The point is those 2-3 names are easily recognizible by the mainstream general public. The reps only have Guiliani with that kind of recognition and he messed up during 9/11.

And Romney... why vote for the only republican that has "democratic" values when you can vote for any number of big democratic candidates who are in the party that actually HOLD those values (two of whom have been in the white house for years already).

The cards are stacked in the democrats favor for sure in 08 IMO.

That wouldn't be so painful, if it wasn't so true.
Is that the issue? I think Richardson is well qualified.

Name recognition is important.
Hillary, and Giuliani may have an edge there.
But I'm not sure that's what matters most here.
Perhaps we should define "stronger".
If by it we mean, who is currently ahead in the polls, that's quite different for which is most qualified; or which would be the best President.

ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WHO REALLY THINKS THEY HAVE ESP.

Well, by "stronger" I mean which side most represents the views of mainstream America's top issues. The most important issues today seem to be:

1) Universal Health Care
2) Global Warming
3) Getting out of Iraq
4) Legalizing Gay marriage
5) Keeping abortion legal
6) Homeland security
7) Immigration

It almost plays like a calling card for the Democratic party. They certainly represent these values much more than the Republican party.

There is little doubt that the Dems have a stronger position in regards to today's current hot topics.

Vote in the poll people!

They are posted from the Democrat's political position.
The Republicans might say:

4) Keeping Gay marriage illegal
5) Criminalizing abortion

Thus, I'm not sure Dems. have an insurmountable edge.
I sense the influence is on the narrow swing portion of the electorate.

Because of the "winner take all" style of vote tallying in U.S. Presidential elections, even if a candidate only won each State by one vote, it would be called "a landslide" victory, even though it was only a 50 vote margin out of a nation of 300,000,000.
Bush LOST the vote by a ~half million ballots, but he still won the s/election.

It's way messed up.
I'm an ultra-conservative libertarian.
I'll probably vote in '08.
But I'll probably be holding my nose.

From the polls I have read most Americans are for keeping abortion legal. That cannot be said for the gay marriage issue though.

I'm SO in favor of Ron Paul if he gets through and Kucinich doesn't. I don't like his exconomic stances, but he knows what to do with foreign policy. The biggest way I judge a candidate is on their stances, but also their honesty and how consistent they are. Unfortunately, Ron got trounced in one of the debates when Giuliani started up on the whole "I was there at 9/11, how dare you say we were a tad responsible!" thing. Sad thing is, I agree with Paul on that one, and that's part of what sold me.

Because people are too lazy to get up and actually look at the candidates, so they go to the ones who parrot the necessary rhetoric on each side and look flashy enough. That's what sickens me. It's not that all politicians are whores, it's that most Americans are so wrapped up in the latest episode of "American Idol" that they don't give a rat's ass who runs this country!

Maybe we should do away with elections and turn it into a 13 week TV show voting one candidate off after every debate. The $1.00 per call to vote can go to help bail out social security or something.

Good idea, actually. But nobody would watch unless it was hosted by Ryan Seacrest.