I've heard so many conflicting reports lately so I'm curious. As of right now who would you vote for in '08? And who do you think will win?

I'd vote for Condi, think it'll be a close run thing between Hillary and Condi, with Hillary just having the edge right now. Condi's just keeping her cards close to her chest in not declaring herself yet, after all there is still 2 years to go.



Days after the January, 2009, Inauguration in Washington, there has been political unrest in Pakistan. One night the Indian Prime Minister calls, “Madame President, our air defense system is warning us of incoming missiles. We are prepared to launch a retaliatory strike. We have less than 5 minutes to make a decision.” The newly inaugurated President responds, “Prime Minister, our satellites have identified this as the re-entry of an old Soviet-era spacecraft. I swear to you, this is a false alarm. Please do not launch your weapons.”

“Oh hello, Prime Minister, nice to hear from you. My aides tell me that I have a lot of support in the Indian-American community. If you have a chance to speak with any of them, tell them to keep those cards, letters, and checks coming! Now, what is it you’re calling about again? Oh yes, those missiles. Let me ask my closest advisor about this. (pause) He asked me to ask you what you mean by ‘air defense system is warning’ – you know, it all depends on your definition of ‘is.’ Hello? Are you still there, Prime Minister?”

"She definitely wants to be President." U.S News

Is the best candidate that money can buy always the “best” candidate? With few exceptions in recent history, the American electorate has been limited to presidential choices, regardless of party affiliation, that have been the product of political “machines” that raise the millions of dollars necessary to run a “serious” campaign effort for the presidency. With all due respect to our past Presidents, we see little in this process that insures that the best candidates for our nation’s chief executive office are chosen. (We find it ironic that Dr. Rice’s lack of prior elective office is seen as a “negative.” The fact that she is not beholden to a myriad of political operative fundraisers and large donors from previous campaigns is a definite “plus.”)

has to show me or us that she can do
something, before she even thinks of
running. What has she done that impresses
you,Mr. New? I'd like to see her fix those
front teeth.

Personally I like Mitt Romney the most, I think he's the most competitive of all the conservative republicans. Gingrich and Brownback are good too, but I think Gingrich is too old to be president and truthfully I don't know alot about Brownback.

Giuliani would be very competetive and would most likely win if he could make it through the primaries, but he's really liberal, too liberal for me, and probably couldn't get the republican nomination. His only chance would be if he has a really conservative running mate, then I think he would get it. A big plus side on Giuliani is he could win the north east and mid atlantic states because of how well he handled 9/11 when he was mayor of New York, and because he's an Italian Roman Catholic and we obviously have alot of them in those areas. If Giuliani makes it by the primaries he would hands down win the general election.

McCain is good, he is a little liberal on somethings but he could be a good canidate. He is very old though (he'll be 72 come '0 and that might be a turn off to some people. I think he could be competetive in the general election like Giuliani, and Romney. I've heard rumors that he might want to start a millitary draft which is a big turn off to me. But those rumors could be false.

Condoleeza Rice probably couldn't win, she's got alot of good, but alot of Americans are stupid and can't see that in her. And the fact that she is a black woman would go against her, and that she has worked closely with Bush doesn't go over well with some.

So as of right now I'm hoping on Romney '08!

Personally, I like Obama.

I think he may be too much for the rest of the country though. After all, his middle name is Hussein.

I also like Obama but he may be too green to run for president. He does not have enough experience or achievements to be noticed by most voters. He is very intelligent and articulate so he would make a fine president. At least, he will be a lot better than the one on the white house right now.

__________________
its time to change our democracy
http://www.isupportthismessage.com/

'not enough experience'... bah.

This president we have got the job because he had a lot of experience.. didn't do the country much good though, did it?

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

The experience thing seems silly to me most of the time. Who exactly has the experience? In the Crat Party... do we mean Joe Biden (who at least has experience in foreign policy), Richardson (international diplomacy), Hillary (campaign machine from Hell)... and of course many of them have senate experience. On both sides, senators and governors... Biden and Richardson I can make pretty good claims for having relevant experience... but being a governor or senator does not automatically mean someone has experience relevant to the president's position. So a governor is an executive? So a senator deals with federal issues? Big deal. It's still a whole 'nother animal. And even for those with foreign policy experience... there's more to it than that... and the President's role in it is different.
But the public just hears all the talk of "no experience" and bites on it like it means something. Exactly what experience can Hillary take to the presidency? Nothing I can think of but no one's calling her inexperienced.

Electing a president is like hiring for a job. Experience might seem important but it's more a way to weed out the excess. It's nice but not always mandatory.
In the case of the president he gets a bunch of positions filled with experts (or ideological cronies) to be experts for him. He needs the experience of running a campaign to prove he has the charisma and support of the people. He needs some kind of an understanding of the office... but no one can really understand it until he gets there.

I think it's even creepier to have a guy who thinks he has enough experience to walk into the White House and know exactly what he's doing. Such a man is either BSing us or naive beyond all.
Presidents are almost always ineffective for their first little while in office. Why? Because they are getting oriented.

And unlike most jobs, we can fire him in four years if he can't figure it out.
Experience does not mean nearly as much to me as his philosophy on things. Like what criteria will he use to pick the large assortment of advisers and bureaucrats? How much is he going to work with/fight with congress? What is he going to veto?

If an experienced characer walks in saying he is going to hire a bunch of ideological cronies, veto every bill that lands on his desk, extend presidential war powers, and never acknowledge the opposing party... I will not vote for him, even if the opponent's last experience was as a dogcatcher.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Well, I didn't think Bush's political experience is responsible for the mess that the US is in.

__________________
its time to change our democracy
http://www.isupportthismessage.com/

Romney, Gingrich, Ron Paul, or any other strong domestic conservative.

Romney.

__________________
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

The Solution for Illegal Immigrants (Gray areas discussed throughout the thread)