Comparing Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Edwards: the best President on global warming?
Did you see Sunday's second Democratic presidential debate? I liked Edwards the best after it, because of his clear and early vocal opposition to the recent war funding bill. He also was, by far, the best listener. (Also, see this post.)
Before watching it, I had been favoring Clinton and Obama for President. Now I'm not so sure. I'm starting to like Edwards more and more.
Steve Kirsch, a philanthropist and entrepreneur here in San Jose, just wrote these two careful analyses of the top 3 Democratic candidates, if you are also having trouble making up your mind. Like me, he says:I've spoken with each of the top 3 candidates directly.
I started without a favorite. I like all 3 of the Democratic candidates and the only reason I started doing the research is because I knew I ultimately had to choose one, and I knew I had better choose wisely because the fate of our planet rests in our decisions more so in this election than in any other election in history.
If you had asked me to rate the candidates before I started doing this research, I would have rated Obama and Clinton at the top: Clinton because of her intelligence, experience and her ability to tap into the advice of President Clinton, and Obama because he has been extraordinary at inspiring people with his vision of the future attracting huge crowds when he speaks. Edwards seemed like a strong candidate too, but he didn't seem to have anything "special" I could point to. So I would have rated him #3. So my ranking mirrored the polls at the time.
But after I objectively analyzed the data, I was surprised to find that my initial impressions were wrong. Very wrong....
The evidence I found was both clear and consistent. In general, I found that Edwards is not only the best candidate on Iraq and global warming but the best candidate all-around and arguably the one best positioned to win the White House. He is, by far, the best candidate of the top 3 on leadership skills. He demonstrated this on Iraq and on global warming. The other two top contenders have not. It wasn't even close. I was shocked when I looked at the record. I found that Clinton and Obama have, in general, refused to take strong positions on the top issues, they have been followers on the top issues, they have failed to speak out and express their opinions on some of the top issues facing our country, they have not asked others to follow them. Obama supports legislation which is opposite to the position he articulates on global warming. You'll see many clear examples of this summarized below. It is evidence that is hard to ignore.
Here are Steve Kirsch's careful analyses that compare Edwards, Clinton, and Obama:
The Leadership Test
Who would make the best president?: see this Strengths/Weaknesses Table for all 3 candidates.
I'm disturbed that Obama seems to support coal-to-liquids laws.
What do YOU think?
Before watching it, I had been favoring Clinton and Obama for President. Now I'm not so sure. I'm starting to like Edwards more and more.
Steve Kirsch, a philanthropist and entrepreneur here in San Jose, just wrote these two careful analyses of the top 3 Democratic candidates, if you are also having trouble making up your mind. Like me, he says:I've spoken with each of the top 3 candidates directly.
I started without a favorite. I like all 3 of the Democratic candidates and the only reason I started doing the research is because I knew I ultimately had to choose one, and I knew I had better choose wisely because the fate of our planet rests in our decisions more so in this election than in any other election in history.
If you had asked me to rate the candidates before I started doing this research, I would have rated Obama and Clinton at the top: Clinton because of her intelligence, experience and her ability to tap into the advice of President Clinton, and Obama because he has been extraordinary at inspiring people with his vision of the future attracting huge crowds when he speaks. Edwards seemed like a strong candidate too, but he didn't seem to have anything "special" I could point to. So I would have rated him #3. So my ranking mirrored the polls at the time.
But after I objectively analyzed the data, I was surprised to find that my initial impressions were wrong. Very wrong....
The evidence I found was both clear and consistent. In general, I found that Edwards is not only the best candidate on Iraq and global warming but the best candidate all-around and arguably the one best positioned to win the White House. He is, by far, the best candidate of the top 3 on leadership skills. He demonstrated this on Iraq and on global warming. The other two top contenders have not. It wasn't even close. I was shocked when I looked at the record. I found that Clinton and Obama have, in general, refused to take strong positions on the top issues, they have been followers on the top issues, they have failed to speak out and express their opinions on some of the top issues facing our country, they have not asked others to follow them. Obama supports legislation which is opposite to the position he articulates on global warming. You'll see many clear examples of this summarized below. It is evidence that is hard to ignore.
Here are Steve Kirsch's careful analyses that compare Edwards, Clinton, and Obama:
The Leadership Test
Who would make the best president?: see this Strengths/Weaknesses Table for all 3 candidates.
I'm disturbed that Obama seems to support coal-to-liquids laws.
What do YOU think?