Talk:Comparison of the 2008 United States presidential candidates/Archive 1

Source 62 is no longer available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.39.221 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 June 2008

What about Hillary Clinton. There is still a chance for her. Anything can happen at the convention. Moreno Valley User (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hillary has announced that she will concede her run for president over the weekend and endorse Senator Barack Obama. Not to mention, even if she won 100% of the uncommited superdelegates, she still would not have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. So she should not be listed. CoolKid1993 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Immigration
Under Barak Obama's section on immigration stance, right after increase border security it says increase illegal immigration. I think that this is plain vandalism and I am correcting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.113.139 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is very difficult to read
I agree that there should be coverage of more candidate than just Obama and McCain. *However*, one has to admit that these are the two most prominent candidates: on all of the tables, they should be placed next to each other so that people who are reading about them can do so easily.

Failing that, then the order of the columns should at least be made consistent. Some go Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, Obama; others, Baldwin, Barr, McCain, Obama, Nader, McKinney. The last one on the page is Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Obama, Nader. Why are they all jumbled about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.233.192.226 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these columns are too narrow and it is very hard to read. I am all for including all the canidates, but there are practical limitations on this. In this table format it really isn't possible to compare more than 2-3 canidates and keep the page readable. As I said below, 90% of the people coming here will want to compare Obama and McCain and this page makes it very difficult to accomplish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.18.128.6 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support listing the candidates either alphabetically by last name (as in the first section: Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, Obama) or from left to right based on their party's vote total in the 2004 election (McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney). The latter has the advantage of placing McCain and Obama adjacent to one another, as requested by the above commentors, and is generally in keeping with how candidates are arranged on the ballot in many states. Cmadler (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know of a way to change column order in the tables without manually moving each item? Cmadler (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Schrandit! Cmadler (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time, it was a good idea. - Schrandit (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section on gun control for Barack Obama and John McCain
The section stated nothing but the opinions of the NRA and The Gun Owner's of America regarding the canidates positions on Gun Rights. There was no information about the actual positions of the candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.59.218 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it's the same text, but I removed a strongly POV bit of text from Obama's gun control column which was not supported by the reference provided ("Obama has promised to take away state's right to issue concealed carry permits. Obama supports the outlawing of all assault rifles and handguns.") and attempted to provide more NPOV replacement; I also nixed the bit about "so-called assault weapons" from McCain's column, but that section could definitely afford to be proofed/rewritten for neutrality of language. Cheers. -- Bailey(talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He did actually say all those things. I went out an found sources for all of them.  I would like to defend the use of the term so-called "assault weapons".  There is no real definition of what an assault weapon or rifle is.  Definitions are twisted or invented to fit political needs. - Schrandit (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is so stupid
There are so many more Presidential candidates that McCain and Obama. The news has done enough of a job cutting out the other delegates. It is bias to not include the others. This either needs a complete revamp, or it should be taken out. --Olmecs Revenge (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OTHER CANDIDATES NEEDED
This is ridiculous. Ralph Nader is polling at 8 percent in a McCain-Obama-Nader race; to have him not included is tantamount to ignoring millions of votes. Not to mention the Libertarian Party, Green Party, etc. Uwmad (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have spoken too soon - the page was only created three days ago. Have been working on including other candidates, hope others will join. Uwmad (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that other canidates should be added, but to be fair we shoudl make some distinction between the bigger 2 and the rest. Also, lets wait untill those other praties have all had their primaries. - Schrandit (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we would wait for primaries, the only candidates who haven't yet been nominated are John McCain, Barack Obama, and Cynthia McKinney. That's why they're labelled as presumptive. Also, if the page is intended to be a comparison of presidential candidates, there should be no reason to seperate them out based on "bigness". Uwmad (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There ought be a distinction between the 2 realistic candidates and the other thrid party candidates, when people come here they're looking for McCain and Obama. I would support creating a seperate page for third party candidates. - Schrandit (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A candidate is a candidate. On the ballot, each candidate is given the same weight. Whether or not a candidate is "realistic" is really nonconsequential. People would come to this page to compare the candidates' stances on issues (i.e. McCain and Obama will be there alongside all the other candidates). Uwmad (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you guys, but if I want to see a comparison of Presidential candidates, I want to see them all compared, so I know which one is better. McCain and Obama are mostly the "major" candidates because the crappy media doesn't covers people unequally.--Olmecs Revenge (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ralph Nader does not have ballot access in enough states to actually win the election. As such, it is pointless to include him in a comparison with the candidates that actually will be on the ballots in all 50 states. I think that it would be best to revert the page back to the way I had originally made it--a section for the major candidates that are on the ballot in all 50 states, and sections for those candidates that cannot physically win. I stand by my comment that they will pollute this page. The fact of the matter is that with the two column layout there simply is not enough horizontal space to fit 15 random candidates that are not relevant to the elections. The point of wikipedia is to provide relevant information to users, not to act as a soapbox for people that feel like their candidate is as relevant as the ones that can win the election. Have you ever looked at the comparison pages for OS's or other stuff? They are nearly impossible to read because instead of focusing on the relevant systems that users are interested in, every OS under the sun is included, making the pages almost entirely unreadable. ctachme (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that your issue is with Ralph Nader. In 2004, Nader was on the ballot in 34 states (despite a concerted effort by the DNC to deny him access in 12 states). Had he won those 34 states, he would have had enough electoral votes to physically win. As of now, the campaign is in the process of collecting signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Ralph Nader is a serious candidate who ran in the previous four elections, receiving nearly 3,000,000 votes in 2000. As far as "Comparisons of United States presidential candidates" it would be a disservice and unencyclopedic to not include these candidates. Your distinction between "major candidate" and "minor candidate" props up McCain and Obama as the only choice possible. This is biased (not to mention undemocratic). Uwmad (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Ralph Nader, any more than any of the other numerous candidates. I don't think Ralph Nader should be in the same place as Obama and McCain for the same reason I think that Gene Amondson, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Frank Moore, Jonathon Sharkey do not deserve to be in the same section. It is true than in the 2004 election that he was on sufficient state ballots to be elected. If he, or anyone else is able to replicate that this year, I think it would be completely fair to include them in a separate section from the candidates that don't have sufficient ballot access. Until then, it's illogical to fill the table with candidates that are not relevant. Mind you, if you had looked at my page instead of immediately reverting it, you will have noticed that I DID include these candidates in the page. I agree that it is relevant information and is encyclopedic to include them, but it is most appropriate to include them in another section. I don't claim to prop them up as the only choice possible, it just so happens that it the moment Nader and every other independent candidate is not a choice because he is not on the ballot. It's not undemocratic to portray the truth :) ctachme (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had looked at your edit, thank you. You placed McCain and Obama at the top, and included all independents under a header, "Finally, there are numerous candidates that cannot win because they do not have ballot access in a sufficient number of states." I'm not sure about other candidates, but Nader will certainly have enough access to compete. Look... the way ballot access is set up, Democrats and Republicans get an automatic shoo-in. Third-parties, due to ballot access laws created by Democratic and Republican lawmakers, have to jump through innumerable hurdles to even have their name on a ballot. It also varies state-to-state. Ralph Nader, for example, will be collecting signatures right up to the end (likely with dozens of court challenges trying to keep him off). If this year is anything like the past three, he will be on enough ballots. To wait until the end would be ridiculous -- the page would be devoid of a candidate that for all intents and purposes will be on most ballots. Uwmad (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be some sort of criteria for including candidates in the table. If anyone could get in the table, then it could include 20 candidates, which would make it impossible to read. I believe that the most logical criteria is those candidates that mathematically can win the election should get priority over those that cannot. If you have some other criteria to suggest, I would welcome that. But keep in mind that the 2004 election is not the same as this one, so I don't think it's fair to say just because he got ballot access then he can get it now. Either way, there still needs to be some way of limiting the people in the top table so it does not become too bloated. ctachme (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All candidates should be included, if only for fairness/encyclopedic reasons -- a "comparison of US presidential candidates" should include said candidates. At a minimum, the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Ralph Nader (unaffiliated but still supported by the Reform Party and some Green Party members) should be included. They are likely to show up on most ballots in most states. Uwmad (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous
Yes, we must work to provide information on all candidates. No, it must not be on this page. Only 2 candidates will be in the national debates, only 2 candidates will be on every state ballot and even though I probably won’t be voting for either one of them only 2 candidates stand a shot at winning. We cannot put everyone on here – there are already 10 people “running” and it isn’t even July. This page will become to crowded to effectively deliver any information. We must segregate the 2 major candidates from the third party candidates. - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the harm in including other candidates; the article will be much more informative (and on topic) with all candidates included. Would you mind commenting on the idea to include, at a minimum, the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Ralph Nader? I feel like this may be a good compromise. Uwmad (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters there are already 10 candidates - it will be impossible to convey information on that many candidates in an orderly manner on one page. Didn't the presidential deabates resolve this issue by allowing anyone breaking 10 percent in oppinion polling to participate?  Will McKinney even be on the ballot in all 50 States? - Schrandit (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to figure something out before we're trying to fit how 12 people feel about Social Security into one page. - Schrandit (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * aaahhhhh.....its starting to happen. If we don't figure something out by tomorrow I'm making two articles.  If I do this the first sentence on the one for McCain v. Obama will be explaining why we couldn't fit everyone here and where information on the other candidate can be found. - Schrandit (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be two separate pages, it should be two separate sections on the same page. That was the way it was originally before all of the candidates were shoehorned into one table. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a thought, but how do we keep it short. (Keep in mind, if I make it two pages it can always be merged back together later. - Schrandit (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. A candidate is a candidate.  Which are the "biggest" is a matter of perception, that happens to be shaped and reinforced by the mass media as well as the voting system itself. Reiterating that here, by displaying two candidates more prominently than others, is a complete disservice to anyone who visits looking for objective information. Put them all on equal footing! ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if there was a way to include every canidate that didn't make the page look retarded, then I would be all for it, but the columns are so narrow it makes the page look absurd, and we all know that 90% of the people who come here will be looking only at Obama and McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.18.128.4 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As more collums have been added this page has turned into an unreadable muck. I plan on exercising the nuclear option at the end of the day (moving the second and third tier candidates onto a different page.)  We'll do it like the debates, if any third party candidate is polling around 15% they'll get moved back onto the main page.  If it turns out this was a bad call we can always change it back later. - Schrandit (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything even approaching consensus for the change proposed by Schrandit, in fact, looking at the comments in this section, I see two registered users against (three, after including myself), and only Schrandit and an unregistered user for this change. If such a change is made without a clear consensus reached here on the talk page, I will revert it. I am personally opposed to the change; I feel strongly that all candidates who will be on the ballots in enough states that they COULD win an Electoral College majority should be listed equally, although I have no problem with ordering them based on their party's performance in the 2004 presidential election (see comments regarding the order of candidates near the top of the page). I do think that is is unreasonable to include candidates who will not be on enough state ballots to win an electoral victory, beyond the simple listing at the top of the page. Cmadler (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: Looking higher on this page, I see two additional users arguing for inclusion of all candidates who could mathematically win, and no one else arguing against such inclusion. That's 5 for inclusion, 2 against (one of whom is unregistered). Cmadler (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I feel strongly that all candidates who will be on the ballots in enough states that they COULD win an Electoral College majority should be listed equally"
 * Why? - Schrandit (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have general agreement that candidates who are not on the ballot in enough states to potentially win a majority should not be included -- they are not in fact in contention. The question then, is of candidates who could win, should all be included, or should some; and if the latter, what selection criteria should be used. It was suggested previously that most visitors to this page will be expecting a comparison of McCain and Obama, but the title of the page is "Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008", and I think that further restrictions beyond those who could win a majority are inherently POV. I don't think that 6 people is so many that they can't be fairly compared to one another. I see more harm in removing these legitimate candidates (not presenting information people will be seeking) than in leaving them in (currently poor formatting, which although I am not an expert on Wikipedia table, I am convinced can be improved without removing candidates). Cmadler (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think we have general agreement that candidates who are not on the ballot in enough states to potentially win a majority should not be included -- they are not in fact in contention."
 * Well, from a technical standpoint, they are - most states allow write ins.
 * "if the latter, what selection criteria should be used."
 * I would propose the same criteria as the national debates - if a candidate is polling at 15% they're in.
 * This table is getting more unreadable by the day and there is no logical reason to assume that as more issues and more candidates stances are added it will get any better. - Schrandit (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't find this table particularly hard to read, and no one else has mentioned any problem with it. I think a few of the candidate position items are a little wordy and could be tightened up, and also that some items could be broken up more granularly. For example, the position statements for most candidates under "Energy" and "Envirnment" are very broad, perhaps a reflection of the breadth of the topic. Compare that to the other sections, particularly foreign policy, where each issue is dealt with separately (Iran, North Korea, Armenian Genocide, etc.). So, for example, perhaps the "Environment" section could be broken up to include topics like Endangered Species Act, Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, Natural Disasters, Land Preservation, Public Land Use, etc. This allows for shorter, more to the point position statements, and enables an easier comparison. Cmadler (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think counting votes for and against on the talk page is bad way to decide what's best for an article. But for what it's worth, I think that a two (or more) tiered page would greatly increase its usefulness and readability. My preference would be a page with info on McCain and Obama and a page with everyone else (unless they break some magic threshold like 10% probable votes). Yes, it reduces the visibility of 3rd party candidates but anyone with any interest on them could easily click on an obvious link at the top of McCain-Obama page, and such a setup provides the most utility to the greatest number of readers. Jespley (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stay on specifics
I've noticed some instances in which the Obama entries are rather nonspecific. For example, under environment, the entry is: "Obama takes global warming very seriously and he has said that it must be addressed." If he takes it very seriously, people should be able to understand that from his proposals -- unless of course, he actually said "I take global warming very seriously" in which case it should be in quotes and sourced. There is also the line "Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States" accompanied by two sources. One of the sources talks about how Obama actually pandered to lobbyists. Again, general statements are tricky because they can be debunked by any statement to the contrary. I guess I'm saying that we should keep the entries as specific and succinct as possible. Uwmad (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the scales of the comparison charts seem to tip way over Obama-side. Try and keep a little neutrality; it's subtle but if anyone actually reads it and pays attention, especially reading McCain's position and then Obama's position on the same topic (or vice-versa), half the time it's like Obama himself is on Wikipedia, jazzin' himself up. - Anon.

Bob Barr's net worth
It says he is worth 0$...I imagine thats a mistake? BCapp 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had put citation tags on certain sections and sentences that were poorly sourced -- I've removed those unsourced materials here. Feel free to reinsert if there are sources.Uwmad (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "naderdarfur" :

Bob Barr
Other than the "Biographical data" section, I noted that Bob Barr was present in all tables but didn't have a single position listed. I hope no one minds, I filled in some of them with information from his issue page: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/ --creativename (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, that's great. That's what WP is all about. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Former parties
Am I the only one who feels that for some of the candidates listing their former party is misleading? Lizmarie (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We don't list what candidates USED to believe on issues. Also, I think it's ridiculous to say Nader was not a member of the Green Party.Chastayo (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this page does give former professions, residences, political positions held, teaching experience, military experience, etc. This page includes position information based on Congressional votes going back 17 years. A change in party affiliation is significant. Consider Joe Lieberman's departure from the Democratic Pary, or the departure of Jim Jeffords and Michael Bloomberg from the Republican Party. Consider the questions around Governor Palin's possible past affiliation with the Alaska Independence Party. While an early party change (such as Hillary Clinton's) may not be particularly relevant, both McKinney and Barr changed after they were established political figures. Likewise, Nader's Green Party candidacies in 1996 and 2000, followed by his independent runs in 2004 and 2008, can be better understood in light of his longstanding statements that he has never been a member of ANY political party. In these cases, a discussion of past political affiliation is crucial. Cmadler (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Table
This is the old table about candidates. The new one in the article text includes running mates to VP and sorting capability --Nukeless 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The National War College does not confer graduate degrees
As such, it should not be considered a graduate program akin to what the other candidates have gone through. The column title for graduate education or John McCain's entry therein should be changed to reflect this. I prefer the later and will edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this? If so, please post it here and we can discuss the change.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't been able to find conclusive proof that it doesn't, however it is often much more difficult to prove that something does not happen. It would be a much safer stance to remove it until there is some evidence that McCain actually holds a graduate level degree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.141.225 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * National war college DOES grant master degrees: "The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994 authorized the President, National Defense University, to grant a Master of Science Degree in National Security Strategy to National War College graduates upon the recommendation of the Commandant and faculty. In March 1997, the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools formally recognized NDU as an accredited institution. Students who successfully complete all the requirements of the NWC academic program will receive a Masters Degree upon graduation." --Hq3473 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good from 1997 to present, however McCain attended that institution in 1973 when it had no form of accreditation nor authority to issue such a degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain and lobbyists
Should it be said that McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign? I think it is important to note not only if a candidate is denying lobbyist donations but if the candidate is actively working with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.132.181 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear -- that's either a Profession row or a Every Professional They've Had row
Fairness first. Let's be clear about that profession row...

that's either a "Profession" row or a "Every Professional They've Had" row, which is it?

There seems a fundamental unfairness in this very prominent row at the top to promote McCain's ex-job as a naval pilot without mentioning Barack Obama's ex-job teaching Constitutional Law for 12 years, President of the Harvard Law Review, and Member of the Illinois Senate for 8 years.

Even by the own standards of the campaign site of John McCain himself (see here), he resigned from the navy in 1981.

He served honorably as a Naval aviator, and it's great that he did it, but Naval aviator is not his current profession.

Let's be honest. John is a US Senator, Obama is a US Senator. They both are. They have the same profession and the same job.

So, wikipedians, which is it? Shall we change that row to be "Current Profession" and be clear or "Former Professions" row and be clear?

Let's be clear and either:
 * list only the current profession.
 * Or list all former professions. (maybe with a time limit, like "professions held for more than 1 year")

...and either way, label it clearly on the main page so that we don't have to rehash this again later.

Which should it be?

Garkbit (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this needs to be clearly indicated. I would suggest giving both fields: current profession, and former professions (held for more than 1 year). Also, both fields should give the years (e.g. 2001-2007) for each profession. Cmadler (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion by Cmadler. This would make things much clearer.--JayJasper (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Garkbit (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Cmadler's proposed solution is fine by me!

Table style
As people have pointed out above, the current tables with their long, narrow columns aren't particularly readable, especially on non-widescreen monitors. This has nothing to do with whether third party candidates should be included, but everything to do with the simple facts of readability in HTML. I'd like to propose this format instead:

Each issue would have its own table, which would mean less wasted space from gaps required by having to conform to the spacings used on other issues.

Also, if nothing else, Ralph Nader shouldn't be the first of the third party candidates listed. I assume we're going in alphabetical order, so shouldn't he be the last of the minor candidates listed? Baldwin and Barr should be swapped as well. Unless the ordering is being done based on polling or something? (Conveniently enough, the alphabetical ordering of both minor and major candidates has the "conservative" third parties beneath McCain and the "liberal" ones beneath Obama.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As it were, the party listing is not alphabetical. As per an ordering proposed by Cmadler the candidates are listed by their party's performance in the 2004 presidential elections in which Ralph Nader did better than any third party candidate.  As odd as the format currently is I like the idea that the absence of a politician's clear plan is also noted in it.  The two tiered responses also strikes me as a little odd, I would support them staying in one row.  At the same time, I don't really have a great eye for these things, this is just what I think would look nice and I'll go with whatever group consensus is. - Schrandit (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh; I see what you're referring to above now. I for one would prefer for alphabetical with a recognition of the major party / minor party distinction.  Going by previous votes works okay for this election, but would be weird elsewhere - for instance, in 1992, Perot would have been listed after the Libertarian candidate, which would clearly be an error.  This isn't too huge an issue, but that's my thoughts.


 * I'll wait a bit more to see if anyone else has input, but while I'm not entirely beholden to my proposal, I do think that it's absolutely imperative that the table style be changed somehow. Paragraphs of text read best horizontally, not going to the next line every six words or so (which is what happens on smaller resolutions). I see other people have pointed this out before. SnowFire (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the new format proposal and agree with SnowFire's rationale. This would be much more reader friendly.--JayJasper (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Racial Justice
Really an appropriate section title? - Schrandit (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (also, what are scare quotes?)


 * Yes.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is justice? I think this is inflammatory, and it already supposes government created racial injustice.  I feel the previous name of the category (Racial profiling) is less POV. - Schrandit (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is so inflamatory about the title "racial justice"? (No serious person denies the existence of racial injustice.) It is certainly broader than "racial profiling". --Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The current source refers to Bush trying to eliminate Racial profiling. It doesn't outline McCain's efforts or positions. Bless sins (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blank Spaces in this outline, and the neglect of a massive topic
As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a site allowing outside editing of articles and depends on public input for various pieces of information. When adressing sesitive issues such as elections keeping bias from the article should be of the highest importance. Having read through the majority of the columns I noticed that there wasn't a whole lot of bias in the written comments. However, I was a bit uncomfortable with the blank spaces under a significant number of the stance columns for candidates, including 3rd party and primary party officials. My biggest concern is for the number of boxes left blank under the Obama column. Not to raise any personal bias I may or may not have but, as a primary candidate - with so many areas left blank the reader is made more informed of McCain's and other's stances on issues by the sheer lack of information in those columns - the same applies to the immense number of blank columns for 3rd party candidates. By preparing a comparison sheet such as this on such an influential site and neglecting to balance the presented information has either intentionally or inadvertantly made the reader more informed to one party's opinions which is a form of bias. My personal belief is that this should be corrected and provide what information is available for the blank columns or at the very least these columns that are currently blank should be marked- i.e. a statement such as "no formal opinion has been released" or " no information available".

Finally in regards to my title statement on the neglect of a massive topic I would like to adress the ignoring of Afghanistan. I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing various articles and comparision websites as well as watching news reports on the candidates and their discussion of critical issues. This is not a dig on wikipedia because a MULTITUDE of news and information presenting systems have neglected this topic. For the amount of debate that has gone into the War on Terror specifically in Afghanistan, the media seems quite satisfied to ignore this conflict. If I could take a moment to remind everyone that Afghanistan serves host to over 33,000 American fighting men and women today. Yes, some might consider the 152,000+ in Iraq of more importance. Let me pose this topic to you: Afghanistan is 3 times the size of Iraq, has less paved roads and is much more innavigable. Furthermore, there are places in Afghanistan where regular duty soldiers fufill mentor roles for the Afghan Police and Army with single digit numbers of personell on their teams - ISOLATED, from a supporting team by dozens of kilometers (as you may recall a base was overrun this year, that wasn't in range of any support, with severe casualties). I in no mean make these statements to undercut the efforts made by our servicemembers in Iraq, my intent is to shine light on the lack of support OEF servicemembers have. If I'm not hitting home with anyone yet, I might ask the reader to consider the fact that Afghanistan has on several occasions been neglected by the media - albiet a good fight goes off or theres casualties, I'll put money a reporter from every station is there in 24 hours. This year was the worst in conflict and casualties in Afghanistan since the initial invasion, and only that could drum up support and a rally on Capital Hill for bolstered troop strength and the deployment of additional Brigade Combat Teams. Let me ask you to consider, is Afghanistan and the deployed service members we have there not worthy of media attention? Just like in Iraq, men and women are fighting and giving their lives for our country, should this issue not be adressed on a level that reflects the seriousness and legitimacy of this issue?

Both primary candidtates have taken serious amounts of time discussing the issue of Afghanistan, and the risidual conlficts in Pakistan. I'd like to ask: When did a war we and the nations of NATO have been sustained in for over 7 years become a subtext for the political arena in Pakistan. Like so many other forums covering this political race, this article COMPLETELY neglects Afghanistan apart from chatter on the topic in the Pakistan column. I think its time that we remember where all our fighting men and women are, again not to discourage the support of troops in Iraq, but merely to suggest that maybe America is neglecting Afghanistan as an issue, as well as the servicemembers we have stationed there. Can we treat this as the real political issue it is, or will we keep letting it be a subtext for political issues in another country? Pakistan and the turmoil they face with terrorist cells is a real threat and effects the US based on our alliance with them and the war we fight globally against terror - but I believe the significance of these two events merits the seperation of them in all forms of discussion, especially politics. Please do not let my opinion on this matter offend you, as I would only like to see that Americans are informed on the struggle and sacrafice in Afghanistan as equally as those in Iraq, and not as an introduction paragraph for an artical on Pakistan. Treating a war as a media backdrop for foreign politics in a seperate country is disrespectful to those who have served.

TF72.80.24.200 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

War on drugs
Why the hell is the war on drugs barely even mentioned? This is a major, major, major issue. Bigger than many of the issues mentioned. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClintJCL (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 November 2008