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?