But pragmatically speaking, we may be too far gone to turn back the clock on this one. In which case, I’m in favor of the trimester approach outlined in Roe v Wade. If it has to be a federal issue, I don’t think you can deny abortions to women who want them. Partial birth abortion seems unnecessary to me and I support the ban. But I would totally relax restrictions on the “morning after pill” and birth control drugs (aside from safety concerns).

In foreign policy, I’m an old school Clausewitz-style realist along the lines of Bush Sr.’s crew (with a generous nod toward multilateralism). I’m utterly disgusted at the juvenile antics of the the neoconservatives, whose stance can be summarized as “imperialism absent the willingness to pay for it.”

On issues of government regulation of industry, I tend to fall in favor of more regulation – and that IS actually an area I care about.

You might very well be right about Iran actually.

There may not be much of a difference between the parties yet on some of the foreign issues you’re most concerned with, but there seems to be a huge difference- at least between the parties if not between candidates within their own parties- as to how we’d handle Iran.

The other big difference would be Supreme Court nominees. Roe v. Wade may not be a big deal to you, but it is to them. Roe tends to polarize the citizenry and the candidates. With that as a litmus test, you’ll get very different politically oriented judges from the respective parties. You give me your stance on Roe v. Wade, chances are I can guess how you’ll run international policy.

Probably because I’m a foreign policy wonk. And honestly, there’s really not much difference at all between any of the candidates on this score (except Rudy and Ron Paul). Hillary is unlikely to do anything differently foreign policy-wise than Romney or McCain, or Obama.

I’m utterly unconcerned about the immigration debate. Whichever direction the government takes on the issue, fine by me. As for health care, I’m just not seeing much difference between the candidates. Edwards seems to be championing some desperately needed consumer protection, so I might consider him on that score. But otherwise…

And I’ve never cared much about the abortion debate one way or the other, except to express irritation about it being essentially one big national threadjack.

In the end, I don’t really care if Hillary wins, or if Obama wins, or if Romney wins, or if McCain wins. There’s honestly not much difference between them. That said, it’s looking to be an entertaining show to watch – if a tad long.

That said, I still think it’s safe to count him out of GOP nominee battle. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, a vote for him will have the same net impact as staying home.

For the record, I’d vote for Paul over Hillary any day. But then again, I’d vote for a fire hydrant over Hillary any day.

That said, I’m not sure that I want the same kind of man as President.

I’m with Mike–the best line of the thread so far is this one:

The issue is what does he believe and what will get him elected.

I’m not sure what Romney does believe–or if he really believes anything at all (on political matters, not religion–I’m not doubting his faith or his faithfulness), and I’d like to see the real Mitt come out from behind his political strategists. It might even make me want to vote for him (and not just as a vote against any of the Democrats running this go ’round).