Presidential Nominations: Your Choice

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

I don't think Condi would be the best. She gets flustered under pressure. Well, the kind of pressure that stupid, inane, out of context questions that reporters ask put on a person. You can tell she looses patience pretty easily when she's bombarded by irrelevant or stupid questions.

Hell we need a president who won't tolerate bullshit, just because tolerance of it is othodox doesn't mean it's the way things should be. Hell Arnold doesn't tolerate it, and he never apologises(sp?) for his remarks either. It's a good part of why he is so respected. He could easily be her VP if the law allows foreigners to be VP's. Don't even get me started about softball colon polop(sp?).

[Jagos]

I'd really like to see more influence from the Libs....

Other than that I'm not positive on Hillary but I say give it a go.

[DarthZeth]

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

Hell we need a president who won't tolerate bullshit, just because tolerance of it is othodox doesn't mean it's the way things should be. Hell Arnold doesn't tolerate it, and he never apologises(sp?) for his remarks either. It's a good part of why he is so respected. He could easily be her VP if the law allows foreigners to be VP's. Don't even get me started about softball colon polop(sp?).

Perhaps what I mean is, she doesn't tolerate the bullshit, and neither does Powell, but She doesn't seem to be able to take control of the situation. Powell totally does. Its the difference between making the questioner feel uncomfortable, or seeming uncomfortable yourself.

Not that it "matters", but I think its important in politics. At least for a president

[icythaco]

I agree. Hillary couldn't even keep Bill in line, why should we trust her with the entire country?

[AerodynamicHair]

I'd like to see Huey P. Long rise from the grave and run for president in '08.

Otherwise, I'd just have to see. I don't think Hillary would make it into the presidential political arena because she's pretty easy to target by the opposition. Colin Powell might make a decent candidate, but I have no idea what he stands for. We can be certain that Nader will run again, just because thats his way, though whether or not Nader will actually get Green Party support is up for question.

So, there.

[Jagos]

He didn't this time around. Perhaps the Green Party is tired of his antics?

How exactly is Hillary an easy target? I understand she seems to be a little too much on the social left side of the scale but other than that I don't know too much about her.

[icythaco]

As long is Nader runs as an independant or third party, he will never become prez. Sorry Nader/third party fans, but America is not liberal enough to vote for a non-first party candidate. By the time that happens, Nader will be dead. Nader already knows this, and his reasons for running in these elections are either to improve his publicity, or to screw the whole "lesser of two evils" ideal.

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

Perhaps what I mean is, she doesn't tolerate the bullshit, and neither does Powell, but She doesn't seem to be able to take control of the situation. Powell totally does. Its the difference between making the questioner feel uncomfortable, or seeming uncomfortable yourself.

Not that it "matters", but I think its important in politics. At least for a president

Shit colon polop submits to it, he's a lot more susceptable to rhetoric and kind of a softball just like Bush himself, and the majority of the rest of the republicans. Condi on the other hand isn't, she's not easily persuaded(sp?) and that's more important than not acting pissed off.

[ShadowFox]

McCain for president and Powell for Vice President.

Really there isn't a single politician I can think of that totally meshes with my political views, but I would trust these two not to fuck things up.

Could always go with Cthulhu 2008.

[Mental-Rectangle]

I've wondered if the Democrats could ignore electability and be successful with a candidate like Howard Dean or Ralph Nader himself.

It would get a strong core of supporters: something they haven't had in a while. Perhaps some stronger voter turnout would result, but the ultimate issue is that there are flat-out more socially conservative voters than socially liberal, so their only chance to win is to appeal to moderates.

However, if Guiliani or Ahnoulde are running in '08, their moderate social stances would actually give the Dems such a window to get a real progressive candidate in.

Ultimately, I think the best goal for the party would be to try to cater to the economic conservatives on the Republican side of the aisle, since the party as a whole has been ignoring them. Preach smaller government, eliminating debts, and while perhaps not reducing taxes, at least simplifying them--trying to unify them into a flat-tax. This could be incorporated into an overall 'liberty' platform, which would mainly strive to repeal the most Machiavellian legislature. While it would be quite a change in some directions for them, I think it could throw off a lot of talk-rhetoric they've been suffering from recently.

But honestly, maybe if they just RAN with Ralph Nader, they'd make it work.

Or they could do what they've done for years, and become Republican-lite and ambiguous to pull in centrists all over. I just don't think it'll work, because it didn't work in this election, against the most widely hated democratic incumbant in history.

Martin Van Buren, who was elected in 1837 and Andrew Jackson's vp 1833-1837

Also one of the most hated presidents. But, there weren't many 'loved' VP candidates historically.