No, we won’t be having a Democrat this year. You’re right – the Democrats have been getting more people to show up in the primaries. But why is that, you may ask… it’s because they still have a competition going as to who their nominee will be. When you consider that the Republicans who are showing up to vote are doing so to show their support for the Republican party, not because their vote will change anything (McCain was already bumured the nomination a while ago), the Republicans are doing quite well.

Furthermore, I believe that the both of you are underestimating McCain. He’s got a lot of policies that make sense when you think about them, and he’s got a lifetime of experience behind him. Don’t forget that back in 2000, McCain was running against Bush for the nomination. We may have made a mistake then, but hey, we can fix it this time by electing McCain.

As far as Obama goes, I’m sure that as time goes on, his lack of experience will fail him. Immediately after the last debate of his against Clinton, I heard the reporter make a comment that I think is absolutely 100% accurate. The reporter said something along the lines of: “Obama seems to do very well when he’s on his own on the campaign trail. He’s absolutely spectacular when he’s alone in front of a group of people with a teleprompter in front of him. But when he’s placed into a debate setting where he has to think on his own, his performance takes a big hit.” The other two candidates have years and years of experience talking in public, which I think will be a big disadvantage to Obama. Whether he can improve upon that is his own issue, of course. What he can’t easily improve on are the fallible policies that he’s proposed, or lack of. Every time he speaks, I hear him talk about ‘hope’ and how he has risen from mediocre beginnings and that ‘change’ is possible. For sake of brevity, I won’t go into each and every issue at the moment, but I think everyone should take a look at how both Clinton and Obama are planning to finance their multi-billion-dollar expenditures.

I hear both of those candidates say that they’d like to stop the war in Iraq immediately, and the money that would have been spent there will be spent on our infrastructure and on education and the hundreds of things that they’ve promised the American people so far. The problem with that is… stopping the war won’t generate money. Yeah, it’ll stop the expenditure, that’s great! But if you’re just planning on continuing to spend that money, well, take a look at the national debt. That’s where the money is coming from. We don’t have the finances to go on a spending spree at the moment – we’re still paying off debts from decades ago. What will happen is that the Democrats will increase taxes on everyone in order to counter this imbalance. They won’t target just the rich – they’re rich, so what incentive do they have to tax themselves? As an example, I give you a portion of Obama’s education plan. $4000 to every college-bound student, and all that’s asked in return is some community service! Sounds great… except for the math. $4000 times every college student is a LOT of money. How does a government pay for things? Taxes. So although he’s giving you $4000 up front, you have to watch how much extra you have to pay him when tax-time comes around. I bumure you that the community service and the $4000 likely won’t be worth your time.

My ideas on Clinton are roughly identical to my ideas on Obama, minus the inexperience part but add the earplugs for the shrill voice. Great promises, not so great reality.

And as far as his age… he’s in good health. Other than that, I don’t understand why his age could possibly be negative.