The Republicans look pretty evenly split between Rudy and Mitt at this point.
Hillary leads the Dems but there is her conservative tendencies on foreign policy.
Ron Paul is a strongly anti-war Republican but is considered unwinnible on other issues.
Is this all we can come up with?
WHO is the lesser evil here?
2007-11-09 09:06:47 · 5 answers · asked by Zinger! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The omnipresent "They" have decided these are our choices. I prefer Edwards 1st, Obama 2nd, and Clinton 3rd. Clinton is too conservative. The Repubs and conservatives scream about her, but she has caved on just about all of their key issues. You would think the talk-bots would start to warm up to her.
2007-11-09 09:15:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The election is still a long way off. It's way too early for a popular front-runner. Most candidates are concentrating on individual state primaries and are not politicking the country as a whole.
After the Iowa caucuses, a more national campaigning will emerge, and people will start lining up behind favorites.
2007-11-09 09:29:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because everyone wants a different change - so no well defined direction to "lead" people (or jump out in front of.) This election has started rediculously early and is going on way too long.
2007-11-09 09:12:54 · answer #3 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't need a lesser evil. Ron Paul is no-evil.
2007-11-09 09:09:51 · answer #4 · answered by benni 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The media don't want change
2007-11-09 09:10:56 · answer #5 · answered by . 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋