I mean, why would someone who voted for a Democrat, then switch to a party that believes in very little government?

My argument was - check out what the Libertarians say about X,Y and Z. If that matches up with your values, then vote that way.

Our perception of “people” is always shaped by what images we see/hear from them in the mass media. If we admit that we don’t have the capacity to judge these people, and vote our political values based on the issues, we’ll all be a lot better off.

But I would strongly disagree with voting Libertarian out of frustration with the other party choices. That’s actually a weak argument for the Libertarians. The stronger argument would be why various libertarian policies are better than either party choice.

If Munger makes that case to the voters and more people choose his vision based on the issues, then more power to him.

If the above reasons would make a Democrat like yourself (readers, I know who redneck is…) not support Hillary, which is worse? Voting for someone you don’t agree with on anything? Or voting for an adittedly flawed candidate on your “team.”

I’ve campaigned for Obama in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - so I don’t have much of a personal track record to cling to here. And though I am biased right now here’s my take on it.

I like Hillary personally. She is engaging, funny and very, very smart. In fact, I think Bill Clinton would be a state rep in Arkansas or may have made it up to DA without her. But I really don’t like her politics. She’s not liberal in any sense of the word. Some people are populists, some conservatives, some liberal, some neocons and some reactionaries - Hillary is an opportunist. She will do what benefits her. Nothing more - certainly nothing less.

That’s why my disdain for her has grown to the point that I have two observations on the status of her campaign and why I couldn’t possibly support her - maybe even for President at this point.

1.) We’ve had eight years with a stubborn president who won’t listen to anyone. She has proven her ability to be equally stubborn since Chuck Todd, Russert, Ambinder and the rest told us after Texas and Ohio that the numbers showed she couldn’t win.

2.) Bush has put our country in a financial hole it hasn’t seen since 1792 when the Frenchies owned everything. If she can’t manage the money on her campaign or is simply willing to spend an extra $20m without consideration of all the regular people who won’t get paid because of her irresponsible spending, what the hell is she going to do to fix the mess our country is in?

I suppose then that the real argument is, what are the *best* criteria? From where I sit - I truly think that too many voters use the wrong criteria. Voting for someone based on what one sees as “personal qualities” would seem to leave said voter too susceptible to spin and perception.

Example - GWB. He and his campaign did a VERY effective job of creating the perception that he was a regular guy who drove a pickup truck on his ranch — and that both of his opponents Gore and Kerry were elitist, out of touch types.

But the fact is - he’s lived his life in the upper echelon, bought the ranch in 99 and his wife has already talked openly of selling it after they leave office. So clearly - the “guy on a ranch” thing, was just part of building the perception. And it WAS effective.

But many of the people who voted for him based on that likeability criteria - voted directly against their own economic interests.

So again I ask, what criteria are better than issues? I am not challenging, I am honestly asking.

Thanks for logging on and contributing, I really appreciate it!

What I do take exception to is criticizing others because they use different criteria to choose who they support. I have a friend in LA whose husband’s car was keyed because he had a “W” sticker. I also have staunch democrat friends who are afraid to admit they support Clinton because it’s not the “in” thing to do.

I try to just observe political discussions at cocktail parties since I am an undecided independant - and people on both sides are so judgmental. It’s hurtful.

Last example: I know a republican who was a Guliani supporter and says he won’t vote for McCain and will consider one of the Dem nominees - not because the ideals are closer to his, rather because he feels that “anyone but McCain” would make a good president.

To me, the person who does the best job is someone who fights for an agenda that I agree with. I could never say that someone who would enact a far right agenda (just as an example, since I come from the left) has “done a good job.”

I suppose I am saying that to me, the agenda is slightly more important that the person. Granted, I would not vote for a total nincompoop who happened to support my issues, but by and large, I believe that most candidates do have the basic competence to serve. (Well, that could be argued over GWB I suppose. )

Assuming that I do or should vote for the person with issues most similar to mine is making a huge assumption. I vote for the person who will do the best job leading this country - which may or may not be the person that believes in similar issues as myself.

My view on many issues doesn’t necessarily fit the rest of America.