Do You Favor Any of the '08 "Big Six?"

[DinoDoc]

What differentiates him from Edwards in your mind? Or is this just a matter of the style of empty suit you like?

[C0ckney]

if i was a yank, i'd vote for ron paul.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Will9
Am I the only here that likes Huckabee?

If I were a conservative Republican, I'd like him. He seems like a smart, straight-forward kind of guy. It's just his politics I don't like.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by C0ckney
if i was a yank, i'd vote for ron paul.

I don't know much about this guy, but he seems to stand out from the crowd.

[Alexander I]

Do you guys think Ron Paul has what it takes to beat out the big names in terms of recognition and funding though?

[SlowwHand]

I honestly don't know much about Huckabee. In a brief search, it looks like I might like to know more.
I like to know all my options on things.

[Jaguar]

Giuliani, Obama, and McCain are probably the best three, but it's a fairly crappy field. Better than 2004, though.

Guiliani has that sensible mix of center-left on social issues, center-right on fiscal issues. The wildcard is what he does with foreign policy. I'm not sure he won't go do something GWB-like.

Obama is like John Edwards, except more intelligent. Both of them have charisma, although I think it's overstated for both of them, especially Edwards. They're style-over-substance sorts who are willing to appeal to people's irrational side through rhetoric. He'll still engage in the typical "foreigners are stealing our jobs" or "oil companies are stealing our money" claptrap, but I don't think he really believes it. Basically, I think Obama derives his positions a little bit more from consensus than most of his rivals. That's a good thing in many respects, and I think he'd be a well-liked moderate in office. But it does mean he'll occasionally do the whole populist rhetoric shtick that I find so off-putting.

McCain, I think, would have been a much better candidate eight years ago. (Similar to Nixon, really, who would have been much better in 1960 than in 1968.) McCain was easily my favorite candidate in 2000, but now, I think he's too old for the job, and I think he's also become a bit too disingenuous and two-faced of late. His response to that "do you believe in evolution" question pretty much sums it up.

As for the other three, Romney and Clinton are very two-faced as well, but they haven't ever really been on my good side to begin with, so they don't get as much leeway as McCain. Both know how to play moderate, but I don't trust either one on anything because they're chronic position-switchers. (Romney on abortion and Clinton on foreign policy, for example.)

Edwards, as I've said before, is an idiot.

The problem with the Dem nominees is that the ones I like best have withdrawn from the race. I'd take Bayh or Warner over any of these guys in a heartbeat.

How I'd rank them at the moment:
Obama (D)
Giuliani (R)
McCain (R)
Clinton (D)
Romney (R)
Edwards (D)

Giuliani could take Obama's place at the top, and I could be persuaded to take Romney over Clinton, but that's roughly where I am at the moment.

[Jaguar]

Oh, I should add Vilsack to the list of good Dems no longer running. Richardson, if he gets some more exposure, could be near the top of the list, but I don't think he has much of a shot.

[Alexander I]

It's a shame, really. It seems the people most qualified for the job are seldom the ones with much of a chance to get said job.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Better than 2004, though.

This provokes some thought.

Agreed 2004 was some of the worst drek EVAR...

2000 - W v. Gore Just slightly better than 2004 but still far behind the 2008 field

1996 - Dole v. Clinton - Pretty poor choices. Clinton the obvious choice is offset by the lack of a second choice still puts it behind the 2008 field.

1992 - Bush Sr. v. Clinton - Probably the best set of choices that rivals and beats the 2008 field.


So tale of the tape says that one needs to go all the way back to 1992 to find a comparable set of candidates from both parties (or at least both parties being ably represented)

[Arrian]

Don't forget Perot!

I liked his pie charts

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Oh, I should add Vilsack to the list of good Dems no longer running. Richardson, if he gets some more exposure, could be near the top of the list, but I don't think he has much of a shot.

Vilsacks endorsed Hillary, IIUC.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander I
It's a shame, really. It seems the people most qualified for the job are seldom the ones with much of a chance to get said job.

feh. If Vilsack and Bayh were running, and Clinton, Obama, etc were not, folks would be going on about what a lousy field it is, and how great Clinton or Obamaw would be. This whining happens every four years. The grass is always greener on the other side.

[Arrian]

It's true. Candidates tend to look pretty good until the full scrutiny of the media is directed at them. Then all sorts of blemishes come out.

The field DOES suck, though, LotM.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I was pretty much saying the field sucked in 2004 from the get go.

Dems were especially weak with their myriad of nobodies. Not a one of them a star. GOP was a known suckiness.

In 2000 there was a glimmer of hope as long as McCain was in the running.