2008

Obviously I support most of the Republicans over most of the Democrats, but I also have preferences within.

For the Republicans, I'm looking at Rudy Giuliani. He is an outsider from Washington, has the leadership ability, is tough on crime, understands the war on terror, and is willing to give some ground on social issues. In order for a Republican to get elected in 2008, he/she is going to have to attract some moderate voters, which might mean straying from the extreme social conservatism of George W. Bush. Bush's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage have alienated many away from the Republican Party. Giuliani is conservative on these issues, but doesn't push them to the front. The nation has more important issues at hand, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Giuliani supports Bush's plan and understands that we have to remain a stable ally for Iraq and Afghanistan. All these reasons make him the most electable candidate in a general election.

Mitt Romney would be my second choice. I don't mind that he is a Mormon; he has shown again and again that he can be a great leader. He understands the War on Terror and supports Bush's plan. He is most notable for his business leadership, where he has saved companies from bankruptcy and made others much more efficient. That is something this country needs.

Tom Tancredo or John McCain might be my next choices.

If I had to pick a president out of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Al Gore, or John Edwards I would pick Hillary Clinton. I would pick Clinton for one main reason; she understands the War on Terror. She refuses to apologize for her vote in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq like all the other cowards. She does not demand a withdrawal of troops like the rest of them but actually promised to keep troops in Iraq if she were elected. She has called for an increase in troops in Afghanistan. Most importantly, she says she hopes Bush's plan works. Thank goodness, because some of these other candidates are hoping his plan fails so that they can benefit politically. Even still she isn't strong enough on national security, and I absolutely disagree with her on almost all domestic issues, but she is better than the others.

Barack Obama has little to no understanding of the role America should play in the world, and would probably be the worst thing to happen to America. He has two years experience in the Senate, and continually declines to offer opinions on subjects of the utmost importance, probably because he just doesn't know. He calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq by an arbitrary deadline in 2008, which would be disastrous. Having spent large portions of his life outside America, he doesn't understand the domestic issues America faces. I doubt his credibility, experience, leadership, and ability to be the President of the United States.

Most of the other candidates are somewhere between Hillary and Barack, but I don't want to write how bad they would all be for America. I'll just say that if Barack Obama wins the primary, it is pretty much a shoe-in for any Republican. If Hillary Clinton wins the primary, there is going to be a good fight but the Republicans will still win. Any Democrat that wants to win the general election has got to distance themselves from the radical anti-war left.

There are interesting politics going on here. For a Republican to win the primary, he/she has to be socially conservative. For a Republican to win the general, he/she has to be socially moderate. For a Democrat to win the primary, he/she has to be anti-war. For a Democrat to win the general, he/she would have to be strong on national security.

Let's just hope the Democrats pull a classic move and nominate somebody like John Kerry who offers no plans, makes politically incorrect statements, and runs a terrible campaign.