In the next several months, the major contenders for the 2008 presidency will be going at it in debates. The question is whether their opposing views will help or hinder them. With the democrats favoring an end to the war in Iraq, while some of the Republicans such as John McCain favor invading Iran, a move that could quite possibly cost him the election. We are also looking at democrats who favor some sort of nationalized health care program and those on the other side who are completely against any kind of socialized medicine.
In all likelihood the debates will center upon the war in Iraq and the failure of the present administration to even consider any plan that centers on bringing our troops home. Consider McCain stand on legalizing illegal immigrants that already live here—what kind of message are we sending to the world? Why have a policy on how to enter the country legally when you are going to turn around and give them asylum just because they managed to enter the country and not be caught.
With so many differences of opinion, this election's debates is liable to include more mud slinging than is customary in these debates. Instead of helping the candidate present himself or herself to the voters, it is probably going to end up as nothing more than a name-calling, mud-slinging, verbal attack match of wits. We already know that Hillary Clinton has commented on Barack Obama's comment about meeting with countries in Asia and the Middle East for possible peace talks, and he himself admits that he did not clarify what he truly meant. We have John McCain favoring bombing Iran, so we can expect to be quite entertained with the debates for this election.
For information on the presidential poll results, visit USAElectionPolls.com.
