The Debate

There is a Republican Youtube debate tonight on CNN. I try to watch all the debates. Sometimes that means watching after the fact on the respective channel's website or the recording on Youtube.
However, after this last debate, the Democrats in Las Vegas, I have come to a sad conclusion. Debates are pretty much useless in finding out who to vote for.
The canidates are generally well versed on how to respond even if they would be the worst choice. The answers are mostly antiseptic and pandering. There really is no true way of determining if the candidates actually intend to do what they say in their answers.
So how do you determine who to vote for? Like all things, it takes work. You can't just take the debates or even the information given from news. You actually need to take the information given to you by as many sources as possible. Take them all and use them to form some sort of idea of what the candidate really is for.
Another way is to look at the history of votes the former congress or senate members made. Or in the case of the mayors, look at the choices they made. What were the candidates pet projects? What were the projects they pursued with aggressive fervor? Finally, when they didn't succeed or outright failed how did they react? How did they handle the failure?
Now there is the old stand by of choosing too. The gut. What does your gut say?
Here is my take on some of the canidates;

Fred Thompson - shady guy. Greedy and arrogant. Limited intelligence and big corporate supporter.
Guliani - He reminds me of one of those animals on a nature show watching a predator animal catch and kill some food and every chance he gets he runs in and grabs some for himself but makes it out like he caught the prey. I don't know what that means but it creeps me out.
Huckabee - fanatic looking to set the common member of society back 100 years and the corporate member up 50 years.
Romney - He strikes me as someone who will do anything, say anything to get what he wants. Like he looks at the presidency as something to collect not something to earn.
McCain - He actually seems like a guy who really wants to be president. He seems to believe in his point of view and that it can help advance Americans in the world. I think he has some bad opinions on things, but in all he's okay.
Kusinich - I like he tends to come out and say what he apparently believes whether popular or not. However, he seems easily confused and lives in a world where all puppies and bunnies live long happy lives making all the little children happy. Not really living in the real world.
Edwards - He seems a typical lawyer. Saying anything to win his case. I would like to believe he honestly believes what he says his supports buuuut I get the weird feeling that it's all kitch. Can't explain it but I think it's fake just to win.
Biden - Joe, what can I say? By all accounts he's probably one of the smartest candidates (politically speaking) running. I think as a leader though, he would be pretty lack luster. Not bad, but also not good. Pretty much just maintain the status quo.
Dodd - creeps me out. Don't like him. (yep, that's about it.)
Obama - To me, he's a shake and bake candidate. He was a virtual nobody four years ago. He drags in speeches and stumbles often. Now all of the sudden he is a front runner for president? How did that happen? Not to mention I have issues with Oprah and her 'favorite things' so if she supports Obama, then I don't. I just think she is way out of touch and uses her power for not so good things.
Richardson - C'mon, it is so annoying to be reminded every time you open your mouth that you are a Governor and freed kidnapped people. It seems he feels his experience really isn't enough so he has to make it sound as important as he can.
Clinton - Okay, she flips and flops like a fish out of water but she is Strong and commanding. She can be a bitch when she needs to be and seems to be able to slither in and out and around the obstacles in Washington better than the lobbyist. It seems with that sort of command and agility she might actually accomplish something. I also get the feeling she always wanted to run for president and may resent that her husband got to. Of course he may have run because it was her way of running without running. Everyone said she was really the one running things during the Clinton campaign.

Well that's my take on them for the most part. I probably support Clinton, but I wish there were more people like Kucinich but strong.
Oh, don't fall for the Obama is change crap either. People seem to forget that if you had a president that wanted to change everything the WHOLE congress and Senate would oppose them and nothing would change. Plus if he really is for change how did he manage so much power in such a short time? The answer is simple. The same way they all get power. So much for change huh?