(02/08) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[1968]

The results of Optiboard's January's Straw Poll are listed here:http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26653

Barack Obama won (16%, 7 votes), Fred Thompson placed (14%, 6 votes), and Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee both showed (each with 11%, 5 votes). John Edwards was fifth (9%, 4 votes) and Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul tied for sixth (7%, 3 votes). John McCain was eighth (5%, 2 votes) and Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney tied for ninth (2%, 1 vote). Joe Biden and Chris Dodd received no votes.

Democrats Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, and Richardson are all of the race, as are the Republicans Giuliani and Thompson. I won't add Nader or Bloomberg until they announce their intentions to run.

Thanks to all those who voted!

[Grubendol]

Obviously I'm truly saddened to see the real progressives out of the race. But of those left, I am most definitely supporting Obama. That being said going into last night's debate I was dead set against the idea of Hillary....I came out of the debate actually thinking she may not be as bad as I feared.

I found it particularly interesting that they wouldn't rule out running together. Very intriguing.

[rinselberg]

I'd like to see Ron Paul (P) and Mike Gravel (VP).

That would test a theory I have, that regardless of whichever personalities or platforms are elected, what happens after a new administration takes office is not going to be much different than what happened in the previous administration. Wars iike Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to happen or not, and follow the same general course, depending mostly on events and decisions that are at the initiative of people overseas, in whatever countries or "groups" (like al-Qaida) that are not deterred from starting or persisting in conflicts with the United States. Even President Dennis Kucinovich would soon be busy giving the orders to generals and admirals to move troops and aircraft carriers from here to there overseas, call up specific reserve units, present the plans for this or that new miitary operation or deployment to NATO; etc.

[shanbaum]

Even President Dennis Kucinovich would soon be busy giving the orders to generals and admirals to move troops and aircraft carriers from here to there overseas, call up specific reserve units, present the plans for this or that new miitary operation or deployment to NATO; etc.

Such resignation can only be admired! I'm reminded of that part-claymation movie where the gods on Olympus made constant mischief with humanity. Feel free to vote carelessly, it's out of your hands!

Interesting tidbit came along - MoveOn held a vote amongst its rather liberal (I would think) subscriber base, as to which candidate it should endorse, and Obama won 70%-30%. I guess Clinton succeeded in reforming her image, all right.

[Grubendol]

Such resignation can only be admired! I'm reminded of that part-claymation movie where the gods on Olympus made constant mischief with humanity. Feel free to vote carelessly, it's out of your hands!

Interesting tidbit came along - MoveOn held a vote amongst its rather liberal (I would think) subscriber base, as to which candidate it should endorse, and Obama won 70%-30%. I guess Clinton succeeded in reforming her image, all right.

The movie you speak of is Clash of the Titans….


And amongst all the liberals I know, Hillary has a very small amount of support in comparison to Obama. Though I still do have a sizable number of friends who are undecided….and we vote in a few days!

[1968]

*Super Tuesday bump*

[Grubendol]

I have to say that I don’t expect the country to be any closer to knowing who the nominees are after today (especially on the Democratic side with the proportional distribution of delegates), but I couldn’t be more excited about today.

In my 35 years of life, I have never experience a presidential campaign with more excitement and opportunity for history not just in terms of who the candidate is, but also in terms of involvement by the electorate.

If nothing else, George Bush and his atrocious presidency has been good for creating a sense of urgency about younger voters to participate and decide.

:D:D:D

[chip anderson]

Grubendol: What would you say about Jimmy Carter's presidency?

[1968]

Grubendol: What would you say about Jimmy Carter's presidency?

I doubt Grub "experienced" the 1976 election as a two or three year old.

[Grubendol]

Jimmy Carter was ineffectual, mostly due to the fact that he was saddled with the debt from the Vietnam War. The debt was created by Nixon and Johnson both, and came due during his presidency, which crushed his chance to do anything of significance...because he was fiscally responsible, unlike Bush.

[1968]

I have to say that I don’t expect the country to be any closer to knowing who the nominees are after today (especially on the Democratic side with the proportional distribution of delegates), but I couldn’t be more excited about today.

In my 35 years of life, I have never experience a presidential campaign with more excitement and opportunity for history not just in terms of who the candidate is, but also in terms of involvement by the electorate.

If nothing else, George Bush and his atrocious presidency has been good for creating a sense of urgency about younger voters to participate and decide.

:D:D:D

To me, this is like the AFC and NFC Championships. I love a good game, but don't really give a s*** who wins. (OK, I sort of like Obama but I won't feel heartbroken if he loses in the 4th quarter.)

[Spexvet]

Jimmy Carter was ineffectual, mostly due to the fact that he was saddled with the debt from the Vietnam War. The debt was created by Nixon and Johnson both, and came due during his presidency, which crushed his chance to do anything of significance...because he was fiscally responsible, unlike Bush.

He was also the last president with high ethics/morals. He tied foreign aid to a country's human rights record.

[chip anderson]

Perhaps you misse this, CARTER LACKED CAJONIES. Which believe it or not is the most important charateristic of a good president.

[1968]

He was also the last president with high ethics/morals. He tied foreign aid to a country's human rights record.

Perhaps you misse this, CARTER LACKED CAJONIES. Which believe it or not is the most important charateristic of a good president.

Reading these two comments together reminded me of something one of the current Presidential candidates recently said: "Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?"

[For-Life]

Please, please, please have Obama beat Hilary.

Not that I really have anything against Hilary. I mean yes, she is annoying and cranky, but her husband did a great job, so I would expect the same. My problem lies with the fact that people will just not vote for her, especially if McCain gets the Republican ticket.

[Spexvet]

Perhaps you misse this, CARTER LACKED CAJONIES. Which believe it or not is the most important charateristic of a good president.

Vote for the bully?

The POTUS should lead by example, not push other sovereign nations around like a bully.

[rinselberg]

The POTUS should lead by example, not push other sovereign nations around like a bully.

President Carter really impressed the pants off the Russians (as they were marching into Afghanistan) and the Iranian radicals (as they kidnapped 52 Americans and imprisoned them for almost two years as bargaining chips).

Priceless!

[For-Life]

President Carter really impressed the pants off the Russians (as they were marching into Afghanistan) and the Iranian radicals (as they kidnapped 52 Americans and imprisoned them for almost two years as bargaining chips).

Priceless!

If the Russians succeeded in Afghanistan, we may not be dealing with Al Quada today :bbg:

[Grubendol]

Perhaps you misse this, CARTER LACKED CAJONIES. Which believe it or not is the most important charateristic of a good president.

If nothing else, I think we’ve learned from history that this axiom is quite possibly the WORST way to judge and choose a president.

[1968]

President Carter really impressed the pants off the Russians (as they were marching into Afghanistan) and the Iranian radicals (as they kidnapped 52 Americans and imprisoned them for almost two years as bargaining chips).

Priceless!

Yeah, Carter should have nuked Iran! (Bush may miss his chance, too!)

[chip anderson]

Yes, you vote for the bully. The presidents job is to look out for the interests of the United States (Only) and override any an all opposition domestic and foriegn to that end.
No one started wars when Teddy Rosevelt or Andrew Jackson was president. Why not, they were knowledgeable and afraid of what would happen.
Truman as a good president in spite of being democrat because he had cajonies! Remember the thing most often written about him was: "The Buck Stops Here!"


Chip

[For-Life]

Yes, you vote for the bully. The presidents job is to look out for the interests of the United States (Only) and override any an all opposition domestic and foriegn to that end.
No one started wars when Teddy Rosevelt or Andrew Jackson was president. Why not, they were knowledgeable and afraid of what would happen.
Truman as a good president in spite of being democrat because he had cajonies! Remember the thing most often written about him was: "The Buck Stops Here!"


Chip

FDR was the one who got the US involved in WW2

[1968]

Perhaps you misse this, CARTER LACKED CAJONIES. Which believe it or not is the most important charateristic of a good president.

I wonder how many women are thinking: "Typical male. Big balls. No brains."

[Grubendol]

I wonder how many women are thinking: "Typical male. Big balls. No brains."

Ironically, I think if that is your major deciding factor, amongst the two Democratic nominees, I think that Hillary has the bigger brass pair.

[Spexvet]

Yes, you vote for the bully. The presidents job is to look out for the interests of the United States (Only) and override any an all opposition domestic and foriegn to that end.
No one started wars when Teddy Rosevelt or Andrew Jackson was president. Why not, they were knowledgeable and afraid of what would happen.
Truman as a good president in spite of being democrat because he had cajonies! Remember the thing most often written about him was: "The Buck Stops Here!"


Chip

Have you learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq? Those techniques don't work anymore.

A senior fellow in the New America Foundation just wrote a piece entitled Waving Goodbye to Hegemony.

We blew a trillion dollars on a gamble to 'democratize' just two countries. This money will be needed for the new warfare, which is political and economic.

First, channel your inner J.F.K. You are president, not emperor. You are commander in chief and also diplomat in chief. Your grand strategy is a global strategy, yet you must never use the phrase “American national interest.” (It is assumed.) Instead talk about “global interests” and how closely aligned American policies are with those interests. No more “us” versus “them,” only “we.” That means no more talk of advancing “American values” either. What is worth having is universal first and American second. This applies to “democracy” as well, where timing its implementation is as important as the principle itself. Right now, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the hero of the second world — including its democracies — is Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

Third, deploy the marchmen. Europe is boosting its common diplomatic corps, while China is deploying retired civil servants, prison laborers and Chinese teachers — all are what the historian Arnold Toynbee called marchmen, the foot-soldiers of empire spreading values and winning loyalty. There are currently more musicians in U.S. military marching bands than there are Foreign Service officers, a fact not helped by Congress’s decision to effectively freeze growth in diplomatic postings. In this context, Condoleezza Rice’s “transformational diplomacy” is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.