At this early stage in the campaign the best number seems to be Bill Richardson's who has the lowest "definitely against" at 28%. Clinton's 48% looks like a tremendous handicap.

So far, Obama has my vote. His environmental record is better than Hillary, my second choice so far.

I'm glad to see that Giuliani is still leading the Reps. He's the least bad in their camp.

I'd love to see Gore run again. He won once. Maybe he can do it again and get credit for it this time.

Mis. Scott: I can't believe that someone as well informed and intelligent as you are will be voting for Obama. I find him scary for several reasons, one of which is that I think he is phony - more dangerous than other well-known-phony politicians.

I live in New Mexico and can vow for Gov. RIchardson to be an excellent candidate, with experience not only in administrative matters, but also in serious diplomacy. It is a pitty that most people don't know him and the media ignores him. MMM, why would the right-wing-supported media want to ignore Richardson? Maybe that is a good indication of his worth.

I tend to find that the most-ignored candidates are usually the best. I am staying far away from Obama; he appears too close to the church, professionally, for me. I don't care what religion a candidate is, nor how close s/he is to his/her beliefs, but bringing that into the political races ALWAYS turns me off.

Hillary's response to the US Supreme Court's ruling on late-term abortion made me glow. Right-wing nutjobs always spew forth about emotional/spiritual connection, but Hillary is the first and only candidate that makes me just feel good. She has something that we need. She's got my vote and will keep it, unless she messes up with something very badly.

(I have also watched Richardson's tenure as NM Gov. and was impressed. I would vote for him, but unfortunately I don't t hink that he has the power to nab the primary.)

Marcela Wagner,

I find most politicians phony. I am not strongly decided yet. I think most of the Dems are a lot better than any we've had for a while. I'd vote for Gore again if he'd run again. I'd love to see him win again.

As for why I'm leaning toward Obama so far, primarily because he has a better environmental voting record than Hillary. I'm not so sure about Richardson. I don't know much about him yet.

I also think that perhaps there is something to the fact that Obama did not vote for the war on Iraq. Perhaps it's an indicator that his built in lie detector works a bit better than Hillary's. Did Richardson vote for or against the war?

Religion turns me off too. I'd love to have an atheist to vote for. But none would get elected in this country for a long time to come. Yes, I know there is one. But he didn't get elected with a constituency that knew that.

What makes Obama scarier than others to you?

Ah, Scott, what makes Obama scarier to me? I guess it is my gut feeling, lie detector, 6th sense, feminine intuition, whatever you want to call it. There is something more scary about a politician that captures the imagination of the people. Think Peron, Kennedy, etc. Populism is easy to stage and easy to forget after elections. Yes, Obama voted against the war and that I believe is one great thing he has going for him, together with his environmental record. But what else? Charisma? So does Bush. Experience? Zippo, cero, nada.

Regarding Richardson, he did not have a vote on the Iraq war because he is a governor, not a senator, but I believe he was against it from the begining. I say I believe because I know people who work with him and who opposed the war from the get go, and those people would not work for him if he had been for the war.

Regarding RIchardson's experience in government, he worked in the Clinton administration in the energy area and has also pursued dimplomatic endeavours with difficult and/or threatening regimes, such as North Korea and the like. Even now, they call him to go solve the messes the Bush administration keeps spreading throughout the world. Gosh, I am sick of it!

And Gore, oh boy, do I wish he would run again. Here we signed the "draft Gore" petition, but I believe he feels he could be of more use to humanity being outside of the political game. I am not so sure he is right about that, though.

And I wish we could say out loud that we not only don't believe in god, but find the idea of a human-like god repugnant - imagine if a candidate could ever say something like this if mere citizens cannot!

By the way, I always enjoy so much reading what you write!

Marcela,

I'm sorry, I can't take your opinions of Obama more to heart. I actually haven't noticed that he has that level of Charisma. I thought Bill Clinton had more. I will keep my ears open for more substantive statements about all of the democratic choices, especially Richardson given your high opinion of him.

I am at the point of truly believing that the environment and any possibility of nuclear war top all other issues combined. It's hard for me to imagine that even the civil liberties I hold so dearly, and clutch blindly for as they disappear, will matter much if our species goes extinct.

I also hope that if/when we do eat out our resource base and die or go up in a nuclear inferno, that we take a minimum of other species with us. We may need to take out all of the great apes just to make sure it never happens again. But, other than that, I like to imagine a beautiful world again in perhaps just 10 - 50 million years.

As for expressing my opinion on the subject of a deity, I do so loudly and at every opportunity. I'm not sure how things are in New Mexico. In New York City, it is not the popular viewpoint, but is quite well tolerated (but only by U.S. standards), to assert not only a disbelief in but a disdain for any deity that could put the world into its current state. In some circles in which I travel, it actually is well within the norm.

Lately, I've been fond of telling people, especially religious people, that if, when I die, I find out that I'm wrong, I intend to do my best to get in one good punch before I get zapped for eternity.

I'm glad you've enjoyed my posts. I enjoy writing them.

A strong recommendation for John Edwards:

'The only major candidate opposed to increased reliance on nuclear power is a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards.'

For the full article, see the following link:

http://www.nysun.com/article/52902

Given the severe problems inherrent in nuclear power, this just might be enough to get my vote. Here are a few problems that have thus far not been answered adequately about nuclear power. I'm sure there are more.

1) Price. When not heavily subsidized few power sources are as expensive as nukes.
2) Time. Fewer power sources take so long to come on line.
3) Waste. We already have more than enough to fill Yucca Mountain, if it ever opens.
4) Accident. Would you really want this in your or anyone else's backyard?
5) Terrorism. Ditto.

I've read the comment that "Obama is Scary" because he "captures the imagination of the people".

I think he captures the imagination of the people for good reasons.

1. He walks his talk and has a great record of service to the common good. Nothing in his past puts a lie to any of the principles he claims. He admits to having experimented with drugs. Big deal. If every politician who ever made a mistake should be shot down permanently for it, then no one is eligible.

2. He's the most eloquent speaker of any and is able to bring the true issues into clear focus. That's why people are so charged up about him. Not because he's casting some kind of voodoo spell. He just tells it like it is and does it in a no-nonsense way that brings people together. He also stresses the need for America to be a partner with other countries in solving the problems that confront all of us. Isn't that what we need in a leader?

3. What does he stand to gain from becoming president?
a. A drowning economy
b. An unwinnable war
c. A failed health care system
d. etc.

So what ulterior motive would he have for running for president? People are excited because he is able to paint a vision of hope for how we can get out of this mess. The other candidates, including Hillary, just aren't as good at getting people excited about changing our country together.

I think I'm coming back to Obama too. Edwards is right for not supporting nukes. But, in the debate, he actually advocated COAL!! Yecch. There is no worse power source than coal. There is no such thing as clean coal. Pumping carbon deep below the earth or ocean is unproven technology at best. And, we're taking down whole mountains to get the crap.

Obama's statement on nukes was at least a bit weaker than Hillary's. His environmental record is good. I'm back in his camp for the moment.

IMNSHO, there is no more important issue than the environment. Nuclear weapons can kill us all, but someone must press a button. Climate change will cause global civilizational collapse and possible extinction of our species if no one presses a button. In fact, much must be done to avoid it.

Of course, if I thought we could make ourselves go extinct wihtout taking any other species with us, or even with minimal loss, I might not think it was so bad. (Oops, sorry, just letting my misanthropic side slip out. I really don't hate all people. I just hate our species as a whole.)

I still want to see Gore enter the race, of course. Then the choice becomes easy.