The Primaries are *well* underway, and with Clinton and Huckabee both falling very seriously behind in the races it looks like the nominations will be taken by Barack Obama and John McCain.
Too bad my candidate of choice has received no large degree of mainstream support.

Though it's quite uncharacteristic for me to support a Republican, he's pretty much the only candidate whose entire platform I agree with. Certainly much better than either of the current most popular candidate.
John McCain is another Bush waiting to happen. He's stated that, "if need be," we should stay in Iraq for "a hundred years." Yeah. Sounds great. Not like enough lives (and dollars) have been wasted in a pathetic attempt at policing the world or anything.
Talk about a waffle. The man has switched positions on more positions than John Kerry. In 1999 he claimed he would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, but just last year he said it should be overturned. Convenient for someone seeking the presidential nomination of the Republican party. Though a supposed staunch opponent of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture), he would be one of the first to rush headlong into an attack on Iran.
McCain also wants to allow millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States a path to citizenship, thereby rewarding them for breaking the law and giving an incentive to the millions of others in Mexico to sneak across the border illegally.
Let's not forget his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, a one-world government organization sponsored by none other than David Rockefeller, who has actually said he's part of a cabal working against the best interests of the US towards an elite ruling class of world bankers.
Obama's better, but not by much. Though at the very least he claims he'd pull us out of Iraq, he also wants to put us right back into another country and use force to stop the genocide in Darfur. While I don't wish such a fate upon anyone, do you want the US to play world police, or not? We can't solve the world's problems, nor should we be expected to. Every country needs to take care of itself. Though, it's possible that Obama's efforts in Darfur would be non-violent, which is acceptable. The waste of more lives trying to save the rest of the world is not.
Another thing about Obama (and many democrats in general) is the desire to keep pouring public money into programs to help the poor. Though I certainly don't want children to starve, we need to avoid the collectivist mentality, i.e. the idea that everyone should live their lives for others. In this case I truly favor the conservative idea that less is more in terms of government programs and control, and that people should go as far (and only as far) as their own motivation takes them. As Ayn Rand says in Anthem (paraphrased) "I live for no man, nor do I ask any to give his life for me." By creating a social and financial safety net for the poor with the burden of everyone else, we are taking from those who earn their pay and giving it to those who have not.
A certain degree of social darwinism is necessary for society to function, just as natural selection is responsible for the forward development of any species.
And, supporting all these views quite succinctly, is candidate Ron Paul.
A main point that draws me to support him is the idea of removal from the United Nations. Most people seem to think that a one-world government will bring international harmony and peace- perhaps I'm the only one who sees a problem with the surrender of all resources and weapons (and thereby power) to one singular entity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Destroying political boundaries does not result in an end to conflict. This is proven in Africa, where civil war is common due to the fact that country borders don't reflect tribal borders. In much the same way, if all current political borders are erased, the animosity which caused war in the first place will not go with it. The Japanese will still hate the Chinese. The Jews and the Muslims will continue to fight.
Even if destroying all individual nations was a good idea in theory, in practice it would be basically impossible since no single entity can manage so large a territory. Even in the United States, whose surface area makes up less than 10% of the planet's, government has to be broken down into regional entities called "states." Under the rule of a one-world government similar divisions would have to be made, and then we'd end up with individual countries again. The only difference being that all of our resources and weapons would be in the hands of one ruling party.
And so many people overlook that key point. One ruling party would have all of the power. There would be no one else to stop them. And what if their intentions were not good? How are we to fight back, with the relinquishment of our national sovereignty?
Ron Paul is also anti-abortion, which is one of the more conservative positions I hold. I can't see how it can be classified as anything but murder. I hear all of these college-aged feminist blathering on about medical statistics they probably don't understand, but until I get some solid medical evidence (that's from scientists, not chicks with a green crew cut) I can't support what at the very least appears to be murder.
Another important point is total de-regulation of the internet. Though this includes Net Neutrality, I find it hard to believe that providers would
Other things he opposes-
The PATRIOT act (i.e. surrendering privacy and civil liberties in the supposed name of better security)
-A national ID card system
-Bush's repeal of laws that restricted the president's ability to use the military in policing on American soil. Why anyone would allow this I don't know.
-Habeas Corpus for political detainees (the repeal of this was a serious step towards a martially ruled society)
-The draft. I'm glad someone agrees that the government shouldn't own our lives to such an extent that it can tell us to go fight, die, and more importantly, kill for a cause we don't believe in.
-The War on Drugs. He also is in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Seriously people, this should be a no-brainer. It's far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, and yet is illegal thanks to a very clever propogandist campaign in the 1920's.
Anyway, Ron Paul will probably not go anywhere in this race, so I'll have to vote for the lesser of two evils- in this case Obama. When in doubt, always choose the side in support of scientific progress. Which is invariably the democrats.