I think I'd go with Obama, Hiliary just scares the crap out of me.
2007-07-27 10:54:11 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'd be pretty happy with Mike Gravel. He's about as much a democrat as Ron Paul is a republican. Gravel supports the Fair Tax, wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, would help implement the national ballot initiative (giving regular Americans real power in their government), and is an ardent supporter of term limits. There are planks in his platform I don't agree with (such as a single payer universal health care system), but overall I think he's the democrat most in touch with my own beliefs.
2007-07-27 11:15:10 · answer #1 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of those running I suppose I would agree with you. As a less experienced national politician I would expect him to listen a lot more than someone whose liberal agenda had become a part of them (i.e. Hillary or Edwards).
Please do not assume that this means that I would sign up with enthusiasm, I just feel that the damage done to the country under an Obama administration would be superficial compared to that done by an Edwards or Clinton administration.
As to the other candidates, I don't think that we even need to discuss them. In general they are all lightweight compared to the three I have mentioned.
For those who believe that the Democrats have lurched left, this is endemic to the primary season. Since they are asking democrats to vote for them the easiest way to get those votes is play to the base. The opposite thing is happening on the Republican side.
2007-07-27 18:10:27 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My choice would be Gravel. He makes sense on foreign policy, he's aware that Democrat policies are bad for the economy (he admits that he intends to raise gas prices, for example through his carbon tax and other similar programs in the name of fighting that phantom Global Warming that is caused by the sun, but which Democrats erroneously believe to be caused by CO2).
While Gravel definitely wouldn't be as good a president as Ron Paul (though I wouldn't trust the other Republicans to be better than Gravel or even Hillary), he's the best of the Democrats.
2007-07-27 18:12:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would go for Richardson who cut taxes in New Mexico. I would consider Biden who has experience in foreign policy and seems to care about our troops and comes across as actually having talked to people.
Those are the only two I would consider. The others are flat out crazy.
2007-07-27 19:03:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of the current pack of idiots that are running right now. If Joe Lieberman ran, I'd have to give voting for him some serious thought, though.
So, if it was inevitable that one of the current Dem candidates was going to win, I think I'd become an alcoholic and drop out of society for a few years.
2007-07-27 18:03:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lieberman
2007-07-27 18:08:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lieberman first Biden second. They have more common sense than the rest of them. Don't like Biden's stance on free health care for illegals and all though. I personally don't want the government in charge of my health plan.
2007-07-27 18:05:39 · answer #7 · answered by question212 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Zell Miller, or Leiberman. If I had to pick someone running it would be Bill Richardson.
2007-07-27 18:06:10 · answer #8 · answered by Angelus2007 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Biden
2007-07-27 17:59:03 · answer #9 · answered by labdoctor 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
None of them. They are all unqualified. I would not want any democrat of the bunch in the White House.
2007-07-27 18:33:08 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋