I personally am a huge liberal Democrat so I personally would want my Clevelander Dennis Kucinich (i'm from Cleveland too). I know he's a long-shot though so I can't decide between Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I'm reading Obama's Audacity of Hope book so maybe you guys can help me decide in choosing by telling me why you support whichever candidate. It can be Republican too of course! Hahaha
2007-05-30 10:51:03 · 23 answers · asked by Lil'D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
O! and for anyone who watched the Democratic Debate on CNN on Sunday I think Hillary did the best! What's your opinion if you watched it?
2007-06-04 07:33:31 · update #1
I'm supporting former Senator Mike Gravel. I like Kucinich as a person very much, but I think hes too much of an idealist to be President.
Gravel is honest, speaks his mind, and has very well thought-out plans for the country. He wants to get us out of Iraq immediately, which is way overdue. He want to abolish the unconstitutional income tax and replace it with a clear, simple and transparent Fair Tax (www.FairTax.org). And he want to empower the American people to become lawmakers by using ballot initiatives at the Federal level. As he points out, people already make laws through ballot initiatives in 24 states and over 200 communities across the country, why cant we do it at the Federal level?
Gravel is also not at all sold-out to any corporations or special interest groups. He is a real candidate of the people and for the people.
I personally feel Obama is all show and very little substance. Hes very good a getting people worked up and would probably make a good VP, but I dont think hes anywhere close to being qualified for President.
And Clinton...Well, I dont trust her. She jumps on any popular bandwagon that comes along. She voted for the war in Iraq because it was popular, and now shes against it because its unpopular. If she really wanted to end the war, she could do a number of things in the Congress to help bring that about, but she doesnt. Its all politics-as-usual to her. And that says to me that she cares more about how she appears politically than the cost of human lives and suffering, and that kind of person should not be President.
Gravel is a long-shot as well. But back when he first ran for Senator from Alaska he was a long-shot too, and he won anyway. I've donated, been spreading the word, and will give him everything I've got. If he doesnt call it quits, neither will I. And I dont think he will. Hes a tough old guy, and hes in it to win.
Basically what I'm trying to tell you, is pick the guy or gal you like best, and give 'em all youve got! Dont just give up on the best candidate because "theyre a long-shot" and go with the big front-runner corporate-whores. That kind of thing is whats bringing America down, and we need to reverse that...
http://www.Gravel2008.us
2007-05-30 11:26:57 · answer #1 · answered by Jesus W. 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I just don't trust (or like) Hillary. It is not a popularity contest, but I don't think she has to communication skills and extra spark required to become the first female president.
I think Obama has the tools for 2012, but I think he may implode over the next several months -- not by himself, but nobody is as perfect as he appears to be, so any bad info will be amplified.
Al Gore and Edwards have both said and done too much that is decisive, and they will be eaten alive.
I don't know that a viable candidate is left.
Bill Richardson has a good resume, but he isn't presidential.
What happened to grooming principled, well educated, well spoken leaders for positions of more responsibility? I do see that happening with Obama, but he is getting the hype before the experience. He needs to serve as Governor, Sec of State, or VP.
Right now I vote none of the above.
2007-05-30 11:06:22 · answer #2 · answered by Izdiwaj 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul.
I usually vote democrat but I cannot endorse Obama and Hillary because they voted to fund for the war, they had no backbone.
We don't need a weak president.
Ron Paul has voted no to the war and it's funding from the start.
He is also 100 percent for new borders
He doesn't believe the constitution is just a piece of paper
He's likeable and he is tired of the neo con agenda and the NWO.
He also doesn't believe in the war on drugs.
He's the only real option.
People are trying to make him look bad but that is because he is against greed for corporations and that scares the white house elitests.
He's the only choice to restore America. Hillary and Obama are fake.
Research for yourself or watch the daily show on June 4th.
2007-05-30 14:28:01 · answer #3 · answered by Lisaa 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
John Edwards is hands down the best candidate in my mind. He's got the most concrete plans when it comes to nearly every issue - global warming, Iraq, health care, you name it.
I like Obama, but he doesn't have any concrete plans. He's just too inexperienced.
Hilary I don't like. She won't even admit she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war. Way too much of a politician.
Then there are the other Dems some of who are good, but none have any chance to win the nomination.
The Republicans are basically a joke. Giuliani is a social Democrat, McCain is a flip-flopping say whatever it takes to get elected pussy, Romey is a nutjob, etc. etc. Conservatives here seem obsessed with Fred Thompson for whatever reason, probably because they know the existing candidates are pathetic.
Overall John Edwards is far and away the best candidate with a reasonable shot of winning the presidency.
2007-05-30 11:21:36 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
I predict a Fred Thompson - Gulliani ticket v. Hillary - Obama ticket. Thompson wins 52% of popular vote (v. 46% for Hillary) and wins the electoral college by 6 votes (less than 1%).
Thompson is a straight up guy, no significant baggage and has good ideas for the country when it comes to defense, foreign policy and ecomonic reform. Plus, Hillary is fake, power-hungry and generally evil.
2007-05-30 11:06:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Fred D Thompson 2008
2007-05-30 10:55:32 · answer #6 · answered by Antiliber 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Fred Thompson.
I could not stand to see the Dems field another Socialist/ Marxist/ anti-American Constitution Lefty.
Obama is is just a Marxist Socialist that is good at disguising his slant by making speeches that play well to those who want bigger government to give them things paid for by someone else. Those that are too stupid to realize that their government dominance will come at the price of their freedom.
2007-05-30 11:12:48 · answer #7 · answered by Philip H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Fred Thompson.
2007-05-30 11:04:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why haven't you considered John Edwards? He is the only decent Democrat running. I also have noticed Ron Paul, he is a great Republican who would do a great job as President. If you expect to get all your information on TV, you are not getting the whole story. It is so easy to lie and have your best interests in mind. We need someone who has the American peoples best interests at heart.
2007-05-30 10:58:12 · answer #9 · answered by oldhag 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Fred Thompson
I hope you don't like kids, because Barack Obama voted for a bill (SB1661) that would deny health care to failed abortions (know what that is? It is a baby OUTSIDE of a woman's womb, where she should have no control over it's life)
He also sponsored a Resolution making it illegal to ask for ID at the voting booth. No WAY that could backfire, could it?
Sounds like someone you want to vote for?
2007-05-30 10:55:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋