2007-12-19 05:25:21 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I guess maybe Edwards although I admit I haven't studied any of them. Hillary isn't a good liar and she is sinister and Obama may be too inexperienced and may be a good liar.
2007-12-19 05:43:36 · update #1
They all have their drawbacks.
Hilary wants the government to fix everything.
Obama wants the government to fix everything but lacks the experience to know what fights he can or can not win on the hill.
Edwards would spell a Wall Street melt down. His trial lawyer mentality is bad news for American corporations.
Of the "big three" I would pick Obama because his in experience would inevitably lead to missteps which would allow the Republicans to gain some ground. Hillary's machine would hit the ground running. They will know how to move in the evil abyss that is Washington and will likely achieve more of the quasi socialist reforms I am against.
I do not think that any of them will have much impact internationally. Most of what will happen in that arena is telegraphed for the next few years. Some may claim that Hilary has an edge because of Bill, but realistically much of what he tried to accomplish internationally has fallen apart. No matter who the President is there will be turmoil in the Mideast and North Korea will go back on its word.
All of that being said I do not think Hilary or Obama will play well across the country. The Republicans aren't offering much either, but then again that is more or less how we wound up with Bush in the first place. As long as there are no third party candidates I would not bank on either of the two Democrat front runners carrying the fly over states.
2007-12-19 05:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a conservative, but since I'm not a democrat I suppose I can answer this question. I would seriously consider voting for Mike Gravel. Unfortunately he has even less chance than Ron Paul. In a realistic world I just want to see Hillary lose. I think she'd get smoked in a general election, but stranger things have happened. I think Obama is earnest, hard working, and about as honest as you can expect from a politician. I DO NOT agree with a lot of his policy stances. But I don't think he'd take a blowtorch to the foundations of our republic. So ideally Gravel, in reality Obama.
2007-12-19 13:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obama, he seems different, his naivety might lead to different directions than the norm. He's also not afraid to try new ideas with foreign policy. His health care reform plans are more reasonable too, but I'm not a fan of them.
2007-12-19 13:58:01 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Biden
2007-12-19 13:29:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Richardson.
2007-12-19 13:37:25 · answer #5 · answered by mbush40 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Biden or Obama
2007-12-19 13:31:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It seems as though Biden talks out of his *** the least, but maybe that's just a lack of media coverage.
2007-12-19 13:29:23 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hillary, I hate to admit it, but I feel she would do the least damage to the Country, at least out of the 3 frontrunners.
2007-12-19 13:33:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I'm not a big fan, but I find Richardson the least objectionable.
2007-12-19 13:32:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm going to add this to my private watch list and give you a star because I'm interested to see who some choose!
2007-12-19 13:29:02 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋