I will think long and hard before I cast my ballot this fall. Although Senator John McCain is upfront, moral and truthful, most Republican presidents led us into needless wars from Lincoln to Bush and the rest were corrupt from Grant to Reagan. Between these two extremes were a lot of average presidents without any vision for the future.

With the exception of President Richard Nixon, most great presidents were Democrats: FDR, Clinton, Wilson, Cleveland, Jackson, and LBJ, to name just a few.

So this fall, I'm voting for Hannah Beth Jackson for the State Senate and for Jackie Conway for the United States House of Representatives. Yes, they are Democrats and I will go to swing states to campaign for other Democratic candidates for Congress and the state legislature. When everything is said and done, with some exceptions, Democrats deliver the goods and Democrats rule!

stephenwinkler, I thought that for the first time in your "adult life" you weren't going to say who you were voting for...or is that just for President? I guess since you can only vote as an adult, it goes without saying that you could not have possibly told us who you voted for as an adolescent.

You are free to vote for whomever you wish. Just remember while you cast that Socialist-Democratic vote, you are voting for higher taxes, which chases business away at an ever faster rate than they are leaving now. You are voting for bigger government that wants to tell you how to live every aspect of your life, because they think that the people are too stupid to make decisions on their own. You are voting for absolutely no chance of securing our borders, which you said was our number one priority. You will continue with a Democratically controlled Congress that has a 9% approval rating...the lowest in history...at least President Bush is at 25%.. How about Senator Harry Reid's illegal use of campaign funds to net $1.1 million on an illegal land deal and he is the Senate Majority leader...gee, you chased Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott out for just making a statement about another Congressman on his birthday to make him feel good about himself. As you said Hannah Beth Jackson supports Universal healthcare...be careful what you ask for, just look at the V.A. hospitals, that's government healthcare. And let's not forget this state's hairbrained ideas to bring Universal healthcare to California...any company with 20 or more employees has to provide..the unintended consequences are that every company will only hire 19 full time employees and the rest will be daily hire with no benefits and no vacation and no sick days...so go ahead and vote for your Demon-crats and don't say I didn't warn you.

I also noticed that you included President Clinton in your "great Presidents". While I think that he was O.K.; he had an affair in the Oval Office (among other places where he had several affairs), lied in front of a Grand Jury, sold our missile technology to the Chinese, missed the greatest opportunity to get Osama bin Laden that we have ever had and let's not forget how many people went missing or turned up dead during the Whitewater scandal.....with Whitewater papers that Hillary all of a sudden misplaced. I am no cheerleader for President Bush because I can see reality for what it is, but I also don't think that he was the worst either. Geopolitcally, going into Iraq was a brilliant move. It borders Saudi Arabia and Iran with Afghanistan on the other side of Iran. The war was not waged correctly, that was their undoing, not going into Iraq itself. Had Osama bin Laden been caught during the Clinton years, when the Saudi's gave us the exact location of where bin Laden was at, 9/11 would have never happened. But under President Clinton, we had the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the first bombing of The World Trade Centers, the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania, the Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down) fiasco....and yet Janet Reno, the U.S. Attorney for President Clinton wanted to treat all of these incidents as criminal acts and not as military attacks against the U.S.....no wonder Al Queda kept getting bolder and bolder....yeah for the Democrats, the party of slap 'em on the wrist and ask them to pretty please, play kindly next time.

Well, I was being sarcastic about Michelle Obama's comments about, "for the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of my country." So I said for the first time in my adult life, I'm really not going to say who am voting for president. Sorry that you missed the sarcasm.

I lost all respect for Senator Chris Dodd, when he endorsed Obama for the presidential nomination. Now I'm aware that Senator Clinton has not released her delegates and that she has suspended, not terminated her presidential campaign. So I'm still supporting Clinton for president.

Now experience matters to me more than ideas. Senator Clinton is more mature than Senator Obama. Senator McCain has shown his independence from the Bush Administration and the conservative Republicans, so I do not buy into this theory that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush.

If Senator Clinton is eliminated, than I'm faced with a Democratic nominee, who has many of the same goals as Senator Clinton. As a member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee, I'm obligated to encourage others to vote the straight Democratic ticket and urge them to support the Democratic nominee. However, as an American citizen, loyal to my country, I feel a responsibility to vote for a candidate that has experience and maturity. However, I will not reveal my vote, nor will I encourage or urge you to vote for a non-Democratic candidate. I will encourage you to vote for Hannah Beth Jackson for the California State Senate and urge you to vote for Jackie Conway for Congress. I will not say anything negative about either of the presidential candidates. I will ask for God's help in allowing my conscience to be my guide in the voting booth and I will ask others to respect my right to a secret ballot.

Going into Iran would have been a brilliant move. Going into Iraq was not.

Nunber one: Iraq has never done any wrong to the United States. On the other hand, Iran attacked our embassy and took our people as hostages.

Number two: Saddam was a bad dude, but one, who was rational and reasonable and willing to cut us a deal. He never had a mission statement like Iran to destroy our Western civilization.

Number three: Iran has killed more of our military forces than Saddam, because we created a vacuum with Saddam's removal and Iran has tried to fill that vacuum.

Number four: we liberated Kuwait from Iraq and they are living high on the hog with us paying the high gas prices. I would rather have allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait, cut a deal with him, and use him as a buffer against Iran. Now we are suffering at the pumps and the people of Kuwait are living in luxury. I resent that.`

Actually, very well said. Unfortunately, we had a legal right to go into Iraq with 17 broken U.N. resolutions and a unanimous vote at the U.N. to use force if inspectors were not allowed in. We did not have that same legal right, at the time, with Iran nor do we have that legal right to go into Pakistan, as Senator Obama has suggested. So our next best plan was to surround Iran with Allies (Afghanistan and Iraq) and put the squeeze on them. Iraq also borders Syria with Israel and the Mediterranean on the other side (U.S. ships in the Mediterranean) We actually may have a legal right to go into Iran now that we know that their soldiers and weapons are in Iraq killing our forces. I do wish that we could have gone into Iran...Israel will take care of that. The Carter administration did try to go into Iran....what a debacle that was. That was the beginning of our real problems with that part of the world.

While we are paying really high gas prices right now, and it really hurts the pocket book, in the long run, I truly believe that this is the beginning of the end for the Middle East and the likes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We are putting an incredible amount of resources, time and energy into developing alternative fuels......Mercedes wants to be petroleum free by 2010. America was built on the motto "Necessity is the mother of all invention" and this is the time to shine. Oil will become so worthless that they won't be able to give it away....and with the exception of Dubai, those countries have not diversified. And I believe that President Bush is being sly like a fox right now. He is negotiating with the Kurds to get the oil flowing.....everyone is jumping all over the President for trying to make this deal because Iraq was supposed to have a plan to share the oil revenue...but they haven't come up with that plan so this will do 2 things, 1)Get them off of their butts or the Kurds alone will make all of the revenue (I think that they will get off of their butts) and 2) It puts pressure on the oil markets knowing that there might be a new flow of crude out there, thus reducing the price...BRILLIANT! But President Bush can't come right out and say that, because there are too many consequences if he were to say that.

Sorry that I missed the sarcasm about Michelle Obama, I'm usually more awake then that.

BTW I just want to point out that all of those terror incidents that happened under President Clinton just goes to show that they don't care if we have a Democrat or Republican in office. So if you think that a vote for Mr. Obama will magically make all of the terrorism go away and the world will be calmer and more peaceful, you got to be kidding yourself. That is why it made me so mad with all of the partisan politics that have taken place in the last 7 years....if we had showed the world that we were a UNITED country, we would have already been out of Iraq. Iran and Al Queda have used our rhetoric against us, and we bit....when will we ever learn...our country, our way of life is much more important than selfish interests. Now all of a sudden the Democrats want to be United, what happened to these UNITERS over the last 7 years. Where is Newt Gingrich when you need him, he would've been a great President (yes, he had an affair, but not in the Oval Office).

On Thursday, July 10th, you stated that President Clinton sold our missile technology to the Chinese. That was Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson's doing. As a matter of fact, if you are referring to the Wen Ho Lee scandal, Richardson was very slow in response and he showed utter contempt to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Robert Byrd was shccked by the Secretary's lack of concern about the scandal and his lack of interest in it.

Mr. Obama made a sad mistake in accepting Richardson's endorsement. I would never have a traitor like that endorseing me. I would rather lose the election. Incidentally, Henry Clay once said that, he would rather be right than be president. Good advice for Mr. Obama.

I do not think that a vote for Mr. Obama will make terrorism go away nor that the world will be calmer and more peaceful. I think the world would react to Obama as the kids react to me in my classroom. "We have a sub, let's mess around." Whenever they have a substitute teacher, they start throwing paper airplanes and start testing the will of the teacher. I can assure you, it is a most unpleasant experience.

The last time we had an inexperienced president was Kennedy. His failure to provide naval and air support at the Bay of Pigs resulted in the death of thousands and led to the most dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis. The President did not impress Premier Khrushchev in Vienna and the Russian Premier decided that this president could be pushed around.

So I think that if you vote for Mr. Obama, you are voting for change. However, change can be difficult and often extremely dangerous. I know that with the failed policies of the Bush Administration, most Americans want something different and hoping for something better. However, at this time, I do not feel comfortable with Mr. Obama's leadership skills. It is a long time before November and Mr. Obama might pull a rabbit out of a hat and I would say, "Hey, you got my vote!" As of now, I'm not impressed with him.

I might add to that....."Change" by itself is not inherently good, there is good change and bad change. Bringing back higher taxes, is change, it doesn't mean that it is good. Senator Obama is offering every program to everyone, he is offering utopia....who is going to pay for it? Just ask Margaret Thatcher how the British economy was doing before she took office. Nobody wanted to work, they all wanted to live on the dole, because they were being taxed so high that it wasn't worth going to work. For that matter, Mr. McCain is offering change. He very often voted against his own party, but mostly on issues that I disagreed with him on....btw I did not vote for him in the primary, but who am I left with? Many polls say that most Americans are not happy with the direction of the country....but this has been construed to mean that we want to make a hard left.....but that's not true, I don't think that we are going right enough...I am not happy with the direction of the country, but that does not mean that I want to just walk out of Iraq and raise taxes on everyone...for me it means that I want the border shut down, I want even lower taxes, I want smaller government, I do not want business as usual in Washington, I want lobbying to be illegal, I want there to be a cap on how much you can spend campaigning for President and that it shouldn't start until 6-9 months before the election, I want business to get taxed almost nothing so that they can create jobs, I want cooperatives with businesses and education to move this country forward, that is the change that I want.

And Secretary Richardson was appointed by who? But gee, President Bush gets blamed for everything that he has no control over...high gas prices, even though he's been trying to get Congress (both Republican and Democrat controlled) to pass an energy bill since the first day that he took office.

Let me tell about taxing the "rich". When you start taxing innovation and risk, it leaves and goes to China, India, Brazil, etc... When you tax investment too high, nobody invests. When you tax business, it leaves and the ones that stay don't pay the tax, they pass it on to you and me in the form of higher prices for goods and services, this causes inflation and less spending, and less spending means fewer goods and services are being purchased which nets fewer jobs and actually decreases your overall tax revenue...nobody working equals less income tax revenue, less sales tax revenue, less property tax revenue and increases the number of people sucking from the system in the form of unemployment benefits, more food stamps, more welfare, more government housing, increase in use of county hospitals, etc...higher taxes are a double whammy...negatively. So watch out when the Democratic Congress and a Democratic President get rid of President Bush's tax cuts. And Senator Obama wants to raise the cap on Social Security from (I believe it is $104,000) to $250,000...that's insane! That is a huge tax increase on anyone who makes over $100,000, which isn't a lot of money for a family of 5 in California....now if we want to base taxes on the cost of living, regionally, then we can talk.

The Democratic Leadership Council and the Blue Dog Democrats will not approve the insane part of the Obama program. Incidentally, in that connection, he has said several different things about Social Security, so I do not know what is his current position. Some of his proposals are great, if he has the ability to get them passed. If he is like Kennedy, then he will just log-jam Congrees with a lot of unpassed bills.

A Democratic Congress became a bucking bronco during President Roosevelt's second term and refused to cooperate with President Clinton. They will not work with Obama, just because he is a Democrat.

As your Supreme Commander of Operation Punishment, it is our job to elect Hillary Democrats, who will only vote for some of his proposals. By all means, keep the "far left" out of Congress! You can help by only working for the election of moderate Democrats.

Dodd is not the only crooked politician with his/her hand in that bucket...more will be exposed as the election gets closer. It should be NOW..but except for a few these crimes have not been exposed. Hummmm I wonder what the media (mainstream) would do if it were Repubs caught taking bribes...people this election is crucial the socialist crooks will not be happy until every man, woman and child is living in a gov furnished cubical, shopping at the gov market, picking up your gov issued clothing (so not to offend anyone with your personal likes), get the picture. The lefties have put this country in this mess....period and the chicken Independants and Republicans of the 70's and 80's especially would not stand up to the bully mental blackmalers (political correct non-sense). Anyway off track here. There are many web sites you can go to get the TRUTH....visit them please!!!!!God Bless our Troops!

I do not condemn Dodd as a crooked politician. I have no problem with that. However, he endorsed Obama over Hillary, thus giving us a nominee, who will probabily lose in November. To me, that is a far greater crime.

Incidentally, you can get the truth from me. Why waste your valuable time looking for websites? I will instruct you in true Democratic spirit, the spirit of the Democratic Leadership Council and the spirit of Blue Dog Democrats.