Normally I would possibly agree that it is best to send a message to those leaders on your side (assuming you have a shot at actually achieving this) by voting for a party on the fringes but the costs are so high right now IMO.  The War on Terrorism is the biggest issue we face today and one party wants to ignore it... or at least hope for the best.  Pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster in so many ways if we left before it was able to take care of itself.  I believe that John McCain would do better than what the current administration is doing on this at least.  You cannot say that he has been arm in arm with President Bush and his foreign policies.  We know what Obama thinks he would do, though he may be forced to change his mind when he's in the Oval Office.  I think McCain could very well be a decent president, though I realistically know that he won't turn the country into what the founding fathers origionally intended.  I don't even think a Libertarian could actually pull that off once in office. 

Cleo, Socialism is not a governmental system, it is an economic system which is controlled [to a degree] by the government.  The problem with our "capitalism" today is that it rubs shoulders with the government way too much.  This is of course not capitalism's fault as a company's number one goal is to make the most money possible.  If using governmental power helps this cause, they will do it.  The problem is that the government allows it or at least bends to it (enough at least). 

What scipio, you mean like George W Bush?

Unfortunately, Tosk, Ross Perot and his nearly 20 percent of the popular vote was not enough to gain any traction....

Well which is it tosk? The government was meant to be a servant of the people, but the leaders need to quit being servants of the people? Don't ya think that if the only way the politicians get into office is by the votes, then they surely must be servants of the people? Or by leaders, are you not talking about politicians. Clearly, this country has many, many leaders who aren't involved in politics at all, but I'd hedge my bets that that is not what you are talking about?

Yeah, needless to say, there will be a lot of angry people in this country if Obama is elected then murdered. But I have my doubts that he will be picking Clinton as his running mate. Let her into the Cabinet, that's fine, but leave the Clintons out of this one, as far as VP is concerned. Hillary has already endorsed him, that should be enough.

ADDIT: I think Tosk, I may have misread what you said about about the leaders being servants of the people. Clearly, the leaders are servants to the special interest groups today. I thought you might have been trying to say the leaders being servants to the people was a bad thing. We all know we need more dictators in this country, after all!

EXACTLY! I would fall all over myself to vote for Condoleeza Rice, and it ain't because of her skin color. It is because she is who she is IN SPITE of her skin color. That woman is SMART, accomplished, driven, committed, principled, and NOT glamorous.

Definitely not a good "poster child" for feel-good/mean-nothing sheepol motivating rhetoric.

ADDIT: and Locus, I agree, Bush was not sufficiently qualified to be elected President. But he was still more qualified than Obama is now. Bush had been a successful business man and a Governor of a highly successful state. I honestly do not know Obama's track record that well, but my understanding is: he came up from municipal office standing, has been a Senator for one term? has abstained on the vast majority of the Senate bills he "voted" on, and has basically zilch as far as any actual projects he has accomplished. I combine this with silly rhetoric, and the image I have of him is shallow, indeed HOLLOW image-boy.

John McCain in contrast has more experience and proven ability in his little finger. I combine this with him having an at least semi-reasonable perspective on finishing the job in Iraq and the War on Terror in general, and his ability to find middle ground, and it seems entirely clear to me given these two choices who is the better of the two.

I wouldn't vote for Obama if they put a gun to my head . . . but if he is elected, I will stand behind him fully, and wish him and our country the best.

Tosk, I find your disdain for McCain's middling-approach to be puzzling. Isn't Ron Paul a Libertarian? Aren't Libertarians known for standing in a middle ground between the typical left-right Dem-Rep chasm?

Yeah, Tosk, I caught myself before you posted. If you see the "Addit" to my post above yours, you will see.

Wrong.

You can see what he's done in 2007 alone at the Library of Congress Records, here.

Wikipedia has a summary of his accomplishments, here

So to say he's done absolutely nothing is a bit inaccurate.

Did Tosk express disdain for middling? He said:

That isn't exactly disdain for middling, is it? As far as the libertarians, they aren't exactly middle ground, they are non-government intervention to the extreme. That is viewed favorably by the Republicans in terms of economic policy, but not social policy, where you have the Republicans paying homage to the 'moral majority on the far right, who want the government to regulate all sorts of social issues. They aren't middle ground, but their position is very well defined, IMO.

Moreover, this one is still a deal breaker for me, and should be for anyone who honestly cares about people, particularly Iraqis, but people all over the Middle East

Caps should be placed based on what is needed for victory. Phased redeployment should begin and proceed based on what is needed for victory. Removal of all combat brigades should happen after victory, not when some ideologue thinks its a good ploy to win him votes bleeding-heart left-wingers.

ADDIT: This part of his Wiki page gets at what it is about the guy that gives me the creeps