Hillary: 856,944
McCain: 693,425
Romney: 598,152
Obama: 568,930

'But when I look at who knows how to push and pull the levers of government and who knows how to use every power at his/her disposal to accomplish the end results, Clinton becomes my favorite.'

But neither she nor Bill could do exactly that when IN power. I mean, 8 years of pissing away opportunities, and Hillary has proven she will NOT stand up on principle.

'She knows how to start undoing the beaurocratic lock the right has put on government. She would have acted to stop the genocide in Rawanda which her husband, to his eternal regret, failed to do. She would not have instigated the Iraq war and she would be much smarter about the war on terrorism and dealing with the delicate time bomb which is Pakistan.'

And you're Nostradamus? Look at the Iraq War vote. She clearly did not have a clue then, and that's strategically more imp. than Rwanda. Where do you get such conf she'd give a rat's ass? She has a long history of failure and inaction when it really counted. Obama does not.

'I will strongly support the Democratic nominee whomever it is, as it is imperative that we have a Democrat select the next Supreme Court justice. This, to me, is the bottom line this year.'

So, if a moderate like Bloomberg jumps in, you would not even consider it, with an electorate that cannot stand Hillary and is sick of the war McCain loves? It's such reductive dualism that gets people and nations into trouble in the first place.

Likability? How can it not enter into the equation? We are human after all. Obama is an enormously likable guy and very charismatic. Clinton also has these qualities, albeit in lesser amounts. But when I look at who knows how to push and pull the levers of government and who knows how to use every power at his/her disposal to accomplish the end results, Clinton becomes my favorite. She has been there before. She knows what to do. She knows what mistakes were made by her husband and how to avoid them. She knows how to start undoing the beaurocratic lock the right has put on government. She would have acted to stop the genocide in Rawanda which her husband, to his eternal regret, failed to do. She would not have instigated the Iraq war and she would be much smarter about the war on terrorism and dealing with the delicate time bomb which is Pakistan.

That being said, this is, or should be, a friendly dispute. I will strongly support the Democratic nominee whomever it is, as it is imperative that we have a Democrat select the next Supreme Court justice. This, to me, is the bottom line this year.

And I repeat, do you really think Hillary is more qualified than Feinstein via experience or temperament?

I don't like Dianne Feinstein either.

Well, no.

I actually like Hillary as a person. When she first came onto the stage I thought that she was the sort of woman most men cd go for- bright, articulate, and passionate. But, that was an illusion. I don't dislike her. My like nor dislike of her has nada to do w her Prez qualifications. I like John McCain, as well, but he'd be a bad Prez.

I even like Mike Huckabee, but same as Hill and Mac. Romney- he's a pustule.

The real question is why voters let likability determine their feelings for a job where that quality is of little value. By most accounts, Harry Truman was a miserable little SOB, but he was competent. Nixon was a miserable SOB, but a bad Prez.

Poor track record in standing up for things on principle. I named 2. Again, take away Clinton from he rname, and does she have anywhere near the track record as a legislator or leader (for good or ill) as Feinsten? Be honest now.

Methinks it's your LIKE which is muddying things, and that's your privilege, but if Hillary cannot even stand behind her decisions in the Senate, can she do so as Prez? I doubt it.

That has nothing to do with her likability, but her track record.

Poor track record in the sentence? What does that even mean? Poor in what respect? Poor based on whose agenda or wishes?

I realize the drawbacks of Hillary but my only question is which candidate would be the best candidate to succeed George W. Bush. I like Obama, but would favor saving him for later. The next presidency will be a nasty and hard slog.

I am neither of those things (a fundie or a member of the ACLU), but the idea of a Clinton presidency fills me with dread. She has never (in my opinion) sufficiently explained why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill. She has never apologized for voting to go to war in Iraq. Until very recently, she didn't support a full withdrawl of combat troops from Iraq. She wants us to consider her the experienced candidate, yet she has not released her records from her tenure as First Lady. Her idea of universal healthcare looks a lot like mandatory health insurance that doesn't fully address the needs of the poor, though it will likely benefit insurance companies who (coincidentally?) are among her largest campaign contributors. And she is reviled by so many people that I have serious doubts about her ability to effectively lead.