Obama. I'm not his hugest fan and don't think he has lived up to expectations, but the Republican field makes me laugh.

Ron Paul is the only one who actually comes across as a modern and intelligent person, unfortunately he is also (in my opinion) a bit extreme and I doubt he would be at all succesful as president. It requires too much compromise and too much diplomacy and I don't see either of those as his strengths.

The rest of the Republican field is just sad. You can see that a large portion of the voters at a time are picking anyone but Mitt Romney, but when the candidate does or says something stupid they all groan and Mitt Romney ends back up on top.

Mitt Romney is much more popular then ron paul.

As for clear proof.  Check out the Book "Freakanomics".

Or really just look at how self funded billionaires have tried to run for president all the time, outspent their competition and still did ziltch.

Ron Paul or Civil War

While he has a lot of very significant negatives (primarily that he is a flip-flopping politician that represents the "establishment") he is a well-spoken, intelligent individual with lots of ideas and has experience that puts him as one of the most qualified to be president in either party. It really shouldn't be that difficult to see why people like him ...

In my opinion though, I'm not sure I know what kind of president he would be. In many ways the thing that makes me distrust and dislike him the most, that he is a very successful establishment politician, is also one of the things that can make him very effective. From his experience as speaker of the house I'm certain that Newt would have unique insight into "getting his way" regardless of what party is in charge of the congress. At the same time, I have doubts that an insider like Newt would be willing to push for the changes that are needed to "fix" the political system or economy of the United States.

Some of his talking points seem to be right out of the Bush playbook.  Deregulation being a key part of his ideology.  While I don't believe in over regulation the lack of regulations in a lot of industries leads to many abuses.  Just look at derivative market which were highly unregulated.  It seems like the only thing Republicans can say to fix the economy is deregulation and less spending (something Bush didn't do but other Republicans vow to).  I don't believe any of those will completely solve the issue.  Sure, spending is a very big problem but no party dares to address the sectors that are going to go out of control the most in the future (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security).  Hell, the super committee couldn't even come up with an agreement on where the cuts should be made.  It is obvious that this country has a very big healthcare problem.  Spending is out of control for it and the amount of money for each procedure is vastly overpriced.  I don't think any politician in the USA has big enough balls to address the economy (at least in the manner it needs to be handled).

True but even an "outsider" like Obama has not been able to do much either.

Very naive of us to think a politican can come in be different from the rest. We have to remember that all people who ran for us are Human Beings.

I'm rooting for Ron Paul, but the road to Washington is a long one. Fortunately, it starts in Iowa where Paul has a very strong chance of winning the caucus. If he does, and gets a second or strong third in New Hampshire, it could give him the momentum needed to win a few more of the early states. If he doesn't come first in Iowa, though, his campaign is over.

Odds are, though, this thing is going to come down to Obama or Romney... and it will literally make /zero/ difference whoever wins that election, with either one of them, Iran war is inevitable, sky-high inflation, and the continued bleeding of America.