The next US president ?

[-[Scorpion]-]

Who you thing is gonna be the next US president and why ? Did you thing he's gonna be a Republican or a Democrat ? Male or Female ? White or black ?

-Scorp

[Idwayreth]

i wish i could pick some regular joe right off the street to be prez. that would be awesome

[Darkragnar]

If somebody has learned their lesson then Clinton Should Be it , shes pretty much the only one who can bring some stability to the Conflict.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

If somebody has learned their lesson then Clinton Should Be it , shes pretty much the only one who can bring some stability to the Conflict.

Good one...oh, you're serious?


Prediction: McCain or Guiliani in 08....it's an absolute lock.

[Sit down, fat dog]

Likely a democrat, but specifically it is way, way too early to call.

[danzig]

Already been a few threads like this, no one should be hoping for a democrat if current congress structure holds in place...after all one party dominating the branches is what got us into this mess in the first place and Democrats would be no different. Anyway my pick (as it was in previous threads) is Mccain or a relative outsider, Hillary Clinton is not going to become President imo.

If somebody has learned their lesson then Clinton Should Be it , shes pretty much the only one who can bring some stability to the Conflict.

Based on what? The Clinton's track record on handling Islamic terrorism (ie the conflict) isnt exactly a good one and one can argue quite well opened the door to this entire mess.

[Tiwaz]

Already been a few threads like this, no one should be hoping for a democrat if current congress structure holds in place...after all one party dominating the branches is what got us into this mess in the first place and Democrats would be no different. Anyway my pick (as it was in previous threads) is Mccain or a relative outsider, Hillary Clinton is not going to become President imo.

Because next president has to rebuild pulverised foreign relations and Bush regime has managed to turn word "republican" into synonyme of stupidity, aggression and incompetence abroad.

Based on what? The Clinton's track record on handling Islamic terrorism (ie the conflict) isnt exactly a good one and one can argue quite well opened the door to this entire mess.

Based on hubby Clinton having diplomatic savvy, enough of it to get others to join his wars. Or pick ones which other nations would agree to. As well as pick goals which were realistically achievable.

[danzig]

Because next president has to rebuild pulverised foreign relations and Bush regime has managed to turn word "republican" into synonyme of stupidity, aggression and incompetence abroad.

Well considering the President is President of the US and not 'abroad' the ignorant, stereotypical views held by those abroad are completely irrelevant. If people 'abroad' cant look past party and deal with a person on their own merits then the problem is on their end. The next President republican or democrat is naturally going to have a drastically different way of running things, so those abroad will simply have to deal with it. From the only point of view that matters, ie the American one (when it comes to who our leader is) a government controlled by one party regardless of which is bad.

Based on hubby Clinton having diplomatic savvy, enough of it to get others to join his wars. Or pick ones which other nations would agree to. As well as pick goals which were realistically achievable.

And the end result of his diplomatic 'savvy' has produced very little, Somalia = disaster, North Korea = disaster, middle east/terorrism = disaster, dealing with terrorism = disaster, rwanada = disaster so that leaves Bosnia...so basically what you are saying is non Americans want a slick US president who can charm people but achieve very little when it comes to international solutions. A feel good/placebo president who talks alot but doesnt actually achieve it. Though I will grand you the results of Bush presidency have been a massive disaster as well but as an American Id prefer middle ground between the two level of stupidity.

[Bwaho]

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Tiwaz]

Well considering the President is President of the US and not 'abroad' the ignorant, stereotypical views held by those abroad are completely irrelevant. If people 'abroad' cant look past party and deal with a person on their own merits then the problem is on their end. The next President republican or democrat is naturally going to have a drastically different way of running things, so those abroad will simply have to deal with it. From the only point of view that matters, ie the American one (when it comes to who our leader is) a government controlled by one party regardless of which is bad.

Regardless, your president has to work abroad with other nations. Perhaps you do not realise it, but also USA has to "deal with it" when other nations are less than enthusiastic to cooperate in most matters, after these recent disasters.

Republican president carries even bigger burden to carry since he is ideological "heir" of Bush regime.

But I agree with you, single controlling party is bad. Which is why I am strong supporter of parliamentarism.

And the end result of his diplomatic 'savvy' has produced very little, Somalia = disaster, North Korea = disaster, middle east/terorrism = disaster, dealing with terrorism = disaster, rwanada = disaster so that leaves Bosnia...so basically what you are saying is non Americans want a slick US president who can charm people but achieve very little when it comes to international solutions. A feel good/placebo president who talks alot but doesnt actually achieve it. Though I will grand you the results of Bush presidency have been a massive disaster as well but as an American Id prefer middle ground between the two level of stupidity.

What has Bush achieved?

Afganistan, disaster even with international aid.

Iraq, total disaster with potential to ruin whole ME.

Yes, Clinton did not succeed in everything but he chose his battles well. Ones he lost, in the end did not matter. One he won, while insignificant did boost his image. And to be told the truth, Clinton performed as well as can be expected.

After all, USA is in "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-position which I admit. If Clinton did nothing, he would have received complaints of being too passive. Even if problems like Rwanda, Somalia etc are inherently impossible to solve from outside. He tried, made some success and cut the costs when the tide turned. (one could say it is lack of determination but realistically it is realpolitik. You do not waste resources on something pointless.)

And ALL THIS he succeeded in without alienating US allies or creating more enemies abroad.

[Mikelus Trento]

Because next president has to rebuild pulverised foreign relations and Bush regime has managed to turn word "republican" into synonyme of stupidity, aggression and incompetence abroad.




Based on hubby Clinton having diplomatic savvy, enough of it to get others to join his wars. Or pick ones which other nations would agree to. As well as pick goals which were realistically achievable.

Not to mention doing absolutely nothing as the Towers were attacked the first time, or our embassies destroyed in Africa, or the Kobal towers. Truly brilliant diplomacy that most definately taught the terrorists they shouldn't ever do that again. Oh wait, he was too busy respecting women by doing naughty things. Yup, a truly brilliant diplomat.

He was a friggin hillbilly.

[harm]

Already been a few threads like this, no one should be hoping for a democrat if current congress structure holds in place...after all one party dominating the branches is what got us into this mess in the first place and Democrats would be no different. Anyway my pick (as it was in previous threads) is Mccain or a relative outsider, Hillary Clinton is not going to become President imo.



Based on what? The Clinton's track record on handling Islamic terrorism (ie the conflict) isnt exactly a good one and one can argue quite well opened the door to this entire mess.

****. If the democrats get all power in 08, do you know what that will mean????? . Slow down global warming, expand middle class again, no foolish wars, balance the budget, get some allies, get some jobs back in the US. OHHH NOOOO, if they win, we will be so screwed!!!!!!!

[danzig]

****. If the democrats get all power in 08, do you know what that will mean????? . Slow down global warming, expand middle class again, no foolish wars, balance the budget, get some allies, get some jobs back in the US. OHHH NOOOO, if they win, we will be so screwed!!!!!!!

Now your childish partisan (and distorted/inaccurate) ranting aside, the fact remains that no political party Democrat or Republican is immune to the power grab thing. Any party with more then its fair share of the power slice is going to forget what got them there in the first place and start taking it for granted. When Newt and co first took congress some Republicans talked about how this was a mandate to bring about every Republican party idea...it wasnt now here in 2007 Democrats are poised to take control and we have Democrats chanting the same thing. History repeats itself, the power structure of the US works best when its split among the two parties forcing compromise and forcing moderates to work together.

[shadyrome]

Bush

[SickBoy13]

I wish USA was ready for Barrack Obama, but it is not. I am not a big Hilary Clinton fan, but I don't want another NeoCon either.

[danzig]

I wish USA was ready for Barrack Obama, but it is not. I am not a big Hilary Clinton fan, but I don't want another NeoCon either.

Im more concerned with Barrack not being ready for the job then America not being ready for him, give the guy atleast a full term in senator...everyone wants to rush the guy he is young still he is barely 45. I understand the appeal of getting someone who hasnt yet been tainted by Washington but I think people read too much of Bill Clinton into Barrack. As far as a neocon, none of the earlier 'front runners' are neocons, Mccain, Rudy etc.

[SickBoy13]

Im more concerned with Barrack not being ready for the job then America not being ready for him, give the guy atleast a full term in senator...everyone wants to rush the guy he is young still he is barely 45. I understand the appeal of getting someone who hasnt yet been tainted by Washington but I think people read too much of Bill Clinton into Barrack. As far as a neocon, none of the earlier 'front runners' are neocons, Mccain, Rudy etc.

Good point. He needs a good, experienced VP. How about Bill Clinton?

[Celtic]

Im more concerned with Barrack not being ready for the job then America not being ready for him, give the guy atleast a full term in senator...everyone wants to rush the guy he is young still he is barely 45. I understand the appeal of getting someone who hasnt yet been tainted by Washington but I think people read too much of Bill Clinton into Barrack. As far as a neocon, none of the earlier 'front runners' are neocons, Mccain, Rudy etc.

People may disagree but I dont see this as a bad thing, Clinton had his faults and may not have done everything right, but he was very influentual, did not piss off the entire world, even our allies, and left office with a surplus of cash not a multi-billion doller deficit. Ill gladly vote for Obama or even McCain since is not even close to being a hard lined republician, there needs to be someone in office that can work with both parties, but either way this country needs to get back on track, its horribly in debt, the education rating is tied with Latvia which is ranked I believe 25th? in the world, the only thing we have going for us anymore is we could destroy the world 10x over with the amount of nukes and other weapons we have

[danzig]

People may disagree but I dont see this as a bad thing, Clinton had his faults and may not have done everything right, but he was very influentual, did not piss off the entire world, even our allies, and left office with a surplus of cash not a multi-billion doller deficit. Ill gladly vote for Obama or even McCain since is not even close to being a hard lined republician, there needs to be someone in office that can work with both parties, but either way this country needs to get back on track, its horribly in debt, the education rating is tied with Latvia which is ranked I believe 25th? in the world, the only thing we have going for us anymore is we could destroy the world 10x over with the amount of nukes and other weapons we have

Oh I couldnt agree more with you, Im just not sold that Barrack fits that mold. Without a track record its tough to really judge but we all know a track record in the end works against you too so its a catch 22. Someone like Mccain is a known factor, we know he can work with democrats, we know where he stands on pretty much everything to the point that even die hard democrat voters dont dislike him. Barrack is just such an unknown factor too much so, I LIKE what I see from him (even though I generally disagree with it) but Im not quite sold.

[The_Smiling_Knight]

I wish USA was ready for Barrack Obama, but it is not. I am not a big Hilary Clinton fan, but I don't want another NeoCon either.

Can someone please tell me why they are so impressed with Obama? He has NO political history and is not remotely qualified (from a political experience standpoint) to be president.

Clinton will not be the next President, far to many people dislike her policies, her personality, and her husband.

I have a feeling that it may be McCain in the White House in '09.

That, and she's about as shady as you can get and still be above board. Too many deaths around the Clintons.

McCain, I hope and pray he doesn't get the nod, the man is not right in the head.

I'd like someone like Duncan Hunter but he doesn't have the face time.

Regardless, your president has to work abroad with other nations. Perhaps you do not realise it, but also USA has to "deal with it" when other nations are less than enthusiastic to cooperate in most matters, after these recent disasters.

Republican president carries even bigger burden to carry since he is ideological "heir" of Bush regime.

But I agree with you, single controlling party is bad. Which is why I am strong supporter of parliamentarism.




What has Bush achieved?

Afganistan, disaster even with international aid.

Iraq, total disaster with potential to ruin whole ME.

Yes, Clinton did not succeed in everything but he chose his battles well. Ones he lost, in the end did not matter. One he won, while insignificant did boost his image. And to be told the truth, Clinton performed as well as can be expected.

After all, USA is in "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-position which I admit. If Clinton did nothing, he would have received complaints of being too passive. Even if problems like Rwanda, Somalia etc are inherently impossible to solve from outside. He tried, made some success and cut the costs when the tide turned. (one could say it is lack of determination but realistically it is realpolitik. You do not waste resources on something pointless.)

And ALL THIS he succeeded in without alienating US allies or creating more enemies abroad.

Regardless of what Clinton "achieved" his sale of missile secrets to China, and his pardoning of FALN terrorists negate it all.