Instead of picking a single candidate (for Pres.) how would your list rank - top 5?

[The Straight Story]

I try to stay out of most of those threads for now (ie, ones dealing with candidates) and I don't have any one favorite as of yet. But I will try to toss out thoughts on them as I have seen them here and there.

I will also add my own two cents, not that my opinion is worth much to others but it is only fair since I started the thread to add my own.

I DON'T have a ranking myself as of yet (kind of why I was asking for yours), so I will choose a random order for discussion:

(based on popular choices I have seen here)

****PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying my pros/cons are right, or 'my take' is - This is your chance to educate myself and others, flame free I hope, as to what you see as the +/- for your candidate. I did not list all of them here, feel free to add. My intention below is not to offend, just parroting in some cases what I have seen/heard about folks.

Barrack Obama:
Pros: Charismatic, good speaker, has momentum, seen as a uniter (see con below)

Cons: Not enough experience, feel he is being 'forced' on us, a uniter - which means he may compromise too much for some folk, swing voters may not vote for a black man (ugly yes, but I have heard folks say things like 'if he were white, he would win' - not here at DU, but folks I know).

My take: A good chance at winning. His pros give him an edge, and is a fresh face and not seen as your typical long time in-the-belt kind of person. Fresh, funny, and seems down to earth. The BEST person for the actual job? Probably not - but he is electable and is in the right party.

Hillary Clinton:
Pros: Tons of experience, from being first lady to her current position. She knows how to play the game and has enough reach within the party to get a lot of key players behind her.

Cons: Name for one, people grow weary of bush/clinton being around since 1980. She comes off as arrogant to some, too moderate to others, and as a corporate shill.

My Take: She has a perception problem at large with people, but I believe she could make a fine President. I think her odds of winning are close to those of Obama's but swing voters I think would not go with her as much as she would need.

Dennis Kucinich:
Pro: the guy is really really liberal
Con: the guy is really really liberal

My Take: People seem to like change in slow measured doses. He would clean house and fix it quick. He probably couldn't win if he ran against his clone - and that is damned sad. I DO think he should be chosen as a VP though, and get his foot in the door. This guy scares people, and they are not ready for him. I am though.

General Wesley Clark:
Pros: Experience in a lot of areas, Military guy, Charisma
Cons: Some say too moderate, old school and not true liberal, and some don't like military people as president.

My Take: He can suck in votes from both sides by playing it well, he is like the white version of Obama - one where the racist pigs who would vote on color could vote dem without having their little buddies make fun of em (these are the same racist pigs who would vote for a black football player, go figure). It's damned sad it is like that in this country, but the facts are in 2006 racism/sexism is still rampant. Clark is not too liberal, is not a woman, and is not black. And the good old boy network in DC will probably make note of that as they back candidates (the ones who call themselves dems but aren't in my book).

John Kerry:
Pros: He won last time, at least an ass load of votes (more than others), and has a lot of govermental experience. Been to war, fought against it.
Cons: See last election. People either love him or hate him.

My Take: I think people are looking for new blood, new choices for the pilot seat. His heart is in the right place, but I don't see anything about him that really excites me like Obama, Clinton, and Clark do.

John Edwards:
Pros: A good communicator, seems genuine, charismatic.
Cons: Some say he is too moderate, outside of that have not seen a lot on him to fill this in (help me out here)

My Take: I think Obama and Edwards together, or one of them and Clark would ring some bells.

Al gore - Listing him differently. I think he DID win and should have a shot, and has my vote. He does not seem to be in the running, but if you want to fill in the blanks on him I am missing feel free.

[Phredicles]

1. In order: Gore, Feingold, Obama, Kucinich, and, ummm, Boxer:

To fill out a list of five I had to include people who said they weren't running or never said anything one way or another.

[monmouth]

2. I really enjoyed your "Takes" and agree with much of what you are

thinking. You also injected some things I had not taken into consideration before, so you're right. We all learn from this. I've always lived on the east coast - Kucinich would never even get on my radar screen.

Obama, I don't think, would be interested in VP. He should be, it would be a safe entree for him.

I like John Edwards very much and his wife is his biggest asset. He is not an empty suit but was always w/Kerry, so like you I haven't seen a lot on him.

Clark and Kerry are not on my radar and Hillary, for me, just wouldn't cut it. Brilliant, knowledgeable about the game, yes. Winner? Don't think so. I do like Gore, he's not thrilling me yet, but I like him. Hope that helps.

[Karenca]

3. 1. GORE

2. EDWARDS
2. CLARK
4. OBAMA
5. CLINTON

[amitten]

4. 1 through 5: Gore. n/t

[MH1]

5. Kerry. No 2-5 unless he doesn't run. n/t

[Nicole]

6. Clark

Edwards
Obama
Feingold
Gore

Kucinich does't interest me at all, Clinton & Kerry slightly above him.

[Comicstripper]

7. In order:

1) Barack Obama
PROS: Inspirational, articulate and intelligent. Charismatic and thoughtful. Very fair-minded. Competent. Progressive.
CONS: Only a lack of executive experience.

2) John Edwards (TIE)
PROS: Cares about poverty. Charismatic and handsome (it matters). Nearly elected VP, shows people trust him. Appeals to moderates. Intelligent.
CONS: Out of work. Only one term.
AND
2)Bill Richardson (TIE)
PROS: Governor. Mid-Western state. Hispanic. Excellent experience, including on NORTH KOREA. Brainy.
CONS: A bit bloated. And I doubt his integrity at times.

3)Wes Clark
PROS: STELLAR bio. Military man. Intelligent, charming, handsome (it matters). Appeals to moderates.
CONS: No governing experience (in the traditional sense of elected office). Considered something of a 'lightweight.'

4)Hillary Clinton
PROS: Intelligent. Ambitious. I think she has a really inspiring bio. Determined, knows politics.
CON: Hillary Clinton.

5)Tom Vilsack
PROS: Governor. Nice guy. Decent record. Good state.
CONS: A bit bland.

I'm not sure where Gore would fit in there. Probably a tie with Edwards and Richardson for #2. Bayh would have been #4. Kucinich doesn't make it because, much as I love him, he'd be a hideous candidate. Even I get annoyed by him. I rank Dodd above Biden, and Kerry below both (and, truly, I really love John Kerry).

If you're curious about the GOP, my order (assuming I'm going by how much I actually like them rather than if I were trying to sabotage them):

1)Chuck Hagel
2)Mike Huckabee
3)Rudy Giuliani
4)Mitt Romney
5)Newt Gingrich

[rebel with a cause]

8. In no certain order:

Clark, Obama, Gore, Clinton, and George Clooney. Just joking about George, but couldn't come up with a fifth right now. I like Kucinich, I am as liberal as he is, just not a vegetarian and a couple of other things he is, but I just don't see him as president. If he was running in the election against a repug, I would of course vote for him, but probably not in the primary.

I think Kerry's time is past and I have never liked Edwards. I know a lot of you guys love him, but something about him just doesn't sit right with me. I use to think it was past Core's time also, but with his movie and other activities, he might be a good candidate. Unfortunately, the repugs would have a field day with this all again. Hopefully if he did run, he would pick a better vp than he did last time. But then lie-man will probably be on the repug ticket. :shrug:

[Mich Otter]

9. Some thoughts about the candidates...

There are so many good candidates the Democrats have, but it seems like each has a negative impression to go with their positives. This is all just some of my opinions and concerns.
Hillary Clinton is easily the most qualified person in America for the job, but she comes with a ton of baggage and her views are too Right-wing for me and a lot of Democrats.
Barrack Obama worries me that he might become too wrapped up in trying to do everything in such an ideal way that he gets nothing done. I think Jimmy Carter had that kind of image. I have every confidence that Obama would do his best to do the most good for Americans and the other people of the World, I just worry he would be a perfectionist in a time we have to move quickly and wisely.
John Kerry also, I believe, would be one who would try to find a perfect solution to every crisis. It will be nice to get whoever we get because of the increase of intelligence that is sure to come after having Bush in there. I just worry about a 'cerebral" president who gets bogged down at critical times with details. Does anyone else feel Kerry might be that way?
John Edwards is a favorite of mine. I think he needs to get a lot of fire in his belly to take the Republicans head-on. I honestly feel he has the least amount of negatives of any potential Democrat. He would be outstanding as Attorney General.
Dennis Kucinich is my other favorite of likely candidates. Everything he says resonates with me. (I do have a concern about the "Department of Peace" being warped into something akin an Orwellian organization which does just the opposite of what the title says.) I just don't see Dennis as a leader other than as someone to bring great ideas to the table.
Evan Bayh was going nowhere as a moderate Democrat running for president. How did he think he could pull any Moderate leaning donations from Hillary?
Wesley Clark would make the best Secretary of State we could have. He would also be an great as either president or VP. I think he is like Edwards in needing to get a fire burning in his belly to hammer any Republican who pulls the typical Republican BS in a campaign. I have some concern, Clark may be too nice a guy to excite America.
Al Gore is as quailfied as Hillary Clinton is. And his push to work towards improving the environment gives him an extra perk, the Greens would not run any candidate against Gore, in my opinion. Either Gore or Robert Kennedy Jr. would be great as the head of the EPA if Gore doesn't run for president.
Any other candidates are just wishful thinking. One of the above mentioned people will be the Democratic candidate. I would like to see the field narrow very quickly so we have a choice between Hillary and only one other Democrat. If there are two or more candidates in the primaries against Hillary, I belive she would be unstoppable. She is well quailifed, I just would prefer someone other than her win for the Democrats.

[rebel with a cause]

10. I think you may have the wrong worry about Obama

He is a thinker, but more like Bill Clinton and not much like Kerry. He is quick on his feet and more realistic about things than most people think. I like Obama, but what I see wrong with him are different than what you mentioned. I don't want to say too much, because I posted things in 2004 that ended up in the repug attacks. Not going to do that again. Trying to be positive and vague when I am not.

:hide:

[Tennessee Gal]

11. Gore, Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Obama

Gore for President

with either Clark, Edwards, Feingold, or Obama as Vice-President

[oasis]

12. Hillary, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Obama.

[bklyncowgirl]

13. My choices--in order of preference

1. Gore: Experience, experience, experience. This country is a mess and of all of the candidates, Gore is the guy who knows the arcane workings of Washington the best. He's also added experience in the private sector to his resume and has proven himself an able and likable communicator with "An Inconvenient Truth". He was right on the war from the getgo and has a firm grasp on foreign policy. Negatives: Some of the conceptions about him from the 2000 campaign still resonate with the general public. If he reverts to his wooden speaking style and overly cautions demeanor of the 2000 campeign he's in trouble and of course he was badly burned in 2000 and may choose now to run.

2. Clark: I got your foreign policy and military expertise right here. The man knows how to run a war and deal with sticky international situations. Good speaker, highly intelligent and charismatic. Strongly counseled against the Iraq war. Question is can he run a campaign? His "04" experience doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in the non-Clarke base but with better planning he could pull this perception around. Negatives: I don't have a problem with a progressive military guy becoming president but a guy with that much military experience has to have plenty of people who hate his guts "Balkan Conflict Veterans For Truth" or something similar will emerge if he wins the nomination.

3. Obama: Charismatic, a natural talent with the ability to reach out and bring people not seen since Bill Clinton. Highly intelligent and articulate. Candidacy would be historic. He was right on the war from the getgo. May be too moderate to appeal to some primary voters but too liberal to appeal to some swing voters. Negatives: Green, Green, Green and of course the big question, will swing voters vote for a black guy.

4. Edwards: Handsome, smart, outgoing and articulate. Everybody loves Elizabeth. Voted for the IWR but has since recanted his vote. Strong populist message and blue collar origins and he's from the South. Negatives: Green, Green, Green and perception has not changed since 2004. Also, his looks, the guy is just too damn good looking and looks far younger than his 50 some odd years. C'mon John, get a few wrinkles and a little grey in that hair and maybe you'll stop reminding people of Opie.

5. Kucinich: Good speaker, highly intelligent and the most consistent liberal in the race. Was right on Iraq. Negatives: The most consistent liberal in the race. The worst problem is his appearance: short and well, let's put it charitably--he ain't willing People magazines sexiest man of the year any time soon.

6. Richardson: Strong resume with both national and state executive experience. Hispanic ancestry but with an anglo name. Negatives: Aside from that I frankly don't know much about the guy. I couldn't even tell you what his position on the Iraq war is or was. (Note to self: time to hit the Google) Then there's that baseball thing, exaggerating your resume on something that the average non-political American can understand and cares about is not a good thing.

7. Biden: Strong foreign policy background, smart. Negatives: Suffers from overexposure--they should rename 60 Meet the Press the Joe Biden show. Long Senate career with a long number of questionable votes. Then there's that plagiarism thing.

8. Clinton: Smart, articulate, good speaker has been a surprisingly good Senator. Would bring in the Clinton team and that's looking pretty good in comparison with what we have--and then there's Bill. Negatives: Divisive. Lots of people--including Democrats--dislike her intensely. Seen as overly calculating. I'm not convinced of her political skills when operating without Bill--her strikes at Howard Dean were pretty clumsy. Then there's Bill--all it would take would be one ill timed rendezvous with some babe and it's all over but the shouting.