Why are we not excited and impressed yet?

I know Obama is inexperienced, but his populist message and agenda might just be what this country needs right now. Enough of the radical rights hold on this country. So few Americans are better off than we were 4 or even 8 years ago. But, having said this... I'm still undecided. Somewhere between Guiliani and Obama with a thoughtful pause at Edwards. Yes, Sean, I am saying that this red family is considering voting blue! And I'm sure you always knew this would happen some day ;-)

As a libertarian (not a party member,) economically conservative, socially liberal, none of these people offer me much of anything I'm looking for. As usual. I do end up voting for whoever I consider the least of all the evils, and I felt that last time it was a dead draw. But I enjoyed your assessments of the thing, and if you plan to offer more, I'll read more. I need, this time, to read what regular people are saying and not just the agenda-bearers.

" As I age am I becoming harder to impress and excite? Do I need political viagra?" Sean, I hate to say it, just a few years older than you, but the answers are definitely yes, and, er, yes ;-)

Stefan, this, "(of course, that's a little bit like a run on a bank, isn't it?)" is a cool metaphor. I feel sort of dirty inside for feeling like maybe I would be willing to vote Democrat just to help get a woman elected. But if none of them truly represent my values, what else do I go on, you know?

what do I do to get excited about someone I am just not getting into?

Nothing, they need to do something to get you into it. It's not your job to find a way to feel excited about something you're not excited about -- it's theirs. It they come up short, they're not quite doing enough for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't blame you. Last election, I wasn't very excited over any of our choices, only excited that there was a slight possibility that we could have voted "W" out of office. I have to admit, this time around, I'm kind of excited.

being gay is a choice, that being homosexual is ok as long as we don't practice it

This is one area where I would just love to disarm all contenders.

It is what it is, but I'll be DAMNED (and I mean held back, stuck in a rut, so ditch any God of Abraham-hating) if people continue to step to me and tell me how I must live my life, and no, that's probably not what you think it is.

Society at large is quite guilty of assuming people MUST fit into the "gay" or "straight" slots and anyone inbetween or otherwise bucking the dichotomy are frauds, fakes, and self-hating. I'm pretty tired of being in most people's crosshairs in that regard.

Anyways...

I am an Independent, and to be honest, there are no candidates that truly appeal to me. I am of a firm belief that the main political parties are broken (I respect my Libertarian friends but I don't wholly trust that party either) and so I'm not really holding my breath on a viable third party emerging. Look at how badly the Reform party got hijacked by Pat Buchanan after Ross Perot faded away. I don't see it.

I think you're right-- Obama is still too young and raw to really pull things off. But if Bill Richardson relents on his decision against becoming a VP, and becomes his running mate, I might actually offer him my vote.

Romney-- our shared faith means that naturally I am coming under closer scrutiny as well. He is a good man, in my opinion, and honestly doesn't deserve the animosity leveled at him, but he is running as a Republican, and the GOP is in the thrall of the neo-cons and the evangelicals right now. While I am fairly confident Romney is merely pandering to them, and will return to his more moderate record, the GOP *will* find a way to sink their claws into him if he overcomes the "LDS are heretics" stigma and actually wins.

McCain suffers similar problems. He's an old war horse, which means although his dovey stunts have given much of the GOP epileptic fits, he will still sit at the table with the hawks much of the time.

I have greatly admired Richardson's straight-shooting, but he's really not running as presidential material. He avows to return to the New Mexico governorship if he loses, but I think he should reconsider if offered the VP slot to the right person.

Huckabee- even if he's not in the pocket of Big Oil, he's in the pocket of the evangelicals, and if I didn't quite make it clear, I really don't want that again. 'Nuff said.

Clinton- No, no, no. No doubt, she is poised, and she has strength, but her two big weaknesses for me is that she is left-wing, through and through-- no matter how much she tries to portray herself as a centrist. She is riding the coattails of her husband in some aspects, and that may ultimately backfire on her, particularly when he steals the spotlight on the stump (that's HIS element, not hers).

Edwards seems to be the Dem dark horse right now, but he looks too polished and I just can't see myself swinging that much to the left. Apparently, his political stances are somewhat close to mine, but... no, my interests are too scattered admist the political spectrum for an ideological liberal to properly address.

I'm fairly typical as an Independent-- fiscally (economically) conservative, and socially liberal (mostly). I am strongly inclined to vote for a Dem to swing back the political pendulum away from the GOP a bit, but most of these candidates seem aimed to swing it back more than I am comfortable with.

There is no question the country is divided. Seriously, people, we've ALWAYS been this politically diverse-- don't let whitewashed picket fences of the past fool you. We need to wake up and figure out what's going to unite us or we will remain this deeply divided over differences that have always been there, honestly.

Ron Paul and us disagree on a bunch of things.

Ok, but since Ron Paul is all about keeping only what is constitutionally mandated with federal government, and giving control on the rest back to the states, surely you have a better chance of finding a place in this country where you will get what you want out of government if the states are allowed to diversify on things? Ron Paul is also taking care to emphasize that the constitution should dictate what federal government should do, and not personal beliefs of high-up individuals.

Oh...and I forgot to say...

Happy Birthday!

(from another 37 year-old!)