Obama or McCain, who and why?

Well that's not entirely true, the last democrat before Clinton was Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration had a god awful economy and skyrocketing fuel prices too

Perhaps. I heard this from news channels on tv, I think MSNBC. Using stock market terms, for 70 or so years our country was like a Bull Market, so even if it was doing poorly, it was still in the positive, not the negative, I think was the point. Maybe they were wrong, I'm certainly not going to argue it haha.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes the market starts fresh with each candidate, it doesn't. The Bull market under clinton actually started under Bush senior and was the brainchild of reaganomics as an answer to the whacked economic policies of Carter (btw, I think Obama is another Carter, well meaning but out of his league). All clinton did is not f*** with greenspan.

Neither party is very responsible with the money (remember contract with america?) and we forget that.

On a side note, in all honesty, I'm more afraid of one party controlling both the legislative and executive branches than I am of either party controlling any one thing.

We had one party with both and they did less than a split government. I think these guys need to learn how to fear unemployment more than fitting in with the party line.

When one party controls the legislative and the executive you get things like the patriot act pushed through. I don't want either party having a free ride for their agenda.

In this world, isn't it about the lesser of two evils? By voting for the impossible ideal you end up increasing the chances of a greater evil taking power, right? Though it all comes down to personal opinion, but for example, Ralph Nader very well might have cost Al Gore (among other things) the 2000 election. So while some expressed their dislike for Gore and Bush and voted for Nader, they in a way backfired their own cause.

No, it isn't. By accepting that you must vote for one of two undesirable alternatives, you forego your ability to create and support a party that does support your views (I am pro small government and anti social control). People forget that the republicans are a third party that came out of the Whig party (now defunct). I didn't like bush or gore and I didn't want either of them to win. You should vote for a candidate that supports you views, not the less of two evils, that just brings evil.

We live in an imperfect world, it's pretty clear "good" can never be pure. By voting for the lesser of two evils, over time the next candidates are even less "evil". Entropy, in a way. The liberal way of thinking was first to support almost all major social changes in our world, and as time went on more and more took place. California is soon to vote on whether to permanently place gay marriage as law, prop 8, a vote that took place 10 years ago and failed miserably. Fairy tale candidates--

,though they may seem ideal, can't realistically ever be successful enough to win an election (at least not now). Those who vote for these 3rd party candidates are increasing the probability that a truly "evil" candidate will take office. Bush has destroyed the U.S., something I'm pretty sure Gore wouldn't have done. Sometimes voting or acting the way you want really won't make a difference in the world. In this context, it might actually make it worse.

Fraid I have to disagree. By abandoning our principles, we simply encourage politicians to think that if they concede a little on social issues, they can win us over. As a result, we have republicans that spend like drunk liberals and democrats debating the role religion should play in politics. The answer needs to be a solid "no". If we aren't willing to back up our position with decisive action, you can bet we will not be recognized. Wish it were different but it isn't.

I have to agree, the biggest political problem in our country is this two party system. We desperately need a third or even a fourth major party with the same backing as the mainstream two. To say that one shouldn't vote outside of the democratic or republican candidates is the most undemocratic concept I've ever heard, even though I've heard it many times. Like Perot or not, it's a shame the Reform party didn't strengthen more, or the Libertarian party isn't stronger -

But the problem there is that you'll find the rules governing political parties that are in place overwhelmingly favor the two major parties and severely limit the likelihood of any other party from becoming strong enough to compete, financially or otherwise. The only reason the Reform party did so well was because of the tremendous amount of money that Perot pumped into it - I seriously doubt we'll ever see someone put that kind of effort into a third party again, sadly.

The reason a third party isn't considered viable is the lie that a vote for a third is a waste of time. The republicans came out of nowhere and created a viable third pary when there was only 2 points of view. We can do it again anytime we have to the balls to say "I won't play this or that, I want something different".