In a recent poll, 35 of the world's nations from every continent and the largest ever audience polled, ALL except Poland, the Phillippines and Nigeria said they would vote for Kerry, if they could. Of course, this could be that they can't stand Bush, but rather they would like to see America with a sensible, mature leader and not a cowboy without a horse. Hi EO: yes, polls are never 100% reliable, but I suspect this is the truest; already there are international investigators on hand ready to oversee the elections so that nothing corrupt happens like last time. As you hint, it may well become necessary in the future for the international community to vote on presidential elections if current policies are continued, for the sake of certain global issues, like handling natural resources, peacekeeping, trade, nuclear armament, the Middle East, terrorism, etc, etc. UPDATE from The Hague: The voting from all countries around the world saw 10,000 participants cast a vote for the US elections . If they were able to vote in the elections, the results would be ; 81.6% Kerry, 6.2% Bush, 5.3%Nader and 6% distributed amongst the other candidates. Asked what they thought American citizens would vote for 57.1% said Kerry and 42.3% Bush. Most participants (43.5%) thought US voters will consider foreign policy as a major issue, a third thought they might not. An incredible 91.4% believe the US election to be an international event. Whilst 46.9% of course say they should have no say in the election, only 6.8% feel it to be only a domestic issue. The voting is not intended to influence the US democratic process, but simply to urge voters to consider the rest of the world when casting their vote. America really needs to take off the blinkers, the public should hassle their media for proper news to see what the rest of the world can plainly see when it comes to what your Government is doing. (In fact, many actions that have taken place over the last few decades are now being seen in a new light, and the real reasons why things were done by the US and others are emerging.) Really it's time for all countries to confront their politicians who have not been representing their best interests. The info given on the 'Theworldvotes.com website states that it is an organisation whose action is primarily symbolic in order to mobilise world citizens to become more enfranchised in the debate about a more democratic management of world affairs.' Globalvote.com has yet to release its figures. 4,000 Americans have also taken part in this one. Mr Political, this is the 'world' voting, not Paris, you know - the one outside the United States? 73% of the troops DO NOT support Bush and is an exact example of the propoganda you are being fed over there. For God's sake, open your eyes, and try and get your information from elsewhere other than Fox News or the Republican Party's circular!! Your thoughts display exactly why the rest of us think we should be voting!!

Kerry is wraping himself in his Vietnam service and making that the most dominant, if not only, issue in this political race. Why is he doing this? Because he doesn't want to talk about his voting record, which once the American people hear more about (and recognize that his voting record is not the way a President should conduct himself), Kerry will most certainly lose the election. DACCORY: 73% of the U.S troops support the President and you know what, I DON'T CARE if Paris doesn't like me! If the troops are more confident with Bush than with Kerry, that counts a whole lot more to me than what Canada thinks!!

UPDATE to daccory: Or maybe it's hard to characterize a homogenous theme behind why people vote the way they do. That sounds like a real reliable poll, so scientific and all, but the bottom line is AMERICANS vote for their own president. We generally don't have to pass an international test, at least until this election, depending on who wins. ORIGINAL COMMENT(10/21/04): American Catholics have a real problem with this election. They tend to be pro-life democrats with an inordinate amount of weight and consideration given to the abortion issue, than many other constituencies. Voting for Kerry presents an interesting conundrum as he has been an unwavering champion of the pro-choice/pro-abortion faction for his entire political career. If Kerry is elected and carries the Roman Catholic vote, who will champion the anti-abortion banner in the future, as that will certainly be a mandate and ratification of Roe v. Wade and the concept of abortion as a constitutional right? His litmus test will be applied to all federal judges, including the Supreme Court, and we certainly will be showered with liberal, activist judges for his entire term, as we have been under Clinton's 8 years in office. Bush hasn't had the same impact due to the obstruction of the Senate approval process by democrats, a development unseen prior to the democrats becoming a minority party in the Senate. Have the activist, liberal judges done America more good, or more harm?

John Kerry has called Saddam a weapon of mass destruction in of himself. He said this to articulate why he voted for the war in Iraq. Now, he is pretending to blame President Bush that there are not WMD'S in Iraq. I guess he no longer believes Saddam is a WMD... Man, I feel bad for democrats because they don't have a legitimate candidate. :( -Robby

I am choosing not to comment one way or the other about Senator Kerry's service in Viet Nam or the current controversy surrounding his medals, etc. What strikes me as a bit odd however, is the fact that much of his campaign and praise from his supporters centers around the four months that he spent in Viet Nam and almost nothing about his 19 years in the senate. While his service during the war was noble, and even if I disregard his activities with the Viet Nam Vets Against The War, his record as a senator should outshine, or at the very least compliment, his actions on the battlefield. I have stated in other posts that Senator Kerry has a consistant record where he has voted to cut funding to the armed forces, weapons, and intelligence agencies, as well as his votes concerning social programs and taxes. I think it's fair to say that the American people expect campaign rhetoric to be exactly that..... rhetoric, and his past voting record is the best indication of how he will govern if elected. The only significant increase in funding I could find was that the Senator voted for us (the U.S.) to increase our funding to the U.N. by 800%. To the best of my knowledge, the United Nations, since its inception, has a failure rate of 100% and has never been successful in either stopping a conflict or preventing one. While in the senate, one of the bills that Senator Kerry proposed cut funding to the CIA so severely ($300 million) that no one, not even fellow Mass senator Edward Kennedy would support it. In the debate to cut funding to the military and intelligence agencies, Senator Kerry has been consistant. Unless a real world case can be made which convinces me that cutting funds to the military, weapons programs and intelligence agencies does not undermine the security and safety of the United States, and that the tax increases he has supported will not hurt the average citizen, I cannot in good conscience vote for John Kerry.

Liberal...Liberal...Liberal...Tax and spend...flipflopper.

The worst of all of them. Who will be voting for this guy? He changes his mind and views on EVERYTHING everyday. Here's just a few examples. In 2000, Kerry supported full trade with China. Now he's criticizing Bush for trading with China. Kerry claims to be an anti-war candidate even though he voted to use force in Iraq. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, now is magically against it. He cannot make up his mind on gay marriage. He says something new everyday, but the latest Ive heard is that he would consider banning gay marriages. In March 2003, Kerry promised not to personal attack Bush. Weeks later, he was calling for a regime change in the US. Kerry voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. Now is against it. Kerry voted on multiple times against ethanol, even now he supports it. Kerry voted for NAFTA. Now has doubts about it. Just a few examples of the almost unending flip-flopping this guy has done. He's got no personality at all. He's just all fraud and your average liberal: phony flip-floppers who will say anything to get your vote. Remember, if he betrayed us then (1971), then he'll betray us again.

democrats couldn't agree on who was their first choice to be nominated for president, but most agreed on their second choice - john kerry. to that end, he has the support of democrats, and he is believed to be electable. i'm not impressed with him thus far, he's rather uninspiring, but he has many excellent ideas for our country that can't be overlooked. we will wait until the presidential debates to see him in action, and hopefully the boring and stiff labels will peel away.

So far John Kerry has proven to be a less than stellar candidate. Essentially his platform is a re-hash of the Clinton agenda during the 1990's. Kerry has the same people around him that Gore did in 2000 that helped him loose that election. The careful, neo-liberal moderation that Kerry and Clinton espoused is no political agenda. In order for a political movement to have a lasting impact, it has be motivated by ideas and the grassroots. The Democrats only goal seems to be beating Republicans rather than coming up with a set of coherent ideas that people can rally behind. Traditionally the Democratic party has been the party of mass numbers, of the little guy as Harry Truman famously posed in his 1948 party. Traditionally the Republican party, with a few very specific expections, were the party of big industry. Elections ran on numbers versus money. Since the 1980's, the Democratic party has ended its appeals to the middle and working classes and instead has gone after the money trail. This has caused the Democrats to lose their natural base, being that they no longer represent the interests of the country at large. Particularly since the McGovern campaign in 1972, the Democrats have reveled in eltist special interest politics that are divisive in nature: young versus old, black versus white, etc... The Democratic party since then has been defined as extremely liberal and out of touch with the people and rightfully so. Not that the Republicans have stayed above the fray. Co-opting the religious right has caused the Republican party to lose its traditional moderation. Like the Democrats they espouse policies that are good only for their little community rather than more pressing matters that affect us all as a nation. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to fight it out over largely symbolic culture war issues like abortion and gay rights rather than the larger issues at hand. This strategy has been very effective for the Republicans, who since the 1970's have managed to appeal to the working classes by citing cultural issues. Many analysts bemoan the fact that political parties get weaker with every year, they attribute it to a variety of causes, among them the demise of political machines who selected more moderate candidates as opposed to ideologues who are unelectable. They miss the point, the political parties are weaker because they are not connected to the people. Both parties are more than ever in the control of the big monetary and political interests that encourage division as a means of gaining power. The key for Kerry and the Democrats is not to allow Bush to define him as an ACLU liberal. Class is the great unspoken in politics, but Kerry should gear his appeal towards the working class and back it up with more than words. Al Gore's people versus the powerful message had zero credibility, that's why he lost. He can appeal to the working and middle class without resorting to calls for protectionism or other tactics. Kerry shouldn't fight it out on the cultural issues, the Republicans use that as a wedge issue to scare the middle class, but he should just not make it an issue. He has to appeal to the broad middle on economic and security issues. Rather than argue for Bush lite on fiscal and foreign policy, strike it out in a different direction. Don't just take a defensive position against Bush, argue that we can do a lot better than the sum of all the special interests. Presidents who are elected by wide margins follow this strategy. Broadly you have to speak to the era that you're living in. So far neither Kerry or Bush has done this, and political discourse is made all the worse for it.

Why do the Democrats never learn, today you need a candidate with Charisma at least a personality. That is how Clinton was elected he charmed the voters. Kerry has no personality, I mean no one is doing a impersonation of him because there is nothing to impersonate. Politics is different today its not just about views and opinions.

I find it interesting that the Republicans denigrate a war hero, when they championed George HW Bush and attacked Bill Clinton's lack of military service. Now we have John Kerry, a decorated war hero, versus George W Bush, who did everything possible to avoid military service and Dick Cheney who did the same thing that Bill Clinton did (but Republicans wouldn't dare criticize Dick). Maybe someone who actually fought in a bad war will know how to get the US out of another bad war. I know that W has no idea how to do so.

I really hope he doesn't get in, this county will be in big trouble.

John Kerry has put together an impressive string of victories (five out of seven states, and counting). Currently, he is the front-runner for the Democratic Nomination. Money must be pouring in. However, just as with former favorite Howard Dean, I wonder if John Kerry has a real chance to beat George W. Bush. I am afraid the Republicans will act as if being a New England liberal is a bad thing. If he gets the nomination, though, he has to get Wesley Clark on the ticket. It could improve his chances of winning in the South.

Just another Massachussetts democrat

He has flip-flopped more than Howie Dean. Like Howie as well, he is saying anything to anyone to get elected.