Nonpartisan Voters Only Please. (4 Viewers)

[BullDawg]

Hillary Clinton (1) - No way, no how
John Edwards (5) - Typical politician
Rudy Guiliani (3) - Typical politician with the 9-11 twist.
Mike Huckabee (4) - They don't call him the Huckster for nothing.
John McCain (8) - Not a chicken hawk.
Barack Obama (7) - I disagree with him on many things, but he does seem sincere.
Ron Paul (?) - While certainly the most "libertarian" of the bunch, I won't ever knowingly vote for a racist pig...if indeed he is one...which is sadly looking more and more likely.
Bill Richardson (9) - Probably the best qualified for the job IMO.
Mitt Romney (2) - Fake
Fred Thompson (6) - Not impressed.

 

[Mamba]

John McCain (8)
Mike Huckabee (7)
Barack Obama (7)
Rudy Guiliani (7)
John Edwards (4)
Fred Thompson (4)
Ron Paul (4)
Mitt Romney (3)
Bill Richardson (2)
Hillary Clinton (1)

 

[St. Widge]

I'm very confused by the people who bash Edwards for being a populist, but rank Obama at the top. Is it just a cult of personality thing? If anything, Obama is as much or more populist than Edwards.

 

[SaintsFan11]

And regarding ambition, Obama supposedly had a US Supreme Court clerkship if he had wanted it and chose something else. Can anyone guess how many times Hillary, for a Supreme Court clerkship in the 1970's, would have stabbed Bill with a long and sharp blade-- in the back, hoping for contact with a vital organ?

Not to mention that the guy was/is working on a peace deal in Kenya during the most heated cycle of his Presidential campaign. It's really quite remarkable. And he didn't announce it in a speech and then talk about it for days like Edwards did when he called Musharraf.

 

[DMaestro]

I'm very confused by the people who bash Edwards for being a populist, but rank Obama at the top. Is it just a cult of personality thing? If anything, Obama is as much or more populist than Edwards.

No no, you see, Edwards is a "fighter" and he believes you have to "fight" for the middle class because we're in a "fight" and it's all very personal for him, he feels this in his gut, don't you see.......

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm very confused by the people who bash Edwards for being a populist, but rank Obama at the top. Is it just a cult of personality thing? If anything, Obama is as much or more populist than Edwards.

It's the divisiveness of the message. Obama's is one of inclusion while Edwards is the typical class warfare. It all centers around what many of us like about Obama, his positive view of issues. When he speaks on poverty for instance he talks of raising the lower people up not attacking the evil "rich".

Two men can present the same idea but the way they present it tells a lot about the man himself.

 

[Saint Mike]

I'm very confused by the people who bash Edwards for being a populist, but rank Obama at the top. Is it just a cult of personality thing? If anything, Obama is as much or more populist than Edwards.

I am also confused by the people who favorably rank Paul and Obama near one another. Other than opposition to the war, those two are polar opposites on seemingly every other issue.

 

[St. Widge]

No no, you see, Edwards is a "fighter" and he believes you have to "fight" for the middle class because we're in a "fight" and it's all very personal for him, he feels this in his gut, don't you see.......

The only real difference I see between the two is that Edwards wants to the the trial lawyers get a cut of the redistribution of wealth and Obama wants it done by the government alone. I'm really confused how peopel can have people like Paul and Obama right next to each other on their list. Am I missing something about Obama?

 

[gavinj]

Well, I'm a partisan Democrat who will refrain from listing my Democrats in order of preference due to the thread starter's request - however, I would not consider a John McCain presidency as a bad thing and if it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary - who knows, I just might change my mind (you know secretly, behind the closed curtain of the voting booth - hahaha).

 

[Saint Mike]

I'm really confused how peopel can have people like Paul and Obama right next to each other on their list. Am I missing something about Obama?

Jinx.

 

[St. Widge]

Jinx.

You have to buy me a Coke.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

The only real difference I see between the two is that Edwards wants to the the trial lawyers get a cut of the redistribution of wealth and Obama wants it done by the government alone. I'm really confused how peopel can have people like Paul and Obama right next to each other on their list. Am I missing something about Obama?

I think views like your comparison of Obama and Edwards comes from people not really understanding Obama's position on issues.

Obama favors a working class tax cut of $500 per person and $1000 per family. Edwards talks about the very general removal of the tax cuts for the "rich" without specifics on who the "rich" are.

Edwards wants to create a work "bond" basically giving a $500 handout to families in poverty as savings. He wants us to save money for them although in fairness his plan does make that available to people up to 75k in income. Obama has no such silly ideas. His plans are all based on giving tax savings to the working class and tax savings to corporations for keeping jobs in America, environmental efforts etc.

Edwards seeks to punish the wealthy and go after the evil corporations, Obama seeks to reward hard work among individuals and responsible business practices among corporations.

I could go on and on but I'm at work and don't have time. Read Obama's position papers then read Edwards and you will see the mountain of difference between the two.

 

[St. Widge]

It's the divisiveness of the message. Obama's is one of inclusion while Edwards is the typical class warfare. It all centers around what many of us like about Obama, his positive view of issues. When he speaks on poverty for instance he talks of raising the lower people up not attacking the evil "rich".

Two men can present the same idea but the way they present it tells a lot about the man himself.

But, it's still the same idea and the same result in the end. They are both re-distributing wealth and growing the power of the Federal Government to do it. So, I could see someone saying I agree in principal with Edawards and Obama, but I don't like Edwards so I will vote for Obama, but I don't see how someone can agree with both Obama and Paul enough to think it's a close call between the two of them. Honestly, Obama is as close to be a socialist as any major candidate ever has been and Paul is a pure free market economy guy.

I mean, I think Obama is a cool guy, but I couldn't vote for him based on his theory of government which is almost the exact opposite of Paul.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

But, it's still the same idea and the same result in the end. So, I could see someone saying I agree in principal with Edawards and Obama, but I don't like Edwards so I will vote for Obama, but I don't see how someone can agree with both Obama and Paul enough to think it's a close call between the two of them. Honestly, Obama is as close to be a socialist as any major candidate ever has been and Paul is a pure free market economy guy.

I mean, I think Obama is a cool guy, but I couldn't vote for him based on his theory of government which is almost the exact opposite of Paul.

What policies would you call socialist of his?

(BTW, I agree on the Paul point but not the Edwards one. There are vast differences between Obama and Edwards both in message and policy).

 

[mister pc]

I am also confused by the people who favorably rank Paul and Obama near one another. Other than opposition to the war, those two are polar opposites on seemingly every other issue.

im one of those people so i'll respond. Obama and Paul are different in many ways. But both are anti-establishment candidates. Both seem to have clear conviction and direction, not employing typical partisan poltical tricks for their campaigns. In many ways I am partial to the libertarian view of not wanting the government interfering in my life. Paul exemplifies this which is Id vote for him. I dont agree with all his far out radical ideas, but I dont think he'd have the ability to get those ideas through congress either so Im not worried about it. Looking at Obama, he is not proposing social legislation that I am aware of, so in this respect he is similar to Paul. His health care plan is actually very reasonable, not requiring manditory health insurance like Edwards and Clinton (and Romney). I agree with his views on national security and think he would be a very diplomatic president. To answer your question, I like each candidate for different reasons but there is also some common ground that I like in both of them.