Inevitably, I would be happy with either. I prefer Obama though. I think Clinton would make a good president, but I think that she is too polarizing and this next administration NEEDS to be one that will try to unite (or at least bring closer together) the right and the left. Obama has a history of this and I definitely have an appreciation for that. I am satisfied on where they both stand on the issues, actually I think I like Edwards' platform the most, but I feel that he doesn't have the fence mending qualities that Obama possesses. I also really think Obama and his demeanor will serve us well in the global community to try to rebuild some of our credibility.
******************
I don't know what so many of your problems are. It's a completely legitimate question.
2007-11-15 05:07:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I'm from Arkansas, so no to Clinton and Huckabee. I liked Obama a lot because of the passion that he showed me when he announced that he is running for president, but that passion has subsided. I know this isn't answering your question, but check out Ron Paul. He has that same passion in every speech he makes. Don't just listen to the news and think that Ron Paul is a crazy man. There is a difference between crazy and passionate.
America is hated right now. The presidency has lost the world's respect and replaced it with fear. We are at a crossroads again and trying to decide left or right, but I ask you, why can't we make a U-turn? Left or right hasn't worked so well for a while. Let's quit trying to build up the world, and let's focus on building up America. Let's turn it into the place that Ronald Reagan told us it could be. Maybe Dr. Paul won't be able to do that because he will need the support of Congress, but he will try. He will remember what he told us and he will fight for it. People get in government and the power corrupts them. Dr. Paul is an exception to that rule. He loves his country and he loves the Constitution.
2007-11-15 05:11:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Porkchop Jones 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Barrack Obama. Hillary has already been in the White House.
2007-11-15 05:01:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Neil G 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
John Edwards
2007-11-15 05:15:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Neither they both feel like they have something
to proof. I don't think either would be a good
Presiden, maybe under different
circumstances either one would be perfect but
as this country has been through it's History
you can see Americans are not read for a
black man or a woman to much racism
everywhere you go. So even tho we would
need this change most american will not be
able to handle it.
2007-11-15 05:10:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Neither, in my opinion. I don't believe Hillary, although she has the experience, and I don't want to see a return of the politically correct era (or an intensification of the era already upon us).
And, frankly, I am sick and tired of anything Clinton or Bush.
Obama is interesting, to me, but he's too immature in his profession. I prefer someone who's more seasoned.
2007-11-15 05:08:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think a random poor person would be a much better canidate than any of these people. I think Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are just a bunch of suck ups like all the other presidents we've had.
2007-11-15 05:03:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
I'd have to say Hillary. I would like to see how a female would handle the world issues. Not like there not screwed up already.
2007-11-15 05:04:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by propertyofcorn 1
·
2⤊
2⤋
Hillary, why? we have never had a woman in the presidential office, what could go wronger than what it is now. Obama, he seems alright also, but needless to say he still a man the same as the rest we had before.
2007-11-15 05:03:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by mexican leona 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
Barrack who?
Hillary all the way!
2007-11-15 05:02:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by AdamKadmon 7
·
1⤊
3⤋