Isn't it rather early to even decide one's favorite? Iowa and New Hampshire should have little relevance to those of us who live in California, Texas and Florida, the largest states. Allowing two little states to decide for us is something that has been imposed upon us. How about "None of the Above"?

Yes, that's fine to be undecided, however we want to give folks a chance to share if they have made up their mind more or less already.

I am voting for Bill Richardson. Not because I think he will be our next president but because I think he should be our next president. He knows Congress, He knows the U.N. He knows energy, He know arbitration, He knows Spanish, and He knows mangement. No one else in the field has his experience or success in the tasks he has undertaken. There it is. He has everything necessary to govern but the charisma to get elected. Tom

Wow you guys don't mess around do you? Homosexuality, creationism, atonement, environmentalism, open theism, and now politics. Let's throw in abortion and illegal immigration just for fun and call it a good couple of weeks :)

Beth:
I don't really know who makes up the audience of the Spectrum Blog, but I have observed the following phenomenon in my local church: There is a tremendous diversity of opinion within every demographic in the church. However, when the university students (or youth) get together they are capable and in fact enjoy discussing topics that are important to them such as human sexuality, abortion, the environment, the morality of torture (!!), etc. They discuss it with a spirit of respect, without any frothing at the mouth, name calling or yelling, despite their diverse opinions. Such conversations could NEVER occur in, say, one of our adult sabbath school groups. The "older" crowd in my church is just not capable of calmly discussing these topics. We have lost members in the past. I remember one sabbath a couple of people started yelling at each other over the investigative judgment in the adult sabbath school class. That kind of thing doesn't happen among the university students. I wish I understood this phenomenon better.

I'm not at all saying that younger people are somehow superior to older people or anything thing stupid like that. (It could be that in some churches the above situation is reversed.) But I've found that some groups of people are far more capable of and interested in having conversations about "hot button" topics than others.

Thanks for sharing your observation Robert. At 42 I'm not sure I would fit in the younger demographic but I do enjoy a vigorous exchange of ideas and I'm impressed that people are so willing to plunge in here. I'm glad to hear that the younger in your church are able to be mature about it. I wonder if the older ones are more bruised and tender from past volleys. Or maybe they are more "conservative" in the sense of valuing and honoring traditional ways and approaching change more cautiously. Don't mean to hijack the thread here but I just wanted to comment as a newbie.

I could vote for Clinton or Obama if they get the nomination, and I think it would be a good commentary on growing American inclusion and tolerance if either of them wins. However, I am leaning toward John Edwards because of his war on poverty. his plan to help the middle class, and his willingness to confront big business corporations and insurance companies. As a pacificist, I also appreciate his stance on the war - bring the troops home and work for peace through diplomacy. I agree with the Democratic plan for comprehensive immigration reform, which Edwards supports. And finally, I admire his wife, who has faced her cancer courageously.

Robert, could it be that your comments of how the younger university students discuss things is becaused they have been taught to evaluate and speak objectively, rather than personalizing their ideas. This is one of the hallmarks of education, or should be: the ability to dispasionately argue without rancor. The older members, perhaps as you said, have been traumatized from past experiences.

Clinton has my support, after all, "she's my girl!"

Perhaps the media's starry-eyed reaction to Obama has had too strong an influence on me, but of the viable candidates, Obama is the one I believe could bring dignity back to the White House. Both Americans and the world have lost respect for this government, and with the challenges ahead, I believe bringing sides together should be a priority. Andrew Sullivan presents the argument well. I want to see a mandate, a strong general election victory of 60% or more. I don't know if Obama could accomplish this, but I'd support any candidate who could. Maybe McCain, but certainly not Clinton, or even Edwards.

I would vote for Duncan Hunter for his "stated" position on trade and immigration. Not a chance he'll be the candidate however.

"Stated" positions is about all you will ultimately get in my observation of politics. I've grown a bit skeptical over the years.

HUCKABEE will get the votes of most SDA Republicans. Why? Go to http://rawstory.com/news and read, "Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'GOD'S STANDARDS.'" You can also watch and listen to him making this statement on You Tube. With many SDA Republicans having voted not once, but twice for a born again candidate, Bush, who is a Republican, what a great opportunity to vote for a born again, Republican, Christian minister for president who will amend the constitution so that it harmonizes with the will of God? Who cares about separation of church and state!

Brantley Johnson, disgusted SDA

Imagine, I voted for Tom Dewey, I also voted for John Kerry.

I guess both parties should pay me to state home. Tom

And they are still talking about how badly the polls missed with Dewey & Truman!

From the pen of mrs white: (Fundamentals of Education page 475)

The Lord would have His people bury political questions. On these themes silence is eloquence. Christ calls upon His followers to come into unity on the pure gospel principles which are plainly revealed in the word of God. We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for. We cannot with safety take part in any political schemes. We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty, and to set in operation oppressive measures to lead or compel their fellow men to keep Sunday as the Sabbath. The first day of the week is not a day to be reverenced. It is a spurious sabbath, and the members of the Lord's family cannot participate with the men who exalt this day, and violate the law of God by trampling upon His Sabbath. The people of God are not to vote to place such men in office; for when they do this, they are partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office.