<p>None taken. I’d vote for any Dem. except Hillary if I thought it would bring forth a new era of pure unadulterated single-party partisanship to break the current logjam, with a single party controlling the Presidency, House, and Senate.</p>
<p>But I don’t think my vote will be worth a darn. (But then I might vote for the Huckster.)</p>
<p>My objections to Hagel are numerous, and they start with his election to the Senate, in a stunning upset, immediately after he left his position as CEO of the company who made the machines that counted the vast majority of the votes. Then there are his very conservative social positions (against abortion rights), his extreme position on the environment (opposes federal regulation of pollution, etc.), his position on social security (for “privatization” - in other words, he wants to dismantle it). I could go on.</p>
<p>Mini, I am also interested in who you do support. I agree that we need a highly partisan president. I am having trouble finding someone to support.</p>
<p>By “the Huckster,” surely you don’t mean Huckabee?</p>
<p>I did indeed, but remember, where I live, my vote doesn’t matter. (But if I had to choose between him and Hillary, it’s a no-brainer - as a general rule, I don’t vote for wives of mass murderers.)</p>
<p>Of the major dems., Edwards seems the most partisan.</p>
<p>Where is David McReynolds now that I need him?</p>
<p>enjoyable thread except when two posters mugged the futureNYUstudent just for participating; to do that is to lose others’ respect out here</p>
<p>On the original topic, I can understand 3rd party candidates when there’s insufficient diversity of opinion among candidates, but there’s a big range in the two major parties right now. I like it when people come onto the playground to figure it out, and not enter by a sidedoor. For example, I liked Ralph Nader fine until he ran that 3rd party candidacy, which raised creepdom to new heights. Why do that? He gave the country to Bush by injecting himself that way.</p>