Hillary is tops among the Dems

For those of you who are reading/judging this, I will be supporting Bill Richardson as the best candidate. Although he is no longer campaigning, he is on the ballot in all primaries, which means that he is still a viable candidate. Therefore, if I am able to prove that we ought to prefer Richardson over Hillary, you then should vote for me. 1) Hillary is not the best in the debates. If you claim that she is, you might as well say that you also it enjoy it when you ask people direct questions and they totally ignore you, which is exactly what she does. For example, in the Facebook debates she responded to the question about the mistakes she's made by talking about the different issues Democrats and Republicans debate about. If that makes her a good debater, than Bill Richardson is should be crowned the champion of all debaters, because he actually gave a logical response to the question. This is just one example- when Hillary is asked questions on anything, she dodges them. 2) Bill Richardson has more experience than Hillary. Although being First Lady might have been fun, screwing a President is not synonymous with experience. Bill Richardson spent 14 years in Congress, was the US ambassador to the UN, and has been the Governor of New Mexico for the past 6 or so years. While Hillary may be capable of leading the country, I'd most certainly feel a lot safer with Richardson as a President. Also, Governor is more like President than Senator. Richardson is the only one of the candidates who has actually led, making him the best choice. 3) All of the other candidates speak of change, but only Bill has produced it. He has create 80,000 jobs in the state of New Mexico, negotiated the release of a journalist held hostage in Sudan, and has New Mexico on track to exceed Kyoto in the next couple of years. With six years in the Senate, I doubt that Hillary (or any other candidate) can claim results like these. Hillary's claims have just as much backing as either Edwards' or Obama's. Richardson is the only one who can actually back up what they say with substantial evidence. 4) Hillary got extremely frazzled by the campaign trail. Although I do admit that the media has blown this up way too much, there is some logic behind the frenzy. If a few sleepless nights led her to get that upset, how would she have dealt with 9/11? What would it do for morale if we had turned on the TV that night and seen her whimpering about how evil the terrorists are? What we need is a firm leader and her emotional outburst shook the image of her as that person. 5) Hillary is the least personable of all of the candidates. While personality may not be what we look for in a President, for better or worse it dictates how the country votes. Her vitriolic attacks on other candidates have led some to question her, which has definitely contributed to her lower than originally expected numbers. Bill Richardson, personality wise, is perfect for the job. Look at the Facebook debates- he used a good combination of jokes ("I've been to hostage negotiations that were more civil than this") and his seriousness (discussing education in the United States) to win over the crowd. Unfortunately, the country likes to hop on the bandwagon and vote for candidates who other people support, leading to the low numbers of great candidates such as Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd. Voting "con" in this debate means that you substantially look at the issues in this debate and not just at the popularity of the two candidates.