They may be pre-selected by the elite, but at least you have more than two viable choices. Just look at the difference between the Green Party in Germany and America. German Greens have actually served in cabinet seats and have gained global acclaim such as Joschka Fischer, while American Greens are marginalized and usually made fun of. Just look at Ralph Nader or even Al Gore who has (since being VP) become very green an even after winning a Nobel Peace Prize is still shunned in American politics.

Well, except in California, we are more like Europeans and are much more progressive on environmental issues than the rest of America.

i hope obama becomes president..
he would be the first black president of america

…..and that is exactly why he won't become president. His supporters don’t care about his policies or experience because “He'll be the first black president!” Does it matter that he has one of the highest missed vote rates in the US Senate, not to mention his enormous record of abstaining from votes when he is present? He is either indecisive or afraid of upsetting anyone (not sure which is worse). If he was white, he would have no support at all.

If you ignore race, he is just a guy with zero experience and a poor voting record. I’m not going to vote for someone based their race like most of Obama’s supporters. It’s a solid record of action, or at least defense of your beliefs, that counts.

But, don't you think, he'd be a more idealistic president with the ambitions for a real change and not so corrupt like his antecessors? That's at least what I hope here in Germany

Obama may try to give that impression, but it's not realistic in his case. Running a major nation must be based on realism with a touch of idealism, not the other way around. We already have an idealistic president with Bush and you see where that got us! Bush believes that he is on a mission from God to "clean up" the Middle East. Essentially another crusade without the knights and that is pure idealism. Obama is the same as Bush in that he has no idea what is going on outside his little sphere of liberal college kids (except Bush's sphere is comprised of greedy industrialists). Some of the things he says sound good, but he has no realistic plan to get there. Not to mention Obama is more conservative that you may think. He is VERY religious which worries me that he would follow the same fundamentalist path as Bush. Plus he has a poor record on environmental issues which is #1 with me.

Really, I wish Al Gore was running. He would make a great president, but he realizes now that he can do much more as a global environmental leader than president of the US.

With all due respect: to assume that President Bush is "idealistic" is really far-fetched. :hm: The attributes fundamentalistic and reactionary would be really more adequate in narrower senseas, as this innocent word "idealistic".
Your negative attidute to Barrack is your own business and not to discuss.

Negative attitude to Obama is my business and not to discuss?!?!?

Is this not a political forum with the title Obama vs. Clinton? Sounds like you are implying that opinions other than your own should be silenced.

I am no fan of Bush and would like to see him and his conspirators stand trial at The Hague. My point in calling him idealistic was the way in which his supporters view him, not my viewpoint, just as Obama's supporters call him idealistic. That was the comparison that I was making. If you ask me, Bush is a moronic radical religious nutball cowboy Texan and we should seal the borders of Texas and never ever let anyone out of it again. But that's just my humble opinion.

I have positive opinions (dare I say idealistic) too, you know, but with the current poor choice of candidates, they probably won't surface much during this election. I think we're in for another 4 years of bad policies, just not as bad as under Bush.

Negative attitude to Obama is my business and not to discuss?!?!?

Is this not a political forum with the title Obama vs. Clinton? Sounds like you are implying that opinions other than your own should be silenced.

Of course no, far from it. I meant rather you are more than justified to have your position against Barrack, even it's not my opinion. There is nothing to discuss - to query it!
Besides, I was only a little bit astonished to hear the word "idealistic" "in his purest meaning" associating with Bush. Be sure, we have fully respect for other opinions. As liberals we have even good relations to communists and anarchists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

As far a political positions go, I think the definition of liberal in Europe is different than in America. An American liberal is a conservative in Europe and a liberal in Europe is an extremist in America. As an American left-leaning moderate, you would probably classify me as fairly right-wing in Europe. I would not join liberals with communists and certainly not anarchists.

But then again...how a liberal like Blair joined with an extremist like Bush is beyond me. He was good friends with Clinton which was natural, but then became Bush's pet poodle obeying every single order. :hm:

Obama's strength in the delegate count is largely caused by democratic delegates who come from states that traditionally vote republican. Hillary's delegates largely come from states that vote democratic or are swing states. So while Obama appears to be ahead in the delegate count, it is likely that most of the super-delegates will throw their support to Hillary. After all, most of the super-delegates are party officials who are coming from those states that actually elect democrats to office, and those states are voting for Hillary in the primary.

Now that Obama has been tied to some very extreme statements made by his pastor of 20 years, he will have a hard time winning the remaining states in the coming primaries. Most Americans consider Jeremiah Wright's comments from the pulpit to be deeply disturbing at best, and overtly racist at worst. Obama's church officially supports "Black Liberation Theology." Black as in skin color, and liberation theology as in Marxism and class warfare.

Furthermore, Obama's only claim to fame is the fact that he can give a good speech, and he voted against the Iraq war. But he has done nothing else so he is in many ways an empty suit. The only reason he has gotten so far is because the American press has treated him with kid gloves while viciously going after Hillary on every issue possible.

In the end however, I think Hillary will win.

One last point, as far as third parties are concerned, they can't win major elections in the US because they are "political parties." The Democrats and Republicans are not political parties, they are political coalitions. A coalition is much wider than a party and includes more people even if they use the term party in their name. And historically, any time a 3rd party finds an issue, the major parties co-opt it into their platform leaving the 3rd party will little to campaign upon.

The most viable third parties are the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and Green Party. But any one of them would barely get above 3% of the vote in a national election. Though they do elect some city-councilmen or some representatives to state assemblies.