Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?
 

In my mind, there are three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination. Clinton and Obama have the money and the machine but Edwards seems to have grassroots support (and I believe he may have won the Iowa poll).

If you had to vote tomorrow, who would you select?

I am still very undecided.

I'd vote for Bill Richardson, since if I had to vote tomorrow it'd be the primary and he'd still be on the ballot.

I'm sure Brother Richardson (he's a Delt) would appreciate that.

Given the three options in the thread, I would vote for Obama if the election were tomorrow.

But it isn't.

And it's way to early for this campaign to be this far along.

A lot could change in a year.

Including my mind.

I think Obama is the only one who can actually beat Clinton.

yeah, i think so too, which is sad, because her campaign seems to be based on the deception of experience.

Other than being Senator, what experience does she have? Being first lady? Does her husbands efforts count as her own?

Looking ahead to the election (it's out there somewhere in the distant future), I would love to have the opportunity to vote for someone I believe in and trust instead of what I feel to be the lesser of two evils.

At this point, I agree. I hope he's around still for the CA ballot. He hadn't crossed my radar until the last televised debate, and was impressed.

Clinton: Rove didn't invent her negative numbers. You can try to kill the messenger, that does not mean the message will go away. And I think I am Clinton-ed out.

Obama: Some interesting ideas, and yes, nice to see a new face, but the country has seen what happens when foreign policy experience comes from on the job training.

Edwards: Was pulling for him, until the $400 haircut, well actually trying to explain it. A candidate today must know the petty details, because the media sure does. And his involvement with hedge funds, sticky. He may still be able to get up steam, again.

You mean like Reagan?

What does Edwards know about foreign policy that Obama does not?

What's wrong with a $400 haircut? Edwards is a bazillionaire. You should be happy that he shares some of that wealth with a middle class hair stylist. Or would you rather he be a stingy bazillionaire? If Edwards wants to spend money to ensure that his look is correct, I think that's great. One does not simply roll out of bed looking presidential.

speaking of foreign policy
 

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

Because if the female can do 100X better job at DOMESTIC politics than the man running against her, I don't think we should let another country's view of what's "proper" dictate our country.

#1 Priority should be taking care of THIS country.

I agree about domestic policy - but keeping this country safe from terrorists is a huge priority, too.

FYI, I have nothing against having a woman run for president, as I have voted for a woman running for president in the past.

How nice if we could live in our own little bubble.

How nice if I tell you where to put that bubble.

Would you not vote for a President of ChiO because LXA would have a problem with it?

Is that LXA pursuing state supported terrorism and a nuclear weapons program?

No comment.

Hm, interesting post or not.

Maybe if you put ASA in I could comment more but I won't.:rolleyes:

Oh, you have no comment? Amazing!:eek:

I did a little Googling because I had never heard of this and was curious since I've seen Muslim classmates of mine shake hands with other women, and I don't think it's true they can't enter Paradise, but I do think it's a forbidden practice. Several articles also mentioned that Orthodox Jews have the same practice.

I wouldn't really consider this when I voted anyway - maybe Secretary Rice just doesn't shake hands when she meets Muslim men. A bow or head nod would probably suffice.

I was really torn about this, but the more I learn about him, the more I'm leaning toward Obama.

I don't know where this person got this info from, because there have been female Muslim leaders throughout history:

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm

I am debating between Obama and Clinton. I think Hillary is too much of a flip-flopper, though, and will do anything to please her audience. I really want Obama to get more experience in the Senate, though.

John Edwards (and his wife too!) is spending too much time lashing out at the other candidates. What is he bringing to the table?

I hate to mean, but that's another reason why the Demoncrats will not win the WH in 2008...

McCain vs Romney, hands down.

Do I support them? No, I donated money to Obama's campaign. I think he means well. But under pressure, what can he do?

Now, Michelle Obama has my vote anyday! That chick is tight! In fact she does wear Prada...

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Would perfer Obama to Clinton or Edwards. But I think it is much too soon for any of them to be too secure. First, the election campaigning began way too soon--the alleged frontrunners run the risk of becoming very stale. That is why I think there is more than enough time for someone else to take the ball and run.

He's in one of the US's international security programs, and has been there for several years/administrations. I would consider him an impeccable source.

Maybe they do simply nod or bow instead, I don't know. I did read it somewhere recently, but that source was much less "pure".

It probably is a difference between the sects. After all, some Muslim women simply cover their heads, others wear the veil, still others cover their entire body. I did find this passage which states that an engaged couple should not hold hands.

I will definitely ask my friend further questions, and continue to check the internet for further enlightenment on this.

I'm leaning toward Edwards of the three. I think it's time for some newer blood rather than have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton era. Hilary is polarizing. Obama is charming and well spoken and can impress a crowd, but he offers few details about how he will do all that he promises. That leaves Edwards, who I really have no complaints about at all.

So far, I like Hilary. I haven't really heard much from Obama and Edwards that is changing my mind.

Remember when you posted about "foreign policy" and "learning on the job" . . . and how a governor couldn't do it?

That's what I responded to - also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Reagan didn't see the poor and needy", and I suspect you really don't either.

Honestly, most of the front-line candidates lack experience in one major area or another - unless you can give me a valid reason why that experience is completely necessary (or even beneficial - "practice makes permanent" after all), it seems like nonsense to me.

There are some differences between sects, but there are more differences between cultures. The issue of women covering is moreso a difference in culture. There are rules between men and women that Americans are definitely not used to, but I always thought that we accommodated to other people's cultures anyway - like instead of a woman president shaking hands, she would just nod in acknowledgement.

Unmarried men and women are supposed to keep their distance from each other, but I was just questioning 'or they won't go to heaven' part. Things are interpreted differently depending on the part of the country/culture/sect/etc.

That part bothers me, too - it just seemed a bit "stiff" and I do of Muslim men who have been touched by a woman to whom they weren't married.

My friend is on vacation, so it will be at least a week until I find out his "why".

While I'm not a Democrat or fans of any of the aforementioned candidates, I must say throwing Edwards into the mix is a joke. I grew up in NC (24yrs) and just moved from there in May and what the rest of the country has yet to realize is that NC doesn't even like Edwards. He's a joke on so many levels. He has no shot, nor does he deserve one.

And while I hate to think of a Clinton administration, especially now that I'm living and working in DC, I think she's far superior to Edwards or Obama.

I would like to hear more specifics about Edwards. Can you give me any examples? (I prefer to make an informed choice and if the election stuff I hear is inaccurate, I'd like to know!)