Best of Three

Okay, people, so the primaries are almost up, but the DNC is not until September, so we have some time.

So, who is the best of the three?
Obama, Clinton, or McCain?

I have chosen Obama so far, I won't give my reasonings for though. Of course, I would have chosen other than these top three, but this is all we have to deal with.

So, if you have to vote today, will all three on the ballet, who would it before and why. (assuming that you vote). I don't mind people critizing me, I like playing devils adcocate too

So, Who?

I will vote for Obama, but do not call me a obamamanic, since I am not going crazy for him, thank God! Hmmm, I would point to the others going crazy for him and still not knowing his good points.

I would definitely vote for McCain and i wont post my reasons again.Obama wants to pull out iraq which makes no sense since he would leaving that place in sorta like civil war and genocide.Hes to weak on foreign,national security,and nuclear issues.

McCain. I'm not going to get into a long laundry list since no one else is, but I agree with him on about 75-80% of the issues across the board from social, economic to national security issues. The other two simply are not competitive for my vote, though I would vote for Hillary before Obama if I had to.

Fred Thompson was probably the closest to my overall views this time around, but while I feel he would have been a very good president, he was a poor candidate and was unable to articulate his positions with the energy necessary to actually win an election.

Yes, I do not think that no one can ever agree completly with a canidate, only if they are sheep. I agree on McCain on some topics, but for one:
1. He is too old, he could easily have a heart attack and be replaced by someone we don't want

2. He doesn't have a good grasp on the economy

And I explained in another thread why I don't want Clinton, because of her husband being president.

reply to post by peacemaker33


He might not make it through, but IMO, he appears to be in reasonably good health for his age and all that he's been through. Mentally, he still seems sharp. Obviously, his VP choice will take on a greater importance than it will for most candidates. I'd also argue that while McCain's age and history make him more vulnerable to serious illness than the others, those two are certainly old enough to be at significant risk from many of the same illnesses as McCain.

While he's admitted some shortcomings in economic understanding, his stated policies are generally correct in my opinion and I believe would be beneficial if carried out fully. Now whether he actually understands them or is just repeating what an advisor has told him, I don't know. In fairness, however, no president can be an expert in all policy matters and I expect some areas of relative weakness, although in these times, admittedly, that's not the best weakness to have. Interestingly, McCain's two economic advisors have polar opposite views of economic policy. That's either a good mixture of views, or its a recipe for conflicting policy.

You know, its funny that you mention Hillary. There's a McCain faction and an Obama faction on these boards. Where are the Hillary supporters? I'm sure they're out there, but I don't think I've seen a single one on ATS.

I can't stand McCain, and I like Obama.

That said, I would vote for McCain for four main reasons above all others.

1. The first is to keep the health care system from being sucked into the Federal government. That would be an unmitigated disaster, in my opinion.

2. The second is the Iraq war and foreign policy. Obama comes across as way to wimpy, naive, and accommodating. It's because he IS a nice guy and cares about people liking him that makes me believe he is too naive to realize that the leaders of other countries have a live and let die attitude. Obama would bail on Iraq, which would allow Iran to become the dominant influence in the M.E.

3. The third reason is because with a Republican POTUS and Democratic Congress, whatever is accomplished may be some middle ground.

4. The fourth reason is because I would rather have middle of the road Supreme Court justices instead of ultra-liberal justices that Obama would probably pick.

Originally posted by jamie83


2. The second is the Iraq war and foreign policy. Obama comes across as way to wimpy, naive, and accommodating. It's because he IS a nice guy and cares about people liking him that makes me believe he is too naive to realize that the leaders of other countries have a live and let die attitude. Obama would bail on Iraq, which would allow Iran to become the dominant influence in the M.E.

4. The fourth reason is because I would rather have middle of the road Supreme Court justices instead of ultra-liberal justices that Obama would probably pick.

I like these points. It is very true that Obama would probally pick very liberal justices... Uh-Oh, not good. Hopefully instinct would tell him to take Iraq slowly. I have foreseen this problem with Iraq from the begining. I think Obama would take the correct course and leave our troops in a little longer.

As always, the Democratx Obama comes across with strong Domestic issues, but he needs to brush up alot with his foreign policy.

I believe all three canidates could lead this country, but in what direction?

Originally posted by peacemaker33
As always, the Democratx Obama comes across with strong Domestic issues, but he needs to brush up alot with his foreign policy.

I believe all three canidates could lead this country, but in what direction?

This is one election where I wish the system was totally different. I would rather see some combination of ALL THREE running the country than any one of them.

I think the worst scenario is an Obama/Hillary ticket. She would emasculate any sense of leadership Obama might try to display, and Obama wouldn't have the backbone to reel her in. God help us if he's the POTUS and puts her in charge of health care. It would be deja vu, 1992 all over again except this time they would have a chance to push it though.

Honestly, I think it would be cool if McCain would pick Hillary as VP. They would win 45 - 50 states. Only problem is McCain is 72 and we would have Hill and Bill back running things, which in retrospect, wasn't all that bad.

For me it really depends on the VP selection. I have issues with all three of the potential candidates.

McCain - He has lost some of my respect with his tactics throughout the past year. For the most part, I know where he stands and what to expect from him. The age thing doesn't bother me at all. If I had to pick from the three today, I'd be selecting McCain.

Clinton - Sorry, but a Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton succession of presidencies just rubs me the wrong way. Two families controlling the executive branch is just not right. Who's next in line, Jeb and then Chelsea?

Obama - I admit he is very eloquent and can speak well. However, I have been waiting for him to provide some substance to his words. Sure, people want change, but c'mon, can you please be a bit more specific and give some meat to supplement the hot air circulating on the plate of fanciful dreams.

I'm neither a republican nor a democrat. I believe in choosing the person who I think will be best for the position. I'll wait to see who the VP selections are before I make any firm decisions.

Honestly, I think it would be cool if McCain would pick Hillary as VP. They would win 45 - 50 states. Only problem is McCain is 72 and we would have Hill and Bill back running things, which in retrospect, wasn't all that bad.

Yes, the good old days of the 90's. Bill ran things better, but we have yet to have seen a 'good' president. They all have their different agendas, so that means, we have one giant, jumbled agenda that doesn't meet up. You have to finish something in 4-8years.

Hilliary/Bill combo wouldn't be the worst, but my reasons about not having her in office are good:

If Hilliary got elected/re-elected, we would seem to have in the past 22 years a political dynasty. We would have the Father/Son Bush combo and the Hilliary/Bill combo runing half. It would basicaly having 4 people control politics for a quarter of a century. But what I'm thinking is: In 5 years, would you want the same combo, or someone else controling the political hemishpere?