Who here truly supports one of the three Presidential candidates?

And by actual support, I mean "this is the person I want to vote for", not "the lesser evil", not "I'll probably make this choice given the alternatives", and not "I'd rather hold my nose and vote for him than those other people".

This is the worst election I've ever seen. I absolutely will not vote for any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat.

I truly support Obama for President.

J.

I'm secretly hoping I'll manage to procrastinate on paperwork and wind up ineligible to vote.

Otherwise I'll likely hold my nose and vote for McCain.

At least if I get things sorted out and vote mail-in in Oregon. If I vote in Hawaii, the time zone shift may give me the luxury of voting for Zombie Elvis or something.

I went with Obama, though somewhat weakly.

He fell somewhat when he fully engaged Hillary in her behavior. Now he's more or less back to saying just enough to dispel her and no more. But some of that charm ain't coming back. I still think he's the closest to what America needs right now. Hillary is everything it doesn't need.

I'm not overly enthusiastic about any candidate, but either Obama or McCain will do.

Not me.

I'm not voting for President.

I'm not voting for McCain in November, I'm voting against either Hillary or Black Jesus. I suspect this will be a close race so i don't want to throw away my vote on Mickey Mouse, Lyndon LaRue or None of the Above. If it wasn't for the fact that the socalists will keep control of the Congress, I wouldn't feel so bad about voting for someone else besides Mccain, like a third party candidate, but so long as the Democrats control the Congress and keep coming up with new and exciting ways to take more of my money and rights away, I have to do what I can to minimize the damage they can do and that means holding my nose and voting for McCain.

Goddamn it, I just wish for once in my life I could actually vote for someone instead of voting against his opponent. Fred Thompson could have been that man. Maybe in 2012 someone will be that man.

Same here. The Republicans had their chance for the past eight years and have proven that they are woefully incompetent.

On the other end, I'm convinced that Hillary is the Anti-Christ.

I don't agree with all of his policies, but I have to say that I genuinely like Obama and feel confident that he can do a decent job.

We should be so lucky, sadly one party's incompetence doesn't make the other party any better.

That's exactly what Oprah wants you to think.

Well, on a scale of 0-100, 0 being Darth Cheney, 50 being a typical Democratic politician (somewhat but very distinctly evil with no chance for improvement), and 100 being Not Evil and never gonna be evil, I'd rate McCain a 1, Clinton a 25, and Obama a 20-to-30 (if his campaign is as cynical as I think it is, then 20; if he's just a naive dupe them about 30--though no higher, of course, than cynical Obama on an "actual and nonrelative support" or "potential evil of his administration" scale as opposed to a "personal evil" scale--with the potential to drop much lower depending on with whom he'd surround himself as President).

So I'd say that I clearly view voting Democratic as voting for a lesser evil, but also that the gulf between the moderate-to-severe evil that the Democrats represent and Cheney's promising apprentice that McCain represents is sufficiently large that, even though I'd not be willing to give the Democratic nominee absolute support, I'm very comfortable giving the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, my wholehearted relative support. I'd also say that my choice between Democrats is a choice of slightly lesser potential evil that I'm not at all happy to make.

In short, I have absolutely no idea how to vote in your poll.

On that 1 to 100 scale, I'd rate Obama a 45, McCain a 25, and Hillary a 1.

It hasn't been this bad since Carter came into office. The RNC pushing McCain through as they have has alienated many, myself included, from having a clear choice.
I'm just aggrivated they didn't embrace and pull Fred in. He's the only real conservative to have been a choice, but evidently he didn't grease the right wheels.

Pretty much stuck with McCain and not particularly from a party standpoint, I just think he'll do the least damage than the other options.

Any of them are steps backwards but he'll stick closer to the line than Obama or Hillary. Bad enough the dollar has declined as it has but to have someone in there who'll take more and more then I really have no choice.

Sitting out in protest is for pussies.

I got to go with Mcain just because I detest the other liberal money and gun grabbing liberals and he is the lesser of 3 evils.

I get a 403 error when I try to vote.

I get several such errors all over the site.

I am probably going to sit this one out. I just can't hold my nose tight enough to vote for any of them.

I'll either vote for Ron Paul or whoever is on the loony candidate platform. I'm tired of voting for democrat lite on the republican platform.

I'm gonna have to narrow that down to just Bush proving himself woefully incompetent. There HAS to be someone in the party that can do a good job. there just HAS to!

Oh, absolutely!!

As for me, I despair of ever seeing a candidate that makes me happy.

I may just sit this one out.

For me right now on that scale I'd say Obama is about a 40(His is the one to me that can change in either direction the most, as his policies become more clear if he becomes the nominee). I give Hillary a little more credit and put here at a 25 with McCain at about a 15. It's funny, if you asked me this in 2000, McCain probably would have been in the 60s or 70s. Selling out has its cost.

Not I. They all suck. I will hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils in November.

I'm strongly tempted to vote for Obama simply because he represents the greatest potential for actual change out of the three of them. However, realizing that he is a creature of the Democratic party and putting him in office will mean the Dems will have the White House, the Senate, and the House means I can't vote for him without reservation.

McCain is a fake Republican, no real conservative, and altho would probably be a decent President, we need more than "decent" at this point. We need a LEADER, not another manager. Plus, his age and health may become issues.

Hillary is the spawn of Satan and having her in the White House would be an unparalleled disaster for the country.

I can't truly support any of them. I may vote Libertarian again this year. Great Maker, what has happened to my country? Where are the strong leaders of bold vision? Why are three also-rans the best we can do?

For many reasons, McCain's VP choice is more pertinent than the others. I don't want any of them to choose a former nomination rival.

If Obama chose Byron Dorgan, he'd have my vote for certain.

To be fair, we've rarely had good leaders. What's kept our Constitution alive for 200+ years is the fact that it's structured government in a way that, under normal circumstances, allows us to survive thoroughly mediocre leadership. Very few of our best "leaders" have done anything more than simply face up to what had to be done, and very few of our "leaders" have done even that much. Most of our "great" leaders ranged from being awful to being competent leaders who had spines, a way with words, and happened to be in charge at great moments in history.

Nostalgia should get in no one's way of remembering that Washington was a military man who didn't know anything about running a government; Jefferson was a fantastic wordsmith who was also the original prototype of the hardcore irrational American political party ideologue; Lincoln was on the winning side of a civil war, but there's always someone on the winning side and Lincoln did an awful job of preparing the North for what it would have to do after winning; etc., etc.

None of the above.

The only one of the three which I think is slightly less awful than the others is Obama, but only because I think he would be the most impotent.
But I'll write in Paul looooooong before I vote Obama.

I'm kinda with JCD on this one: shoot for a split government, which I gather would be easiest to accomplish with a Republican President and Democratic Congress.

A Republican President in the next election, with any sort of Congress, means, for the next 30 years, a Supreme Court that will make you wish it was simply pissing on your grave. If Scalia and Roberts being on the left of the Court after Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens get replaced by Justices to the right of Clarence Thomas doesn't give you the heebie-jeebies, then you really need to change your medication.

A Democratic President and Congress leaves the courts still firmly under extreme conservative Republican control, all the way up and down the court system. If you genuinely want gridlock rather than courts that will work their hardest to create a hardcore winger activist vision of the law whatever the Congress and President do, then we need a Democratic President for at least the next four or eight years, until there's some semblance of balance in the courts, preferably with a Democratic Senate as well, because the courts have a really long way to go to their left before the center is even in a blur in the distance in their view. If you want to split up the legislative and executive branches after that, that's another matter. But, for now, a Republican President means, with certainty, a heavy dose of activist extremism in the third branch of our government

I do not. But, I'll happily vote Hillary, rather than voting for her RINO copy. As for Obama, haha, no way in hell.

Well, you're forgetting that a nominee still needs to be confirmed. And that was challenging for Bush with a Republican legislature. And you get a McCain in office--especially with a Democratic legislature--and I don't think you have anything to worry about. The Supreme Court that got loaded by FDR a half century ago will remain left-leaning.