While I find Obama infintely more likeable and everything else being equal I would vote for him over clinton, in this case I think Clinton winning would be better for us in the long run and possibly even in the short run.

Do you suggest I wear a tinfoil hat and stop drinking fluoridated water as well ?

I would suggest a reading of 2 books. “The anglo american establishment” and Tragedy and Hope” By Carrol Quigley. Then research which candidates are members of the CFR. Then let cast your vote. You will deserve what you get.

To me, it comes down to process and respect for process. I have no doubt that Hillary will take advantage of the Bush-era expansions of executive power (which themselves built on the Clinton-era expansions of executive privilege) to make sure that she gets her way. Obama gives every indication that he will respect process and roll back executive powers, making him far less scary.

Yes, it’s purely tactical, but it’s tactical because I think that electing Hillary would be the worst possible thing that could happen in 2008

If you’re referring to the same Hillary who was such a miserable negotiator that she managed to turn a supportive Congress against her on the one issue Bill Clinton tasked her with (health care) during his tenure, frankly I don’t think she’d be anywhere near as damaging as you fear because I’ve seen no indication that her personality has changed. You start playing this game where you try to vote for least-worst candidate on a someone who opposes you on almost all of the important issues, all you’re doing is helping to put a candidate who can sell his bad policies into office.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to elect Hillary, let them…she turned the country against the Democrats once and I have no doubts she can do it again. She can’t lead and she can’t get things accomplished…and that’s what we want from the new president if we can’t get someone who votes our way on the issues elected.

I still will not vote for him though; after the way the democratic party has treated of their best (albeit socialist, but a principled man nonetheless) Kucinich, they can rot in this orchestrated ‘democratic majority after the destruction of the republican party’ racket.

I just see this post as further example of people still not letting go of “the lesser of two evils”. Obama would most likely support a continually fallacious monetary policy, possibly the NAU as well if his admin were to present it in a “good” light (“we’re the good guys, you voted us into office, you can trust us.” etc. etc.); although, regardless of the president in power, the NAU may become necessary due to the current economic and monetary policies which need to be changed anyways. He (Obama) would probably further muddle in the immigration debate without getting much done or just make it worse.

The only supposedly “good” thing about Obama is you will “supposedly” be able to some of this going on by his advocation of government transparency, however, he has not indicated thus far how limited that would be. As I’ve read before, aside from Obama being an huge Statist, the man is a question mark.

If, historically speaking, voting Obama would eventually lead to a more acceptable candidate making inroads at the next election, it might be excusable; I would definitely appreciate Obama over another increasingly fascist dictator, under different scenarios.

But that requires a crystal ball; something I believe Obama’s “hope” will never be able to conjure up.

Yes, it’s purely tactical, but it’s tactical because I think that electing Hillary would be the worst possible thing that could happen in 2008. McCain would be bad, but she’d be worse.

Obama is different to the extent he’s forcing the Democratic Party to deal with a problem that’s been in it’s midst for more than a decade now.

I didn’t say he was libertarian in any sense of the word, and I can’t see myself supporting him in November or afterwards. But I’ve got a vote to cast, and, of all the options available, voting for him seems the most useful and the least distasteful thing I could do.

I see Obama as less of a threat than Hillary, and so I completely understand where you’re coming from. I also believe Obama, from the little I know of him, is a genuinely decent guy who is in politics because he wants to do good things. Frankly, I’d probably prefer Obama to Giuliani, and thankfully it won’t come down to that!

But I think you’re wrapping your political calculation and pragmatism in high-minded ideals. Obama, while he seems pretty good for a Democrat, is still not a libertarian. He still takes opposite sides of nearly every issue as you or I would. If you look at UC’s link to Obama’s issues page, he’s an advocate of bigger government, more intrusive goverment regulation, and higher taxes.

If you want to vote for Obama as a small way to fight against Hillary, I completely understand and I agree with you that in your case, it might be the best vote you can cast. Obama is light-years better than Hillary, but that’s not setting the bar high. But you’re trying to rationalize it by saying Obama’s different enough that you could actually “support” Obama (echoing Mark, at the very least), and I can’t see that happening.

When the time comes, if there is a President Obama, I suspect you and I will be side by side fighting against him on the issues, and when that happens you may be glad it’s not Hillary, but you’ll still be fighting.

As tempting as it is to vote Obama to blow Hillary out we are still left with McCain and Obama; Obama I think wins that one. Either way it’s more taxes and more war, neither is affordable.

No matter which way it’s sliced McCain, Hillary or Obama, it is still the same 500 calorie sandwich.

I am voting Ron Paul- period.

I’m under no illusions when it comes to Obama but, since I am already convinced that we’ll have a Democratic President in 2009, I guess I’d rather have it be a President I can have at least a modicum of respect for.

I can understand and respect that opinion, and as a person Obama certainly seems to be someone who’s more of a uniter and compromiser than what’s gone before. Unfortunately, as we learned after voting for Bush in 2000, appearances are not always reality.

Obama, if he wins, will very likely be backed by a Democratic Congress…one that I think will be much more Democratic after 2008. He’s on the record as supporting more government intervention in medical care, which should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about the quality of medical care they receive. He’s advocating government intervention into the auto industry to force the introduction of biofuels, he’s for restricted immigration, and he supports increasing the power of the DHS. And he has the votes to get this all passed.

It’s always attractive to vote for an unknown quantity because it adds an element of hope…that’s largely why, as the old saying goes, the backup QB is the most popular player on bad football teams. But in Obama’s case I believe it to be a false hope. This man is a statist, and he plans to follow statist policies. The only thing that differentiates him from any of the other statists in the race is his rhetoric, which is indicative of nothing except that he is a good salesman for a bad product. I don’t see how any conscientious libertarian can discard the facts of Obama’s platform as he himself has presented them in the hopes that somehow he will turn out to be different than his platform says he’ll be.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I already did the “vote for Bush” thing after Clinton. Look where that got us.

My vote will remain with Ron Paul because, for the first time in my entire middle-aged life, I have someone to vote for that I agree with the majority of his positions and the very base of sound philosophy they come from. Had all of us the guts to stand up for what we do believe in, we may win. Until then, we’ll continue to get crap or crap, and I refuse to vote for more crap.