Who's best suited to lead the US?

A favorite of mine is Barack Obama.

I think it would be great thing for this country to have a female president, I just wish it could be someone who hand't voted for the war.

Although I think that having a woman president, or a president from a racial minority such as Obama or Richardson would send a powerful message of how far America has come in overcoming its prejudices, we can't ignore that we are at a crossroads in which the candidates' positions on war and foreign policy are of utmost importance. And the breakthrough for the US, the key for me, is to consider them all equally, on an even field, without prejudice or discrimination, for their views, values, their past decisions, and not their sex or ethic background. For these reasons I support Obama and Kucinich. For their views, values and their character.

Hillary's self assurance and eloquence on stage have given her an edge in past debates, but her initial support for the Iraq war remains extremely problematic for me, along with her uneven position on Iran and the lobbyists, special interests and corporate ties involved in the campaign.

Though John Edwards  didn't hold some his views previously and that propels Obama ahead in my perspective. Obama has been by far more consistent (as is Kucinich), and although Barack needs to work on being more concise and articulate while on the spot in debates specially, he commands the stage when on his own, and more importantly, he shares most of my values and seems more honest than a lot of the other candidates, and in stark contrast with the Republicans...

Needless to say, whoever wins the democratic nomination will get all my support because the Republicans are completely out of touch with most of the country: They implicitly (if no longer so explicitly) support a president whose policies have the lowest approval rating, who took the country to an illegal, catastrophic war based on lies over WMDs that weren't there and who is blatantly trying to do the same to Iran, despite intelligence pointing to the contrary. Did you notice how Bush was barely mentioned in the Republican debate? The war was almost completely ignored as well when it is obviously the most pressing issue for the people in this country and the world. The Republicans supported this war based on false premises and later offered the reasoning that even though the US had created a mess, the soldiers would have to stay and clean it up... The US couldn't pull out in a losing position, they said and now when they say the surge is working, they are not longer talking about leaving while things are "better" but about a constant military presence in the invaded country... It seems obvious that has always been their objective, and that oil has been the main motivation. In my eyes Republicans can sometimes come across as warmongers, or somewhat racist or homophobic (Huckabee told EQ gay marriage would mean the end of civilazation), elitist, more interested in the safekeeping the corporations over the people, the rich minority over the poor and middle classes and a lot of times seem downright hypocritical (Can you say Larry Craig?). Of course the more centrist Democrats can display some of these characteristics but in Republicans these views are more often held as badges of honor. Not to mention the ongoing scandals plaguing the Republican party... Hunter's $190 million allocation , Huckabee's release of a serial rapist who went on to rape and kill again, Romney's fundraiser indictment Guliani's billing of extramarital getaways to city agencies With the exception of Ron Paul, (whose newsletters where tainted by prejudice and discrimination), these guys want to continue this administration's bullying of the rest of the world, while Kucinich and Obama both seem to understand the important role of true diplomacy. This will have a major impact in the future history of the whole planet.