Who is a better Canidate for President Hillary or Barrack Obama ?

Answer 1

It's an important question and I for one am grateful to have to think about it deeply. Either candidate if elected would be a "first." Hillary a first female US Pres and Barack a first US Pres of color.

The point is that both are electable because many would like to have a "first" in either category. Although there have been female pres candidates and candidates of color, this is the first time that so many have good reason to believe their candidate (in these 2 categories) is electable.

My concern is that they may cancel each other out and the last "guy" left standing will probably be someone else.

Answer 2

Hillary by default The simple truth about Barack Obama is that he is an untested amateur. This is a guy who won the Democratic nomination for the Senate by default because no serious challenger wanted to run against the incumbent. That's lucky break #1 Then the incumbent, who probably would have beaten Obama handily, decides not to run for re-election. That's lucky break #2. He draws a serious opponent, who likely would have beaten Obama handily, but the opponent gets caught in a sex scandal generated by his celebrity ex-wife, who decided she had to be a vengeance seeking harpy. The candidate withdrew (lucky break #3) from the race and the GOP couldn't find another candidate w with only about a month to go before the election. So Obama gets to run against a carpetbagger from Maryland, and wins in a landslide My question to Obama supporters is What happens if this guy's luck runs out after he gets lucky enough to win the Presidency? You can see the answer when you look at another untested amateur who got lucky. The guy currently in the White House.

Answer 3

Barrack Obama.

Answer 4

I would rather have Obama as President than Hillary.

Answer 5

Hillary is alright. She confuses me.

Barack is cool and he looks solid

Edward might look like a goof ball but his plans are awesome. Increasing taxes might sound bad to some but to give health care to poor you need to increase taxes unlike this government who is the first ever in the human history to have reduced tax during war time. hmm I wonder what were they thinking.

Mccain I thought was a great man until recently when he called for Kerry's apology even though he knew what he meant.

I hope Al Gore comes. Algore-Edwards would be nice

Answer 6

Barrack Obama. Although Clinton may have a good chance because there are a lot of people who want to see a woman President in office.

Answer 7

Neither, they are both going to increase the power of the federal government while pandering to the ignorant in this country. They will buy votes will our tax dollars with fascist ideas like socialized medicine. At the same time our liberties and freedoms will decrease.

Answer 8

I'm a supporter of Barack Obama (one R by the way). I think he's a fantastic candidate that can do a lot to inspire people on both sides of the aisle.

Any one who says he's not electable doesn't know him.

Ultimately, the candidate you support has to be the person you feel can best advance the agendas you agree with. I know I agree with Obama's policies and I believe he will be able to initiate them.

Answer 9

properly, on condition that having an training about a thanks to run a organization hasn't helped the in reality president to have a MBA (I talk of W and his failure as President), i do not truly imagine you are able to equate both. operating the country is unlike operating a organization, and admittedly, i imagine we desire a lot less organization-kinds making significant judgements in politics. (do not get me incorrect, organization, even massive organization must have a say, yet no longer an overpowering voice compared to the common man or woman.) McCain, Obama, and Clinton does no longer be the genuine of absolutely everyone's record on the Fortune 500 for his or her CEO... and that is a plus for each of them in my e book.

Answer 10

Neither. When is there going to be a candidate that puts AMERICA first? and NOT any other country?

Clinton and Obama appear to be willing to allow America to be nuked, in order to protect a tiny aggressive and racist country in the middle east.

If it came down to a choice between Israel getting nuked and America getting nuked?

EG if Iran (for sake of argument) where to decide that Israel needed to be attacked, then the following 2 scenarios could happen.

1. They know the USA will protect little vulnerable, nuclear armed, Israel, so they Nuke the USA in a pre-emptive strike.

result = USA gets a city destroyed in a nuclear blast and Iran gets turned into green glass!

or

2 Iran Nukes Israel

result = Israel loses a city or two and Iran gets turned into green glass.

Which result would the candidates prefer?

OK I know Iran has NOT got nukes and there is ZERO evidence that they are developing any and adheminejad never actually called for Israel to be wiped from the map, but this was for sake of argument.

Which country would the candidates place first, America? or Israel?