mitt Romney.
Reply
post #89 of 403
11/13/06 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Umm.... Really? Are you saying there are no really good options for the Republican party to get a candidate elected president? Because I'm pretty sure if the general election were held today, McCain would be the winner. Or are you saying that there are no really good options for "True Republicans", ie, conservatives? Because I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of conservative candidates running, particularly Mitt Romney.
Oh yeah, I forgot about him. He's an okay candidate. But will his mormonism help or hurt him? McCain can be beaten. I'd hammer him on national security and libertarian issues.

And Edwards would also make for a decent candidate. The 06 election has encouraged me in the fact that economic populism sells.
Reply
post #90 of 403
11/13/06 at 1:47pm
True, McCain's outsider image does not hold up to any degree of scrutiny. The quesiton is whether the Dems can effectively use his record against him. Despite their success this month, I'm not convinced they can. The Republicans just kept shooting themselves in the foot, and by 2008 the anti-Bush sentiment won't be as strong, since he'll be out in any case. Unless, that is, some of the "endless investigations" I hear FNC correspondents moaning about turn up something fresh and juicy that re-tarnishes the GOP as a whole. And I'd say that's a pretty good bet, assuming they get off the ground.
Reply
post #91 of 403
11/13/06 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
Oh yeah, I forgot about him. He's an okay candidate. But will his mormonism help or hurt him?

And Edwards would also make for a decent candidate. The 06 election has encouraged me in the fact that economic populism sells.
Romney's religion is a lot like Obama's race. In public, people say it doesn't matter. In the privacy of the voting booth, who knows? There are a lot of evangelicals who might have a problem with his religion, but he's the most electable of the social conservatives. He's a legacy (Dad was governor of Michigan). He's got real world experience in business (his financial firm was one of the first investors in Staples) and he is credited with helping to save the scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Olympics. He's got government executive experience in running Massachusetts and is the current head of the Republican Governors Association. As Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million budget surplus without raising taxes. He is also socially conservative on gay marriage and abortion (with exceptions for rape, incest, and harm to the mother). Conservatives will love this guy the more they hear about him.
Reply
post #92 of 403
11/13/06 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
True, McCain's outsider image does not hold up to any degree of scrutiny. The quesiton is whether the Dems can effectively use his record against him. Despite their success this month, I'm not convinced they can. The Republicans just kept shooting themselves in the foot, and by 2008 the anti-Bush sentiment won't be as strong, since he'll be out in any case. Unless, that is, some of the "endless investigations" I hear FNC correspondents moaning about turn up something fresh and juicy that re-tarnishes the GOP as a whole. And I'd say that's a pretty good bet, assuming they get off the ground.
I think what will hurt McCain the most is his consistent call for sending more troops to Iraq. He even did it yesterday on Meet the Press. He makes a compelling case for it when you take the time to listen. But if we have two more years of the same in Iraq, McCain's position will have to change if he wants to keep the widespread support he enjoys now.
Reply
post #93 of 403
11/13/06 at 2:06pm
Given that Bush will fight tooth and nail to keep troops in Iraq, its likely to be a 2008 campaign issue. I can't see how that works in McCain's favor.

edit: JVC beat me to a similar post!
Reply
post #94 of 403
11/13/06 at 2:14pm
Still, Mormon is Mormon. Call me cynical, but I think that lots of people will be turned away by the religion issue. I'm similarly pessimistic about Obama's chances. People will come up with any number of excuses, both for others and themselves, not to vote for the black guy. Whatever public opinion polls say, voters have a history of being significantly less progressive.

Of course, the Dems are aware of this, which is why I think we're unlikely to see Obama at the top of a ticket in 08. Vice, maybe, but stupid as it sounds, I'm sure there is still hesitation to put a name so close to "Osama" on Democratic posters all over the country.

Edit: This got a bit jumbled, but was in response to the Romney post a bit farther up.
Reply
post #95 of 403
11/13/06 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
Still, Mormon is Mormon. Call me cynical, but I think that lots of people will be turned away by the religion issue. I'm similarly pessimistic about Obama's chances. People will come up with any number of excuses, both for others and themselves, not to vote for the black guy. Whatever public opinion polls say, voters have a history of being significantly less progressive.

Of course, the Dems are aware of this, which is why I think we're unlikely to see Obama at the top of a ticket in 08. Vice, maybe, but stupid as it sounds, I'm sure there is still hesitation to put a name so close to "Osama" on Democratic posters all over the country.

Edit: This got a bit jumbled, but was in response to the Romney post a bit farther up.
Honestly, I think we may see Obama vs. Romney... in the Vice Presidential Debate. Both guys are appealing to their respective bases, but might not be able to win a national election right now. The perceived frontrunners for each party, Clinton and McCain, each have alienated their bases a bit with past positions. For Clinton, it's continued support of the war. For McCain, it's bucking the party on too many issues (a lot conservatives see McCain the way a lot of liberals see Lieberman). Both could benefit from a VP nominee that excites the base and has a chance to appeal to the moderates, as well. If Giuliani, the other Republican front-runner, wins his party's nomination, a social conservative like Romney for VP would be a no-brainer. Of course, if a relative neophyte like Edwards wins the nomination (who, by 2008, would have only 2 more years of experience than Obama on the national stage), Obama as VP would probably be off the table. And if Romney goes negative in the primaries, the likelihood that McCain or Giuliani would pick him for a running mate drops significantly.
Reply
post #96 of 403
11/13/06 at 3:25pm
See, I was thinking the problem with McCain is that he's caved to the party on too many important issues to maintain the crossover appeal to swing voters. If the base is really upset at his breaking ranks, he could end up with the worst of both worlds.

If he wins, I'll be upset because I really, really want Republicans out of the White House for a while. But if he ends up losing because of the Bush years, I will feel kind of bad for him. He's been kicked around a lot, politically and otherwise.
Reply
post #97 of 403
11/13/06 at 3:54pm
McCain has fought against Bush enough, particularly on the torture ban last December, that moderates love him and conservatives are nervous about him. Just because he hasn't come out in complete opposition to the Bush Agenda does not mean moderates won't support him in large numbers. It just means he's not a darling of the left. He was never trying to be that. He's a Republican, but he's not afraid to flip the middle finger to the Republican president when the situation calls for it. Sure, you can hit him on helping to broker a deal that includes a suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants. But I'm not convince the average moderate voter sees that bill as a bad thing. And an attack on McCain on the torture issue, given McCain's history, would be sure to backfire.
Reply
post #98 of 403
11/13/06 at 4:15pm
I guess. But then, last election I figured an attack on the service of a Vietnam vet with multiple purple hearts by an absentee member of the Air National Guard was bound to backfire, and look what happened there.
Reply
post #99 of 403
11/13/06 at 4:52pm
The problem with McCain is that on Iraq, he's positioning himself to the right of Bush. More troops? Is he nuts? Its waaay too late for that policy.

And I still don't see how McCain's history helps his position on torture.
If anything it makes it worse. After puffing his chest for a minute, he backed down from the White House. Besides, nobody's war record is impervious. Just ask John Kerry.
Reply
post #100 of 403
11/13/06 at 5:10pm
What issue has McCain seriously broken from the party on? When has he "given Bush the finger"? The torture thing is exactly the opposite in my mind. What that said to me was that he knew it was wrong, but went along with it in the end because it was politically expedient. Either that or he and the GOP cynically exploited his maverick image so that Republicans were controlling both sides of the "debate", ensuring that they got whatever they wanted (in this case, the gutting of the Bill of Rights).
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2008 Presidential Campaign