Democratic candidates poll

[€uroMeinke]

So far I like Obama's voice best

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Betty

Well there you go. I'll subscribe to that newsletter and see what sticks.

I am not endorsing him - I do not know much about him. I was just trying to help answer the question.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

So far I like Obama's voice best

And that's all that really matters isn't it (well, that and looking good)?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And that's all that really matters isn't it (well, that and looking good)?

At this point - it is most important since my news is coming to me over the radio

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And that's all that really matters isn't it (well, that and looking good)?

Yep, and which is why Richardson can't get my vote. Sorry, too fugly.

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I am not endorsing him - I do not know much about him. I was just trying to help answer the question.

With all due respect, Kevy, linking to his propaganda does not help answer my question.

Can anybody tell me about him and where he stands, based on your own filtered swanky knowledge??

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And that's all that really matters isn't it (well, that and looking good)?

No, I think we're supposed to take into account whether we'd like to have a beer with him/her, aren't we?

Chris Matthews seems to rely on his sense of smell, but I've never been close enough to employ that method. Must just be a beltway thing.

[Alex]

I admit that photo of him isn't great, but in watching moving video of Bill Richardson I think he's reasonably attractive and certainly not ugly (watch the video on his home page; do you find him ugly in that)?

1. Richardson is a Clinton-democrat.

2. He has extensive executive experience. In addition to being governor he has held many executive branch positions including Secretary of Energy under Clinton. Also served in Congress for something like 8 terms so have legislative experience. Has good foreign relations experience as well having served as Ambassador to the United Nations. Frankly, he may be the most qualified candidate running for the office from either party.

3. He is pro-choice.

4. He is pro death penalty.

5. On gay issues he has a questionable past having voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but back in 1996 almost everybody voted for it and Clinton signed it. Since then he has come out pretty solidly on the side of gay rights (including expanded rights protections in NM while governor).

6. He opposes the war and supports a prompt pull out from Iraq.

7. He supported the "comprehensive" immigration plan that recently died in Congress, I believe. If not explicitly that bill he support simultaneously creating a path to citizenship for illegals already here and strong border security to keep out new illegal immigrants. Unlike many Democrats in Congress (and the president) he seems to actually want the border controls implemented though not a fence.


Those are the issues I can think of where I have a sense of his position. Mostly from watching an interview of him a few weeks ago. I can't say that I have a ton of exposure but he has been very popular in New Mexico where they presumably know him best and seems to have the most legitimate cross aisle admiration (unlike fake admiration where a R or D expresses a liking of a candidate knowing that the recipient could never win a nomination).

So with him it is more that I haven't heard anything yet that disqualified him in my eyes than that I have seen enough to be certain I support him.

I actually know more about him than Obama, and consider him certainly more qualified. But I find myself supporting Obama because of his charisma as well as a desire to see a clean cut with history in the White House.

How nice it would be to have a president with no sordid connections to past administrations where top positions have a chance of going to relatively new people with new ways of looking at things. As much as I disagreed with many of their policies I think these were among the good things about the Clinton and Carter administrations. Republican presidents, as you might expect from the "conservative" label, tend to have too much yearning for the comfort of past power and that is one reason I have little interest in Hilary Clinton this time around.

[wendybeth]

Thus far, I would vote for either Obama or Richardson. I'm leaning toward Obama just to get back at my redneck uncle who keeps sending me anti-Obama propaganda. The 'necks are real nervous about him, and that is a plus in my book.

[Capt Jack]

so, is the general consensus (here at least) that Hillary is wasting her time?

[wendybeth]

God, I hope so, Captain.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

With all due respect, Kevy, linking to his propaganda does not help answer my question.

Geez. I try to make a friendly gesture...

I know zero about Richardson. However, if I wanted to find out about a candidate I would START at that candidate's web site. Why? Because that is presumably where they will state their platform, their beliefs, and is a good starting point for their background. I don't take that published on one's site as gospel, but nor do I take it as complete lies and fabrications (although I concede it is entirely possible).

But to make a good evaluation of a candidate, I would also continue researching his/her voting record, news articles about said candidate (preferably about past actions before becoming a candidate), opposing views about them (that don't resort to mudslinging), etc. I learn as much, both good and bad, about said candidate and make my own decision based on the information learned.

While my link was to just ONE site, the candidates own site, it DOES help you learn who he is - it looks like Alex was able to find a tremendous amount of information about Richardson. I am sorry that I do not have the time to perform a complete profile on him for you.