Originally Posted by lookingglass
Now, and I'm being serious here, if McCain is "liberal" what does that make me?
Military service shouldn't be a prerequisite for being the Commander and Chief, but I do think it's helpful. However, if a President is smart he or she should be able to surround themselves with people who have a deep understanding of the military and military history. They should be able to call... oh I don't know... West Point to get some advice.
That's the problem with labels. I consider myself "liberal", but don't buy into anybody's arguments about what that means, as I'm not about to vote strictly along party lines, except in primaries, as they're "closed" in my home state.
I seriously don't know whom I'm going to vote for yet, because I want to know who the running mates and potential secretaries will be first. Maybe that's too much to ask, but Cheney and Rumsfeld (have) proved themselves to be absolute disasters (I won't even start on Wolfowitz).
McCain could possibly get my vote in the general election, provided he doesn't choose Romney (an opportunist, IMO) or Huckabee (makes a "nice" impression, but I don't like religion injected into politics, and find his tax proposals absolutely absurd). The same goes for Hillary/Obama - who would play leading roles in their administrations?
I suppose I'm a bit "perverse", but I'm really enjoying the whole controversy regarding the "old guard" vs. the "new", the "female" vs. the "minority" candidate on the Democratic side, and the struggle among social, military, tax-cut, fiscal and religious, etc., conservatives in the Republican camp. Stir in Coulter, Lambaugh, etc., and it really gets "camp".