Hey, I happen to think Obama would make a better president than Hillary, in part because I am a gamer and therefore view her as being something of a fool after the Hot-Coffee controversy, in part because I don't respect Hillary's decision on Iran, in part because I feel that a president who accuses other countries' leaders of being soulless is not going to work very well at getting those other countries to cooperate without the threat of violence.

That said, I don't think "Don't vote Hillary she can't win." The same thing can be said of any other candidate, as the old song goes "Every hand is a winner, and every hand is a loser."

My ideal candidate would support unions, and the rights of all Americans to be who they are (Be they gay, Muslim, atheist or whatever.)

My ideal candidate would recognise that prisoners of war are not criminals, and that those that are criminals have the right to a fair trial even though they are bad people because...

My ideal candidate would recognise that what defines a people as morally superior, is morally superior behaviour.

My ideal candidate would believe in evidence based thinking, not simply accepting things because the majority believes them but actually going for the idea that things need proof.

Along with this, my ideal candidate will have a healthy respect for science and scientists, rejecting the rightwing idea of scientists which seems to be founded on old Superman comics.

My ideal candidate would be a secular atheist with a strong belief in the seperation of Church and state - thus standing for restoring the pledge of allegiance to being a secular pledge, and removing "In God We Trust" from America's currency.

My ideal candidate would stand for corporate responsibility being applied to American companies - wherever they operate. American factories operating in other countries should at the very least, behave the same way towards their staff and their customers as they are required to do in America.

My ideal candidate would believe in environmental legislation not only restricting emissions by American industry, but levying import duties on countries whose standards are worse.

My ideal candidate would also stand for levying higher import duties on goods produced by foreign factories which do not meet America's minimum standards regarding workers' rights and safety.

My ideal candidate would stand against pet food being made using pets that have been put down and roadkill.

There is more, but I think you can already see why my ideal candidate isn't what is termed "Electable."

Successful politics is not embodied in capitulating your position before you even get to the negotiating table.

Why don't you put forward what your ideal candidate is then?

Your vote is about you though. It is your statement on who you think, out of the available candidates, win run America best.

You bear the cross of Kate's betrayal very nobly, now tell me, whose lawn are you going to burn it on?

Or do you really think that calling someone a traitor to her gender for voting for a male candidate is any different to calling someone a traitor to their race for voting for the black candidate?

What, you mean the way that Hillary Supporters throw around terms like "Loony liberals"?

You know, because it is not like the "Loony liberals" have been right about the economy, about the war, and about the environment has it? Oh, wait.

I make no bones about being passionate in my arguments. I do not expect Hillary supporters to be otherwise.

What I do expect is Hillary supporters to stop playing such pathetic little victims when they are using exactly the same means of argument.

All you fuckers are doing is the exact same "poor me" play the Bushies have been pulling for the last seven years, and I for one am sick of it. Chronic victimhood is not an attractive trait in a presidential candidate.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/government-waste-1.php

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/worst-government-waste.php

Someone with a working knowledge of financial management might just be called for in the US military.

plays into this.

Conservatives believe that government is there to impose its authority.

Hence, government is, to a conservative, at best a neccessary evil to be run to its minimum effeciency.

Liberals believe government is a tool, there to do certain tasks which can be best achieved via a centralised authority.

Hence, government, to a liberal, is useful and thus to be run to its maximum effeciency.

The fact is that liberals believe in hiring competent people to do things, and that is a form of elitism that may include believing silly things like "People with degrees might just know more about the subject that they have a degree in, than people who don't have degrees in that subject."

Now, how does this impact the military?

With conservatives, the military is a form of government exerting authority, and thus serves government's prime function. They see it as being one of the more legitimate avenues of spending government can use, and thus will spend on the military before almost anything else.

Now the thing is, conservatives like most people, still resent authority, and hence while conservatives fund the military quite happily, they also at the very same time run it about as effeciently as they run everything else - basically it is a wonder you haven't lost any nukes to AQ yet.

Liberals on the other hand, believe in effecient use of resources, hence they look at the military say, sending billions of 100 dollar notes to war torn Iraq and then losing them, and then figure "Lets not do that." This translates into less spending, but more through eliminating wastage, not through eliminating the military.