The reason I started to like Romney is that he seems like a pragmatic guy. He seemed the most "Presidential" out of all the candidates, and I could see him genuinely trying to please everyone, but without being a pushover.

About that job deal... Jopaku, many other countries 'job' destination has been the USA for decades! The fact that people are now starting to leave this 'job mecca' only proves that we're slowly starting to see a world that not only has 1 or 2 big players in town - but many. And the USA is getting hurt because of this - it's trying too hard to cling to it's spot as the number 1 when probably it should instead cooperate with the world's other rising economies and work for a more balanced world economy - not one where the big players are constantly trying to keep their spot by getting themselves into ever more messy ordeals. Obama to me, seems the one to have that world view that aims to play the right cards in this new trend of other rising world powers. Would we rather keep trying to be the number 1 and damn the consequences?

I agree it was a diluted comment that came from a thought implanted in my by the idiot box ... here exactly (go to minute 35!!):

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/02/26/1/a-conversation-with-timothy-garton-ash-alistair-horne-and-john-burns

they said some really interesting things there that would interest you guys.

On the other side of the aisle, McCain has it wrapped up. His temper would mean a foreign policy disaster not seen since the times of Caligula, but not much worse than Dubya. As for certain other problems - when I´m senator, I want all my lobbyists to look like that; maybe a bit taller, a bit better muscled, a bit more wood before the hooch, maybe a redhead every now and then (hint,hint ;b). It has been suggested McCain planted the story himself so he wouldn´t look too old; not implausible, considering the level of discourse.
Hunter was good, but a bit too reasonable to leave an impression.
Romney was too manifestly rich. Huckabee was too divisive. Tancredo was too single issue.
I admit to a certain faible for Dr. No. I´m not a strict constructionist and I think some of his libertarian ideas ought to be tempered with a little socialism, but when in doubt, the Constitution provides a safe fallback. The only principled opposition to the war, apart from Kucinich; forget Hussein´s claims. Plus, I have come to like the worldview of old physicians - humani nil alienum. They have a unique understanding of the meaning of life itself. THIS could be healing, foreign and domestic. The only serious drawback is that he´s an open borderer.
So, give me a Paul/Kucinich or Edwards ticket with Tancredo as AG, and we have a deal. Of course, this is cloud cuckoo´s land.

All the serious candidates are corporatists to make a pig barf, warmongers, open borderers and gun grabbers (i.e. deny individual liberty). On all these counts, McCain is probably the worst, but there´s really not that much difference.
So: If you are pigmented and expect handouts, vote for Her - Obama doesn´t have to pander (ref.:Macchiavelli).
If you are currently employing more than five illegals (especially in a defense-related sector), vote for McCain.
If you are a gun owner, shoot them all.
If you are the rest, I do not envy you the choice.

As for McCain, I don’t care about his alleged past with a lobbyist, other than the irony that he has always opposed lobbyists and advocated transparent elections -- the one political issue I respect him for. The reason he is scary is he would keep us in wars, keep people dying, and in the eyes of the world we would be offering Bush lite, which is sort of like Hitler breath mints. So I am finding myself in agreement with NoKangs on these points.

I have no breath I want to waste on the other former Republican candidates, other than to marvel how a person like Huckabee can seem so genuinely good natured and be so mind-bogglingly wacko (creationism, etc.)

NoKangs is also correct that neither Barack nor Clinton is much of a threat to "big business" (which seems far too lite a term). However, the differences are more than the gender/race toss-up. Their positions on how to handle Iraq were very clear before this race. (I think if we looked at the archives some of us dreamed of Obama’s presidential candidacy since his early days in the Senate.) But the reality is that Clinton had all the insider knowledge in the world and consciously chose to put thousands of lives in peril by voting to give Bush unlimited powers, and then voting to fund these powers. I don't believe she supports this "war," but made these choices for own political positioning. Too bad she didn't have the insight to know those morally bankrupt votes may be key to her losing the nomination. To me, the lie-invade-plunder issue is profound and so, therefore, are their respective responses. Also, if we aspire to be a democracy, we should obviously be suspicious of political families, just as we should be of oligarchies.

Now out pops Nader. And he is still right about everything, even though his tenor is arrogant and abrasive. (Did anyone catch him on the Daily Show this week?) So let him throw his hat in the ring and call out the system. Somebody needs to. But for me, and obviously a refreshingly large amount of people, the only logical option at such a critical time is Obama.

Why?

We don't know whether or not he can bring political change, but we can pretty sure the entrenchment of McCain and Clinton means they can't. Obama obviously can deliver "hope," which isn't as ephemeral as it sounds. When people’s ways of thinking changes, so do their options. And eventually their actions.

I DO hope my son, who is identifiably black in a racial-thinking America, will have the opportunity to watch and remember the election of the first black American president. Reality is that it will have an effect on him and thousands like him -- about their own possibilities, about the notion that eventually gross injustices can end. With Obama's election, the world will see that maybe we aren't as ignorant and ethnocentric as we have appeared and, through policy, behaved. MAYBE he'll make good on focusing on diplomacy and MAYBE he will do it well. He isn't Jesus. In terms of ideas he isn't even Nader or Kucinich! But for better or worse, he is comparable in intelligence and charisma to Kennedy. And we never quite found out where, in the end, that presidency would lead.

Given what we know, given this moment in history, people, who want a more equitable, peaceful, and sustainable country and world need to elect Obama. BUT electing Obama means realizing he took a lot money from a lot of the big businesses and health care corps behind many of the problems. So, we need to elect him knowing that it is OUR job to push him like hell to fight, not accept, corruption.