Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The 2008 Presidency Race

0 helpful
39 replies

by protiusx

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Presidential Candidates for 2008

I am starting this a bit early as my original post to TR was "Why I am voting got George W. Bush". In 2008, President George W. Bush will be prohibited from seeking a third term. In the three most recent eight-year administrations (Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton), the incumbent Vice President has subsequently run for President. However, incumbent Vice President Dick Cheney announced in 2001 that he would never run for President, a statement he reiterated in 2004. While appearing on Fox News Sunday, Cheney stated: "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... 'If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve,' or, not only 'No,' but 'Hell, no'. I've got my plans laid out. I'm going to serve this President for the next four years and then I'm out of here." There is some speculation that VP Cheney may retire as Vice President after the 2006 midterm elections. If this were to happen, his successor would likely become the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008.

Assuming Cheney serves his full term and does not run, the 2008 race will be the first time since 1928 that neither the sitting President nor the sitting Vice President has run for President. (Note that while the 1952 general election between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson also did not include a sitting President or Vice President, sitting Vice President Alben Barkley had unsuccessfully campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, and President Harry Truman stood for the Democratic nomination in the New Hampshire primary.)

Should Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice receive the Republican Party's nomination in 2008, it would revive a practice that was the norm in the first fifty years of United States history. In early tradition, the Secretary of State post was the stepping stone to the Presidency. Many Commanders in Chief of the late 18th and early 19th centuries served as Secretary of State before being elected President, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan. The Secretary of State post remains the primary Cabinet-level office to succeed the Chief Executive in the presidential line of succession. Secretary Rice has denied any desire to seek the presidency, though she is the current frontrunner in some public opinion polls.

The Republican Candidates who have officially announced their candidacy are:
John H. Cox of Illinois
Michael Charles Smith of Oregon

Republican Candidates who have formed exploratory committees or have expressed serious interest:
Senator George Allen of Virginia
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
Senator John McCain of Arizona
Governor George Pataki of New York
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado

The Democrat Candidates who have officially announced their candidacy are:
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska

Democrat Candidates who have formed exploratory committees or have expressed serious interest:
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia

So I would like to hear your comments before I divulge who I support for the Presidency.

39 replies

by rfink

That would be the most interesting campaign of all time. If that were to happen, I'd be looking for a third party.

by maxwell edison

....and I still stand by it:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188657&messageID=1936000

For your convenience, the following is cut and pasted from my link:

My 2008 presidential election prediction (Made on January 27, 2006)

Neither the Democrat or Republican presidential candidate will come from either the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives (the ultimate nominee, that is, not the primary candidates). This will eliminate both Senators Clinton and McCain, the often-mentioned possible "dream match up"; and it also eliminates Senator Kerry. Senator Leiberman is a viable candidate, but he's fallen out of favor within his own Democrat Party, he knows it, and I doubt he'll even enter the New Hampshire primary. Vice President Cheney will not run. Former Vice President Gore will not run. Former Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia will throw his hat into the ring, but his campaign won't generate much steam, and it will attract vicious character assassinations. He'll drop out before the South Carolina primary.

That means the race will be a governor against a governor or former mayor (you know who I mean), or possibly someone from an appointed position, such as the current Secretary of State, but I doubt she will enter the race.

My prediction is a Democrat governor, possibly New Mexico Governor (and former Clinton administration energy secretary), Bill Richardson versus a former Republican mayor from New York. The Republican will win.

------------------------------

More bold predictions:

The jury is still out:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=192489&messageID=1985962

The jury is still out:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=197241&messageID=2077363

Correct prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=167420&messageID=1709930

Correct prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=167117&messageID=1708362

Wrong prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=164099&messageID=1681133

Correct (sort of) prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=163258&messageID=1675344

Close enough to be considered a correct prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=162357&messageID=1668758

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=89&threadID=162202&messageID=1667970

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=161806&messageID=1665091

(286 to 252)

My correct Arnold prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=156934&messageID=1633784

Correct prediction (Vermont DID go to Kerry):

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=156599&messageID=1666569

Wow, this was a good (and correct) prediction:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=154767&messageID=1620246

Actually fell short by 3 percent!

This one is on track to be correct, but it's really a no-brainer (except for people with no brain):

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=146352&messageID=1574459

One for two on this one (but oh so close to two for two!):

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=145523&messageID=1570586

Wrong (damn it!):

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=143855&messageID=1560021

ProtiusX, I hope you don't mind my tangent, but it was rather fun going back to find my old predictions.

by jmgarvin

The guy can't even extent a road, how the hell can he run the country?

Yes, I live in New Mexico, and yes I think the guy is a noob.

Gary Johnson (the govenor before Richardson) is far better and far stronger...however, he isn't a democrat.

How do you think a hispanic president will play out in the deep south? I have a feeling some of the good ol' boys won't take too kindly to someone that isn't white in the white house....

by protiusx

This is probably the most astute and well reasoned tangent I have ever read. I agree with you entirely. Hillary Clinton is very popular with the Democrats right now and her candidacy would solidify the left completely. It would though I believe alienate the middle as her politics are very left leaning and she would have to make Bill sleep on the couch again.

by tig2

Mc Cain has some support but I don't think nearly enough. Rudy would be my front runner for the Republican nod. I don't see Condi getting it but I can see her being a running mate... maybe.

I think that John Edwards would be a good choice given the pool. I think that Kerry should have enough sense to not go there. Biden runs and loses on a routine basis. Hillary is likely to get the nod.

I do not think that this country is yet ready to consider a woman in the Executive in Chief role. There is still a lingering perception, regardless of the known characteristics of a particular woman, that a woman would appear "weak". I agree and would have difficulty supporting a female candidate for that reason.

As a woman, am I saying that women are generally weak? NO. I am saying that much rides on perception.

There are countries that culturally would not find an acceptance level as well.

And while I realise that Margaret Thatcher got on just fine in Number 10 Downing, I also recognise that she was viewd in some circles as a functionary for her "boss", Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second. She also did not move to Downing Sttreet during a shooting war.

It will be an interesting race.

by jdclyde

Women seen as weak? Your missing the point. From a guys point of view, I would be more worried about her having a "midol moment" while sitting in front of "the button". :0

We all know what a beotch Bilary is on a GOOD day..... ;\

[i]
"WE are the President of the United States!"

by delbertpgh

He's got an insider mentality that doesn't always work in his favor. You remember his chauffeur, who became his security chief, who he got GWB to nominate to head homeland security? The guy had such a spotty past, when Congress turned up the heat he was toast in three days. Rudy should have seen that coming.

by maxwell edison

Where did you come up with that nonsense?

First of all, whenever anybody is in such a leadership position, regardless of party or position, insiders, so to speak, are always solicited to fill key positions. Who would you appoint or recommend, someone you know or someone you don't?

And although Bernard Kerik did indeed have something in his past/personal life (citizenship status of his housekeeper) that took him out of the running for that position, this often happens when any number of appointees undergoes the inevitable public anal exam. I'd like for you to show us any presidential administration of any party that didn't have somebody's past or something in his/her personal life come back to bite him/her in the backside.

Moreover, your "chauffeur" comment doesn't even come close to describing who the guy was, and is no more than a lame attempt to de-emphasize reality. He had a long career starting in the military police, and he went on to rise within the New York City Police Department. He served as Giuliani' bodyguard (which included being his chauffeur) only during a political campaign, and he went on to rise even further in the NYPD, rising to become the city's Police Commissioner. If you'd like to question the team of Giuliani-Kerik in their respective capacities, why don't you start by sharing with us what happened to New York City's crime rates during their tenures?

On a scale of 1-10 as accurately portraying reality, you hit about a 1.

by onbliss

It is little illuminating to hear from you about the perception of women. Why would such a perception exist in one of the most advanced and well developed countries in the world?

by tig2

As we are more and more aware, the US is a performer on a world stage. It is then essential that there be no negative perception of the Commander in Chief beyond the impression that person may make. In other words, gender bias becomes a bigger issue- at least in my mind.

Concepts like "fair" don't pertain here. It is immaterial if a woman can do the same job as a man if her gender or perceptions of her gender exclude her from consideration. I have long worked in a more male dominated environment and note that not much has changed from 20 years ago to today. And in some ways it is worse.

I don't think that it has anything to do with the level of advancement of a country but rather its people. And I do not imply that the US is populated by backwards thinking people but rather that gender bias is not erased by laws or new understandings- simply that it is generational.

My parents are from an era in which women generally didn't work... and if they did, their job was considered to be less important than their husbabnd's job. The discussion of "stay to home Dads", career focused women, women in the boardroom, etc, is still relatively young. Should women continue to advance? Of course. But with an understanding of generational thinking- you don't "just change".

Even here- a generally supportive community that doesn't identify its membership as male or female, has its share of men that at least to some extent think of women's roles in a more traditional manner. And a few misogynists. And truthfully is no different than any other community.

Generational thinking changes... generationally. Look at the changes from the 50's to the 60's, 60's to 70's, etc. With each decade, thinking changes. But it is a process.

Will we ever have a female president? Probably. Is 2008 the year. Not in my opinion.

by danlm

If you've read my posts, you know that I feel that we need a strong pro active foreign policy that combats terrorists. And that we need to make hard choices with regard to what has to be done to stop it. But, what you may not have seen a lot of from me is my domestic standings. And they are much, much more centrist. I do believe we need social programs, I do believe things should be done about the escalating cost of medical and prescriptions.

I also think its time that we had a president that was neither white, or male. This country is ready, and we have qualified women that can handle the job. I think that by having a strong woman president, that new ideas could be initiated that would improve our standing around the world and possibly heal the divisions within the country itself.

I truly respect Ms. Rice, but I don't know what her positions are with regard to domestic issues. I don't think she would take crap from anyone, and would be willing to slap who ever along side the head when it was needed. But, I also think that she would be able to do this in a more errrr, diplomatic manner then President Bush.

Mrs. Clinton, I think she is a bitch. And she has championed some of the domestic things that I think are important. A previous poster stated that he had seen her in a debate where she became unraveled. That worries me, because I thought she was stronger then that. I don't want a president that becomes unraveled under pressure. And up till I seen that, I didn't think Mrs. Clinton would.

The one thing that I truly like about President Bush, you know where he stands. I don't care if you like him, or dislike him. You know exactly what his positions are, and you know exactly where he is coming from. I want that in our next president, knowing exactly what their position is and their willingness to stand by it. I have no issue with someone changing that position, but I want them to do as I would. And explain why they are changing that position. And not because the New York Times idiot editor slams them in the paper.

I wish I knew what some of Ms. Rice's positions were on domestic policy.

Again, I think its time for a change of gender in the presidency. Actually, I was hoping that Colin Powell would run against Mr. Clinton in that election. I thought it was time then for a change.
I am registered Democrat, and I will vote Democrat if I like the candidate. So, before the liberal idiots go. Ewwwww, Republican idiots based upon what I just said. Think about it. The Democrats positions chased me away, let's see if they can bring me back and get my vote. Other wise, I'll vote locally democrat and nationally republican like I have the last two elections.

Dan

by nicknielsen

As of right now, I could potentially vote for one of these:

Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Wesley Clark
John Edwards
Russ Feingold

All of these men have shown the ability to work across party lines to achieve results acceptable to most (an ability sorely lacking at present, IMO).

Again, as of right now, a Giuliani / Clark race would leave me hard put to decide. If we get a "choice" equivalent to the 2000 or 2004 election, I'll write in.

by rknrlkid

Unity'08. This is a group of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans who are going to support a third candidate. You can see them at:

www.unity08.com

We DO NOT live under a "two-party only" system. The idea of the 2 major parties running everything is totally illegitimate. Power brokers have stolen our choice, let's give them their walking papers.

Here's a quote from a Unity'08 message that says why:

"In a recent blog post on the Unity08 website, James Strock, author of Theodore Roosevelt on Leadership (Crown/Random House), argues that in the five years following the horrors of 9/11, our nations' political establishment looks scarcely different - if not worse - than it did on September 10, 2001.

"The legacy parties and the professionals around them all too often seem to view the rest of us as their consumers, their market, rather than as citizens, the ones they serve," he writes. He calls on political leaders to exercise the type of selflessness we learned from the great heroes of 9/11 and do what's right for the nation's citizenry."

by delbertpgh

The guy is smart on foreign policy. I especially like his common-sense appreciation of risks and his pragmatism. He is not an ideologue who tries to push people onto different sides of a line he has drawn. We clearly need somebody with strategy and policy skills to help us work through the Middle East mess and keep us strong for years to come.

There are a quite a few Democrats I wouldn't mind learning more about, but I'm tired of Clintons. However, I think Hillary's going to get the nomination. She has it sewed up already, the same way GWB had the Republican nomination sewed up a year before the 2000 election season began. The only ways she can be stopped is if she's found banging an intern, or if some opponent is so successful and so appealing that he wins every primary and caucus from Iowa through California. But if he ever slips, even once, his contributions will dry up and Hill will strangle him. So, you better hope that a really cute boy taking a year off from school to elect her catches her eye.

For Republicans, I could live with McCain or Hagel. Neither one of them bases his electoral appeal on throwing up boogie men for me to hate or fear (a la Frist or Gingrich or Cheney.) Or Lugar, but he's not running.

by nicknielsen

All of these tend to tell the truth, which will kill a candidacy in the primaries.

Edit: spelling

by fungus-among-us

"It makes it look like Rudi Giuliani doesn't have the kind of smarts it takes for the national stage."

Ummm... that statement is better applied to our incumbant president.

As a former New Yorker who lived in NYC and surrounding suburbs, I REMEMBER Giuliani as the State AG, and then as Mayor. I'd vote for him if he were the the Republican's choice for damned sure. I persoanlly saw the affect and effect on the city of New York, while his policies were being employed/enforced.

But will the rest of the nation look past the "pizan" factor?

by delbertpgh

Kerik employed an undocumented alien as a nanny (right; that's a so-what); he also failed to pay withholding taxes on her salary. He had relations with not one, but two, mistresses, who were active during his marriage to his third wife and his time before congress. He also had some ethics violations while he was police commissioner, which included not reporting a personal loan from a "friend" and work that was done to remodel his apartment, for free, $165,000 worth, from a couple of nice Italian boys who ran a Jersey construction company. Need I say more? The Italian boys had, you know, connections. He also had a sexual harassment suit in his background (another ho-hum; doubt if you can run a contentious place like a cop shop without getting at least one of those, right?); allegations of misuse of police property and personnel (hearsay), and a dubiously timed stock sale.

I'm not saying the guy is crooked. He sees his opportunities, and he takes them. A lot of New York guys are like this. Trouble is, when you drag all these things, one after another, out in front of the whole nation during a Congressional hearing, you know it won't fly. And the fact that all of this came out within about ten days of his nomination makes it look really bad for the guy who recommended him, Rudi. Didn't he know anything about his friend? Didn't he know about Congressional hearings and the way everybody gets investigated down to the toenails? Rudi's pal GWB looked kind of careless, too, because he didn't bother to check it out past Rudi's recommendation.

It makes it look like Rudi Giuliani doesn't have the kind of smarts it takes for the national stage. He's a plenty sharp guy, but oddly tone deaf about his buddies' ethics and pastimes. I'd guess that in a national race he would fall on his face before getting to the first primary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/politics/main660485.shtml
http://nypdconfidential.com/columns/2006/060724.html

by maxwell edison

I illustrated how you understated the guy's credentials. I also illustrated how such things happen to ALL administrations. Can you spell Zoe Baird?

I'd make a wager. (Neil loves to wager with me, because he loves to lose wagers to me!) The next president, regardless of party, will nominate someone for a cabinet post, and some skeletons will come out of that person's closet which will cause him/her to withdraw his/her own name from consideration.

Like I said, on a scale of 1-10, your presentation was about a 1 on the accuracy scale.

by delbertpgh

Actually, as I typed, I remembered Kimba Wood, but I had forgotten Zoe Baird. Thanks for reminding me. Both were Clinton judicial nominees; both were shot down because of nanny trouble. Guess they got to shoot down Republicans for the same reasons.

The bit about being Giuliani's driver was the first thing I remembered; I knew he'd been a top cop, which was a good recommendation for higher office, but Rudi's driver kind of expresses the key element here: He was in Giuliani's pocket. He was Rudi's protege, Rudy's trusted guy, the guy you would treat well if you wanted Rudy to treat you well. New York politics is jammed full of these kind of relationships. If you don't know who knows somebody, then you don't know nothing about what's going on.

Nobody in New York bothers to check each other's golden boys out, beyond maybe a check for criminal records. It would be too messy, and it would destroy the system of trust that makes everything work. Rudi just didn't think past his nose, or he would have realized you can't carry on like that in D.C.

And besides, I was right about the other stuff, keeping three women at the same time and being fast and loose with gifts while holding a government job. I figure, with utter impartiality, that if you were fair about this I would score 9 on your accuracy meter.

I'll make a bet of my own with you, something about as risky as the one you propose, that a cabinet nominee in the next administration will be shot down because of an embarassing past. I bet you the next president will... have eyebrows! There you go! I'm putting it on the line, this time. The only way I'm going to lose that one is if the next prez is undergoing chemo on inauguration day.

by maxwell edison

That's laughable. Rudy is one sharp and savvy guy, and he's about the best speaker of all those often mentioned as being in the race. (And he definitely IS in the race, by the way.) He's impressive to see give a speech and to meet in person (I've done both). He will not "fall on his face". Whether or not he can muster enough support to win the nomination remains to be seen, but I'd bet on it. At this point in time, he has close to a 65 percent favorable rating in all the polls, a lot of people admire him, and most of the nay-sayers are probably the 35 percent died-in-the-wool Democrats who realize he'd be the most formidable foe they could face. There's only one reason Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York today, and that's because Rudy dropped out of that Senate race to focus on his treatment for cancer.

You need to get past the normal Democrat Underground rhetoric. It's obvious that you don't know the first thing about Rudy Giuliani.

by delbertpgh

You and I look at the same Giuliani, and I don't see where he's got the national chops. I think he doesn't smell the coffee a lot of the time. He's pretty ego driven, and it masks some reality from him.

The other reason is the guy is liberal enough to be a Democrat. I don't think he'd last more than a couple of months before half the Republican base would be wondering why he was a pornographer-protecting, marriage-bashing, terrorist-loving, America-hating subversive with an irritating New Yawk accent. His record as the 9/11 mayor will be about as bulletproof as John Kerry's silver star.

by maxwell edison

You said that Rudy Giuliani was "liberal enough to be a Democrat". Guess what? I agree with you. However, name one prominent Republican who isn't! The Republican Party of today resembles the Democrat Party of 1960; while the Democrat Party of today resembles the American Socialist Party of 1932. (I say this in all seriousness. If you don't believe me, read the respective platforms.)

Regardless of how liberal Rudy Giuliani may or may not be (or any other Republican for that matter), it's less liberal than the most conservative (or "moderate") Democrat. Only an idiot would vote for a Democrat over Giuliani simply because he's too "liberal".

by maxwell edison

And I forgot about her. I guess we both illustrate my point about the scores of nominees, not all of whom will have clean enough records to escape the inevitable smear campaigns we see in today's politics of personal destruction.

I find it ironic that most people complain about the lack of good candidates for any given office, but then they expect perfection from those who do choose to serve (or to be served, whichever the case may be). I'm not sure any of us could go through such scrutiny without some skeleton exposing us to the bare bones! "Okay all you good people", the electorate seems to be saying, "Come forward and offer to serve your country so we can totally trash your reputation on the world stage."

What I find sad, however, is that much of the electorate can't see through it all, and they use it as a reason to unfairly judge people. And I believe your objections about Giuliani might not necessarily epitomize that, but it sure seems to be getting close. I see too much meaningless rhetoric in your objections.

Before you judge Rudy too harshly, pick up a copy of his book [i]Leadership[/i]. It'll provide some insight into who he really is.

By the way, your bet and my bet -- they're both winners!

by delbertpgh

Doesn't look like you're getting any more responses. Want to finish the thought that you began with... whom would you support?

by protiusx

At first my main consideration was that Hillary Clinton would be nominated by the Democrats (which is still highly likely). She is a strong candidate, an espouser of the more radical leftist ideology that the democrat party is rife with these days, and she is a woman. She would, for all intents and purposes be a perfect candidate for the far left. So, to counter this strong nomination I had thought that Condoleezza Rice would have been the better choice for the Republican party. She is a strong conservative, extremely intelligent, a woman and a black person. there may be some that would choose not to vote for a woman for a variety of different reasons; one that my wife puts forth is that a woman executive would not appear to be a strong leader to other countries that maintain more chauvinistic tendencies (such as Arabic or Muslim countries) and so would actually do harm to our national standing internationally. I don't know if our country is ready for a woman president. I know there have been very effective female leaders of other countries (Margaret Thatcher comes to mind) but while we maintain a great deal of similarity with our British cousins we are also quite different as well.
So, that leads me to look at the other candidates. I don't think it is a shock to any of you that I would personally identify with the Republican Party so I must say that I favor Rudy Giuliani at this point. He is a strong leader who I believe will do the hard things that must be done and that George Bush has not done.
I believe that our country will remain right of center for the next election and for as long as we are in danger of attack from the Islamo-Fascist extremists.

by nicknielsen

for all of us over the next couple of years.

While I also think that the United States is not yet ready for a woman president, I must take issue with one statement. You stated that you think a female President could harm our international standing. I don't think that's very likely-our international standing is already pretty low as a result of the war in Iraq. If you check out the commentary and polls from other countries, nobody much likes our government right now...

by delbertpgh

Hillary Clinton is not the embodiment of the left. The deep liberal wing of the Democratic party never liked her or Bill... nearly despised them, because they kept coming up with conservative compromises.

She's about as non-liberal as you can be, and still get elected in the State of New York. In fact, she might be to the right of Giuliani.

Talk radio audience conservatives are so caught up in the heated rhetoric, that they fail to notice how far Bill Clinton moved the center of the party off the left and onto the middle.

by sboverie

I am sorry to say that there is NO ONE to support, only a variety of stupidity to oppose. I can safely say that who ever I vote for would NOT be a republican. Rice VS Clinton, neither has the stature to cross party lines and gather support and neither has really shown any ideas of where to lead.

What we need is a party that doesn't sell its constituents a false dream, one that can rise above the polarized viewpoints and bring fresh insights to the problems we face now and a good strategy to face future problems.

Conservatism and liberalism are both bad ism's. The republicans have turned their back on conservative ideals (balanced budgets, get government off our backs) and the liberals also have not paid more than lip service to their ideals as well.

This is not just a problem for America and her allies, this is a problem for the whole planet. We need a world wide representative system that adequately supports the needs of individual states as well as the entire human race.

I am looking for a candidate who will represent all of America, the poor and rich, business and consumers and do so without favoring any one group. I want a candidate who listens to both (or more) sides of an issue before making a decsion, someone who is not afraid to admit a mistake and responsible enough to to own up to the errors they make. I have not heard anyone like this except in fiction.

by jterry

It would be an interesting election if Condelessa Rice ran against Hillary Rodham Clinton, however I think it will be John McCain against John Edwards.

by protiusx

I was putting forth a point my wife had made. She was correctly pointing out that there are a great deal of countries in the world whose leaders are for what ever reason sexist. This may be due to their culture or to their religion (as in Islam) but regardless they will see the US as growing increasingly weak with a female executive.

On a side note I must say that I don't give a fig whether the rest of the world likes my country or my government. We are not here to be liked but that is the stuff of another thread.

by nicknielsen

I understand your wife's point quite well. But the US has traditionally been seen as weak because we have tended not to react with force when attacked. How much of that was the desire to not overly provoke the USSR during the Cold War I don't know.

Unfortunately, like it or not, we must live with a world economy. While I don't particularly give a rip how others see us either, a positive image can't hurt when negotiating business contracts or trade treaties.

This discussion is closed to new replies.