I’m torn between Edwards and Obama as my top choice for Democratic nominee.

Either would make a good president. Even better if they were on the same ticket. The question for today’s post is who would make the better presidentialcandidate. In terms of being able to offer bold leadership and in terms of his ability to inspire, my current view is that Edwards is the better choice.

This goes against the conventional wisdom, which to some extent is that Obama, with his immigrant roots and amazing life story, is more “inspirational” than Edwards, with his expensive haircuts and equally expensive smile.

As pretty and privileged as he may be, I believe that Edwards genuinely cares about this country and has great compassion for the poor and those who are too weak to protect themselves. Obama undoubtedly feels the same way, but comparing the two I think Edwards has shown greater strength of his convictions in this early phase of the election cycle. He seems to be less willing to listen to the bad advice of Washington “beltway” advisers and pundits, who strive to water-down politicians’ messages until they all sound alike. Obama, I’m afraid, is starting to sound more and more like other generic Democratic candidates (such as Clinton, my third choice).

Edwards was burned in 2004, and learned some lessons from that defeat. He knows that one reason the Democrats lost in 2004 because people saw the party as wavering and flip-floppy, while they saw Bush as stronger in his convictions. The new, seasoned Edwards is bolder, clearer, and more intelligent than the one we saw in 2004. He knows what’s right and importantly, he isn’t afraid to say it. For example, he’s the first one to put a specific health care proposal on the table.

Personally, I believe that about 30% of this country is very conservative, 30% is very liberal, and about 40% have no strong convictions either way, but they do have a wide range of opinions that would seemingly put them in both camps — at times in a somewhat contradictory way. (For example, they are pro-health care reform, but fearful of big government actions in the economic market). However, one thing that all of these middle 40% want is someone with courage, strength, and confidence. They want a strong personality — a leader. Kerry had trouble with these voters when he gave esoteric and complex answers to seemingly simple questions. Other democrats struggle with these voters when they say they are strong on health care and then don’t really have anything specific when they are asked what they intend to do about it. Republicans, even ones with extreme flip-flops such as Bush (click for examples of extreme Bush flip-floppery) attract these voters when they speak in moral absolutes about things like god, gays, and guns.

Edwards has been through the fire of one of the most brutal campaigns in recent history. He came out of it, learned lessons from it, and as a result has more strength and confidence than ever before. Obama has not been there — his senate campaign was a breeze. As it stands, I’m afraid that Obama is too susceptible to the pundits. This fear was partially confirmed when I heard him speak in Oakland a few weeks ago. He spoke in broad, general, generic terms that were barely distinguishable from the other Democratic candidates. Too much like Senator Clinton.

So as it stands, I’m leaning towards Edwards.